UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES Proposed Decisions on Nine Phosmet Restricted Entry Intervals June 9, 2006 Part I: Summary and Background The purpose of this document is to outline the Agency's rationale for its decisions on whether the existing restricted entry intervals ( REIs) are appropriate and solicit comment. Each crop specific impact assessment lists information of particular interest to the Agency relevant to the risk benefit determination, such as regional pest problems, comparative efficacy data, non chemical controls, and constraints on use of alternatives. The Agency is also soliciting comment on the particular reentry activities for each crop and the timing of these activities relative to phosmet applications. All supporting documents, including the worker and ecological risk assessments, and the crop by crop grower impact assessments are available at: www. regulations. gov under docket number EPA HQ OPP 2002 0354. Public comments will be accepted for 60 days following publication of a Federal Register Notice of Availability on June 9, 2006. After the close of the comment period ( August 9, 2006), the Agency will review all comments received and issue its final decision later this Fall. That final decision will include consideration of the results of the cumulative risk assessment of the organophosphate ( OP) pesticides.

This document is divided into two parts. Part I contains general background information and summaries of risk concerns. Part II contains the crop by crop proposed decisions and rationale.

Proposed Decision and Comment Opportunity Based on its reevaluation of the risks and benefits of the current REIs for nine phosmet crops ( apples, apricots, highbush blueberries, grapes, nectarines, peaches, pears, and plums/ prunes) the Agency is proposing the following intervals:

Crop Current REI Proposed REI Apples 3 days 7 days Apricots 3 days 14 days Blueberries 24 hours 3 days Grapes 14 days 14 days peaches/ nectarines 3 days 7 days Pears 3 days 7 days plums/ prunes 3 days 7 days 2 Regulatory Context/ Background Phosmet, an organophosphate insecticide first registered in 1966, is currently used on a variety of orchard fruits, berries, nuts, and other crops. In connection with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) reregistration requirements and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA) tolerance reassessment processes, EPA issued an Interim Reregistration Eligbility Decision ( IRED) for phosmet in October 2001.

In the phosmet IRED, the Agency concluded, based on evaluation of the risks and benefits of the use of phosmet, that three uses would be cancelled, 36 uses were eligible for reregistration, and nine uses would be time limited for a period of five years, contingent on the submission of additional data and pending completion of the cumulative risk assessment for OPs. Concurrent with the IRED in 2001, a Memorandum of Agreement ( MOA) between EPA and the sole technical registrants of phosmet, Gowan Company, provided for the development of biomonitoring and other data by the registrants and a reevaluation by EPA of the nine REIs in 2006. In addition to reevaluating the REIs, the Agency has updated the ecological risk assessment for phosmet in order to compare it to azinphos methyl ( AZM), an alternative for several uses. After considering comments on this proposal, the Agency intends to publish its final decision on the REIs later this year.

New Information The Data Call In associated with the 2001 IRED required use and usage information and biomonitoring studies of post application agricultural workers. These data have been submitted by registrants, reviewed by the Agency, and incorporated into the revised grower impact and worker assessments. As stated above, EPA has also updated the ecological risk assessment for phosmet, with a view toward better understanding the comparative risk of phosmet and AZM, since these chemicals are substitutes for oneanother in some situations. All of these supporting documents are available in the public docket.

United Farm Workers v. Johnson This proposed decision is also being issued in response to a settlement agreement with the United Farm Workers and the other plaintiffs who sued the Agency in January 2004 in the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Washington regarding the pesticides AZM and phosmet. The suit alleged that the AZM and phosmet IREDs were inconsistent with the requirements of FIFRA because EPA did not appropriately consider the risks and benefits of these pesticides. The settlement agreement effectively stays the legal challenge pending EPA's reconsideration of these pesticides. Prior to agreeing to the settlement agreement, EPA took public comment.

The settlement agreement established milestones for EPA to propose decisions on the reevaluation of the ten AZM time limited uses as well as the nine REIs for phosmet, take 3 comment, and then finalize a decision on these remaining uses by August 3, 2006. EPA has informed the plaintiffs that it now intends to issue its final decision this Fall.

In the crop by crop discussions in Part II of this document, EPA is providing, in a qualitative manner, the logic and considerations that go into its risk/ benefit decision making. For phosmet, since the primary risks of concern are related to re entry workers, EPA has focused its reevaluation on refining post application worker risk estimates based on a new biomonitoring study. For the grower impacts, EPA focused on estimating the maximum feasible REI ( i. e., the point at which phosmet would not be useful to growers), and what alternatives would likely be used at that point. The grower impact assessments are qualitative in that they do not attempt to calculate the actual dollar cost of switching to alternative controls. In weighing risk management options, however, EPA considered whether the disruption to crop management systems of switching to available alternatives would result in less risk to humans and the environment than that posed by phosmet.

Summary of Revised Post Application Worker Assessment Risks were estimated using the Margin of Exposure ( MOE) approach, which is a ratio of the body burden to the toxicological endpoint( s) of concern. EPA believes an MOE of 100 or greater ( that is, an exposure that is at least 100 times greater than the level at which no effects are seen) is not of concern for phosmet. EPA's previous worker assessment in the 2001 IRED used route specific dermal endpoints. Because biomonitoring data are now available, EPA has selected oral endpoints because these are more appropriately compared to the absorbed dose calculated in the biomonitoring.

The toxicological endpoint of concern is cholinesterase ( ChE) inhibition, and in one instance decreased motor activity. For the short term risk calculations ( up to 30 days exposure), EPA selected an acute oral neurotoxicity study in rats. The no observable adverse effect level ( NOAEL) in this study was 4.5 mg/ kg/ day; the lowest observed adverse effect level ( LOAEL) in this study was 22.5 mg/ kg/ day ( over 5 fold higher) based on red blood cell, plasma, and brain ChE inhibition and decreased motor activity. The use of this acute endpoint for the short term worker assessment is supported by a 21 day dermal study also in rats, with a LOAEL of 22.5 based on ChE inhibition of plasma ( males) and brain ( females). The NOAEL in the dermal study was 15 mg/ kg/ day, indicating that use of the 4.5 mg/ kg/ day NOAEL from the acute study is likely protective of longer durations of exposure.

A NOAEL of 1.1 mg/ kg/ day from an oral chronic toxicity study in rats was used to calculate intermediate term risks ( over 30 days exposure). The LOAEL in this study was 1.8 mg/ kg/ day based on red blood cell and plasma ChE inhibition, noted at 6 months of dosing. The intermediate term endpoint is supported by a LOAEL of 1.5 mg/ kg/ day in a sub chronic oral toxicity study in rats with interim measurements of ChE inhibition beginning at 7 weeks. EPA generally uses only short term endpoints to estimate postapplication risks, based on the assumption that up to 30 days of sustained exposure is a reasonable worst case exposure for most re entry activities. EPA has presented the 4 intermediate term MOEs in its risk assessment as an upper bound estimate for risk characterization purposes.

The absorbed dose values used in risk calculations were from a chemical specific biomonitoring study of workers hand thinning peaches treated with phosmet ( MRID 466823 01). In this study, two days after the peaches had been treated with phosmet by airblast at an application rate of 3.0 lbs/ ai/ A, 16 workers hand thinned peaches for 6.5 hours on one day. The workers in the study wore long sleeved shirts, long pants, shoes, socks, some head wear, and occasionally jackets in the morning. Total phosmet absorbed doses were calculated from urine samples collected on the day of exposure and for four days after exposure. A thunderstorm occurred in the afternoon of the monitoring day. Workers took cover during the storm. Following the storm, the workers re entered the orchard to thin, even though there was still a light rain. According to the crew foreman, the subjects would normally be expected to work in light rain. When rain intensity increased, workers left the orchard, after only a 6.5 hour work day. As a result, EPA has deemed it appropriate to apply certain " correction factors" to this study to correct the calculation of absorbed dose.

The dislodgeable foliar residue ( DFR) values used in the current assessment were taken from a phosmet study on pear trees at 5 lbs/ ai/ A, the same DFR study used in the 2001 IRED. A DFR study on peaches in Georgia, conducted concurrently with the biomonitoring could not be used because the rain storm precluded development of a meaningful residue dissipation curve.

The numerous correction factors applied to the phosmet biomonitoring study are outlined in the updated risk assessment, " Phosmet: Postapplication Risk Analysis," dated April 18, 2006, and available in the public docket. Table 1, below, gives an overview of MOEs at 3 days ( the most common current REI) and at various application rates. Part II of this document gives specific current and proposed REIs for each crop.

Table 1. Phosmet Risk Summary for Fruit Tree Thinning Activities Application Rate lbs/ ai/ A MOE at 3 days Short term MOE at 3 days Intermediateterm Days to MOE of 100 Short term Days to MOE of 100 Intermediate term 1.0 110 26 2 24 2.0 54 13 13 34 3.0 36 9 19 40 3.75 29 7 22 44 In general, the biomonitoring study increased the Agency's confidence that the risks to workers are less than those calculated for the IRED. However, since there were numerous residual uncertainties associated with the biomonitoring study, due both to problems in the conduct of the study and also due to inclement weather, the Agency intends to require additional biomonitoring data to confirm the Agency's determination. 5 Summary of Revised Ecological Assessment EPA completed a limited update to the 2001 Phosmet IRED for the nine subject uses, taking into account the most recent use parameters. For a complete discussion please see the docket item " Comparison of Currently Supported Phosmet Use Rates to those Assessed Previously" dated February 2, 2006.

Table 2, below, summarizes the risk quotients ( RQs) and level of concern ( LOC) exceedences at maximum labeled rates.

Table 2: Summary of Phosmet Risk Quotients and LOC Exceedences Species LOC Summary ( acute) LOC Summary ( chronic) Freshwater fish 1/ 9 uses exceed Pear RQ = 2.0 1/ 9 uses exceed Pear RQ = 1.2 Freshwater invertebrates 9/ 9 uses exceed RQ range: 4.2   70 5/ 9 uses exceed RQ range: 1.0   5.0 Estuarine/ marine Fish 1/ 9 uses exceed Pear RQ = 0.8 1/ 9 exceeds Pear RQ = 1.5 Estuarine/ marine invertebrates 9/ 9 uses exceed RQ range: 5.3   88 9/ 9 uses exceed RQ range: 1.1  10 Birds 9/ 9 uses exceed RQ range: 0.04   2.4 9/ 9 uses exceed RQ range: 0.15  20 Small mammals ( feeding on short grass) 9/ 9 uses exceed RQ range: 0.01   4.6 9/ 9 uses exceed RQ range 0.5  60 Since azinphos methyl is an alternative for phosmet on several of the subject crops, EPA has compared the risk to non target species of these two chemicals. For example, while phosmet RQ values exceed acute risk LOCs across all of the uses evaluated for freshwater invertebrates, RQ values only exceed the acute risk LOC for fish for a single use, pears, at the maximum application rate. In contrast for AZM, RQ values exceed acute risk LOCs across all uses for freshwater fish ( range: 12   54). For freshwater invertebrates, RQ values for AZM ranged from 26  121; this range is wider than that of phosmet.

The single phosmet use that exceeded the chronic risk LOC for freshwater fish has an RQ roughly equal to the LOC. RQ values for freshwater invertebrates exceed the chronic risk LOC for five out of the nine uses evaluated by factors as high as 4.9X. However, for AZM all of the uses evaluated exceed the chronic risk LOC for fish and invertebrates by factors ranging between 5   24X and 13   61X, respectively.

RQ values however, are dimensionless numbers and their magnitude cannot be legitimately compared across chemicals and taxa unless it can be demonstrated that the dose response curves are similar. However, analyses conducted on AZM indicate that for freshwater organisms, the dose response curves have relatively steep slopes and that minor increases in AZM concentrations will result in marked increases in toxicity and therefore, risk. 6 Summary of Usage Table 3. Current Phosmet Usage 2004 20051 Crop Pounds Applied Percent Crop Treated Average Rate Lb ai/ Application Apples 615,000 28 1.56 Apricots 9,300 5 2.292 Blueberries ( highbush) 63,400 52 0.76 Grapes 38,100 20 2.193 Nectarines 76,500 44 1.84 Peaches 245,900 37 1.37 Pears 80,200 20 3.06 Plums/ prunes 42,800 20 2.914 Total Pounds Applied 1,171,200 1 Source: USDA NASS Agricultural Chemical Usage, 2005 Fruit Summary 2 Source: USDA NASS Agricultural Chemical Usage, 2002 Fruit Summary 3 California rate only. Michigan = 1.07 4 California plums and prunes = 100% of reported usage in 2004.

Part II: Crop Specific Considerations, Proposed Decisions and Rationale Apples Current Use Parameters Label rate: 3.73 lbs ai/ A per application, repeat as necessary in accordance with insect infestation and local and state spray programs. Max application rate: 21 lbs ai/ A per season Typical rate: 1.56 lbs ai/ A per application, 1 3 applications per season Current REI: 3 days for high contact activities such as thinning Current PHI: 7 days for agricultural workers; 14 days for " pick your own" operations Post Application Worker Risks The calculated short term MOE for high contact post application activities at the maximum application rate at 3 days is 29. The Intermediate term MOE is 7.

Alternatives and Qualitative Grower Impacts Extending the REIs for phosmet could severely limit the amount of time a labor crew has to complete necessary orchard activities such as hand thinning, tree training, limb propping, summer pruning for fire blight. This could impact growers by forcing them not to achieve the desired results from these activities.

Extending REIs beyond the maximum feasible length of 7 days, would likely force growers to abandon phosmet use in favor of another OP ( AZM, diazinon, dimethoate) or 7 pyrethroids such as fenpropathrin, esfenvalerate or lambda cyhalothrin which also have either worker or ecological concerns.

Some new chemistries are available such as neonicitinoids. However, two applications of neonicitinoids and two applications of insect growth regulators would be required to replace the typical three applications of phosmet. The cost of these applications would be double the cost of the three applications of phosmet.

Pyrethroids are also not a desirable alternative as they tend to be less compatible with integrated pest management and mating disruption programs than is phosmet. An additional concern with pyrethroids is that use of these pesticides tends to precipitate secondary pest outbreaks, such as spider mites, necessitating the use of a miticide at an additional cost of about $ 50 per acre.

Proposed Decision/ Mitigation/ Rationale EPA is proposing to increase the REI from 3 to 7 days which would increase the short term MOEs for high exposure re entry activities from 29 to 37. While this MOE falls short of the target of 100, EPA believes risk is not underestimated because these estimates include worst case assumptions that may overestimate risk. For example, these calculations assume that the maximum application rate is always used and that workers always re enter treated fields for at least 30 consecutive days on the day the REI expires. Harvesters are already subject to a 7 day pre harvest interval, since apples cannot be picked for 7 days after the last phosmet application. Also, because there is a 5 fold difference between the NOAEL used in the risk assessment and levels at which shortterm effects are actually seen ( LOAELs) there is an additional margin of safety built into the calculation.

With the extension of the REIs as described above, EPA believes that the benefits of the phosmet use on apples are high and with the additional mitigation measures outlined below, these benefits outweigh the risks, for the following reasons: ( 1) It is likely that production costs will increase because the alternatives, other than AZM, are more costly. ( 2) The alternatives would have to be applied more often, therefore, increasing the environmental loading of other chemicals with similar or greater ecological risks. ( 3) Some alternatives tend to create secondary pest control concerns which require additional pesticides to control these pests which in turn may result in higher environmental loading of pesticide chemicals.

EPA recognizes that the worker risk assessment indicates that existing MOEs at current label rates are insufficient to ensure that there is not a concern that workers will be exposed to levels of phosmet that will result in cholinesterase depression  a precursor of adverse neurological effects. The Agency is proposing to extend, as practicable, the REI to mitigate these concerns. Although the mitigation will not result in an MOE of 100, the Agency believes that the MOEs may likely overestimate the risk to reentry workers and EPA is not aware of incident information, monitoring data or other sources of information that numerous worker poisoning incidents are occurring. Lastly, the 8 mitigation measures outlined below are feasible and will also reduce the existing risks to some extent.

In addition to extending the REI EPA is proposing the following mitigation and followup

 issue a data call in for a confirmatory biomonitoring study of workers  require label amendments for buffer zones around houses and occupied dwellings  require label amendments to eliminate phosmet use in " pick your own" operations  require label amendments to eliminate aerial application EPA considered additional clothing for re entry workers. However, this is not considered feasible due to heat stress and other concerns.

Apricots Current Use Parameters Label rate: 3.0 lbs ai/ A per application, repeat as necessary in accordance with insect infestation and local and state spray programs. Max application rate: 9.1 lbs ai/ A per season Typical rate: 2.29 lbs ai/ A per application, 1.4 applications per season Current REI: 3 days for agricultural workers, 14 days for " pick your own" operations Current PHI: 14 days Post Application Worker Risks The calculated MOE for short term exposures at the maximum application rate at 3 days is 36. ( Intermediate term MOE is 9, although exposure greater than 30 days are unlikely given the small percent crop treated.)

Alternatives and Qualitative Grower Impacts Use of phosmet on apricots appears to have declined between 1999 and 2002 from 18% to 5% of the crop treated. An REI greater than 7 would interfere with crop production practices, such as propping, although the REI for hand harvesting is effectively 14 days, since that is the pre harvest interval ( PHI). Longer REIs would likely result in growers switching to one or a combination of alternatives, including diazinon, carbaryl, endosulfan, pyrethroids, spinosad, Bt, and mating disruption. Some alternatives, such as pyrethroids, are less compatible with integrated pest management and mating disruption programs than is phosmet. Pyrethroids often precipitate secondary pest outbreaks, such as spider mites, necessitating the use of miticides, that can cost over $ 50 per acre ( twice the cost of phosmet. 9 Proposed Decision/ Mitigation/ Rationale EPA is proposing to increase the REI to 14 days for harvesting and 7 days for other high contact activities, such as propping of late varieties. This would increase short term harvester MOE to 74. The MOE for other high contact activities would increase to 44. Given the small volume of phosmet used on apricots intermediate term exposure is unlikely.

While these MOEs fall short of the target of 100, EPA believes risk is overestimated because these estimates include some worst case assumptions that would not always apply in real world scenarios. For example, these calculations assume that the maximum application rate is always used and that workers re enter treated fields for at least 30 consecutive days on the day that the REI expires. Harvesters are already subject to a 14 day pre harvest interval, since apricots cannot be picked for 14 after the last phosmet application. Also, because there is a 5 fold difference between the NOAEL used in the risk assessment and levels at which short term effects are actually seen ( LOAELs) there may be an additional margin of safety built into the calculation.

Extending the REI beyond 14 days for harvesters and 7 days for other activities would likely result in growers switching to another OP, pyrethroid or some combination, although some reduced risk alternatives such as spinosad, Bt and mating disruption, show efficacy for some of the target pests. Both the OPs registered for this use and pyrethroids present similar or greater ecological concerns than phosmet With the extension of the REIs as described above, EPA believes that the benefits of the phosmet use on apricots are high and with the additional mitigation measures outlined below, these benefits outweigh the risks, for the following reasons: ( 1) It is likely that the alternatives may not be as efficacious as phosmet and could require more that one application to achieve the same level of control, therefore, increasing the environmental loading of other chemicals with similar risks. ( 2) The use of phosmet on this crop is rather low and the Agency believes that this pesticide is a necessary tool for growers who face relatively higher pest pressure.

EPA recognizes that the worker risk assessment indicates that existing MOEs at current label rates are insufficient to ensure that there is not a concern that workers will be exposed to levels of phosmet that will result in cholinesterase depression  a precursor of adverse neurological effects. The Agency is proposing to extend, as practicable, the REI to mitigate these concerns. Although the mitigation will not result in an MOE of 100, the Agency believes that the MOEs likely overestimate the risk to reentry workers and EPA is not aware of incident information, monitoring data or other sources of information that numerous worker poisoning incidents are occurring. Lastly, the mitigation measures outlined below are feasible and will also reduce the existing risks to some extent.

In addition to extending the REI, EPA is proposing the following mitigation and followup 10  issue a data call in for a confirmatory biomonitoring study of workers  require label amendments for buffer zones around houses and occupied dwellings  require label amendments to eliminate phosmet use in " pick your own" operations  require label amendments to eliminate aerial application EPA considered additional clothing for re entry workers. However, this is not considered feasible due to heat stress and other concerns.

Blueberries ( highbush only)

Current Use Parameters Label rate: 1.0 lbs ai/ A per application, maximum 5 applications per season Max application rate: 5.0 lbs ai/ A per season Typical rate: 0.76 lbs ai/ A per application, 1  3 applications per season Current REI: 24 hours Current PHI: 3 days Post Application Worker Risks The calculated short term MOE at the current REI of 24 hours is approximately 100. ( Intermediate term is < 25). The MOE for harvesters at the PHI of 3 days is 110 ( 26 for intermediate term).

Alternatives and Qualitative Grower Impacts Extending the REI beyond 3 days would interfere with key crop production practices, and growers would likely stop using phosmet in favor of one or more less efficacious available alternatives, that would likely result in both quality loss and increased production costs, with greatest impacts seen in the eastern and north central regions of the US. A relatively high percentage of the blueberry crop is treated with phosmet and that percentage has increased since 1999.

Proposed Decision/ Mitigation/ Rationale Extending the REI to 3 days would increase short term MOEs to 110. Intermediate term exposures would not be expected given the low volume of phosmet ( 63,400 lbs/ yr) used throughout the country.

With the extension of the REIs as described above, the MOEs for short term exposure will be higher than the target MOE of 100. Therefore, the Agency finds no short term worker risks of concern. As for the intermediate term exposures, the Agency does not believe these concerns are realistic with the low usage of phosmet on blueberries. If the Agency were to assume that the intermediate term exposure was realistic, the benefits of the use of phosmet on blueberries outweighs the risks to workers for the following reasons: ( 1) Without phosmet as a tool for controlling pests on blueberries, the Agency 11 believes there would be quality losses for the growers. Quality losses are viewed as the transfer of a proportion of fruit from the fresh fruit ( premium price) market to the processed fruit ( lower price) market, or as the transfer of fruit from the processed market to " no sale" as a result of buyer rejection In addition to extending the REI EPA is proposing the following mitigation and followup

 require label amendments for buffer zones around houses and occupied dwellings  require label amendments to eliminate of phosmet use in " pick your own" operations Additional clothing for re entry workers is not warranted as MOEs would exceed 100.

Grapes Current Use Parameters Label rate: 0.7  1.5 lbs ai/ A per application, repeat as necessary in accordance with insect infestation and local and state spray programs. Max application rate: 4.55 lbs ai/ A per season, Typical rate: 1.07 lbs ai/ A per application, 1 3 applications per season Current REI: 14 days for hand harvesting Current PHI: 7 days (< 1.0 lbs ai/ A), 14 days (> 1.0 lbs ai/ A)

Post Application Worker Risks The calculated MOE for short term exposures at the maximum application rate at 14 days is approximately 167. ( Intermediate term MOE is 41.) The MOE for harvesters at the PHI of 7 days is approximately 105 ( 26 for intermediate term).

Alternatives and Qualitative Grower Impacts Extending REIs beyond 14 days would likely interfere with hand harvesting and other in season crop maintenance activities. If REIs were extended beyond 14 days growers would likely turn to carbaryl, methomyl, or fenpropathrin. All three chemicals have integrated pest management concerns. Fenpropathrin can be used to control Japanese beetle and grape berry moth. However, it should not be used more than once per year because of resistance. Both methomyl and carbaryl are highly toxic to mite predators, whereas phosmet is softer on beneficial insects.

Proposed Decision/ Mitigation/ Rationale Maintaining the REI of 14 days will result in a short term MOE of 167 and an intermediate term MOE of 41. 12 With the REIs as described above, the MOEs for short term exposure will be higher than the target MOE of 100. Therefore, the Agency finds no risk of concer to balance against the benefits of the use of phosmet on grapes.

In addition EPA is proposing the following mitigation and follow up:

 require label amendments for buffer zones around houses and occupied dwellings Additional clothing for re entry workers is not warranted as MOEs would exceed 100.

Nectarines/ Peaches Peaches and nectarines are varieties of the same fruit and the trees themselves are indistinguishable. The same pests attack the fruit and growers have essentially the same chemical and non chemical control means. Therefore, the Agency is proposing the same decision for both crops.

Current Use Parameters Label rate: 1.5   3.0 lbs ai/ A per application, repeat as necessary in accordance with insect infestation and local and state spray programs. Max application rate: 9.1 lbs ai/ A per season for nectarines 11.9 lbs ai/ A per season for peaches Typical rate: 1.84 lbs ai/ A per season for nectarines, 1 2 applications per season 1.37 lbs ai/ A per season for peaches, 1 4 applications per season Current REI: 3 days for agricultural workers, 14 days for " pick your own" operations Current PHI: 14 days Post Application Worker Risks The calculated short term MOE for high exposure activities at the maximum application rate at 3 days is 36, intermediate term is 9. To get above the target MOE of 100 the REI would have to be increased to 19 days for short term exposure and be increased to 40 days for intermediate term exposure.

Alternatives and Qualitative Grower Impacts Extending REIs beyond 14 days would likely interfere with thinning and other in season crop maintenance activities. If REIs were extended beyond 14 days growers would likely turn to carbaryl, methomyl, or fenpropathrin. All three chemicals have integrated pest management concerns. Fenpropathrin can be used to control Japanese beetle and grape berry moth. However, it should not be used more than once per year because of resistance. Both methomyl and carbaryl are highly toxic to mite predators, whereas phosmet is softer on beneficial insects. 13 Proposed Decision/ Mitigation/ Rationale The Agency is proposing to extend the REI to 7 days which would increase the shortterm MOE to 47 and the intermediate term MOE to 11. The Agency acknowledges that in 2001, EPA concluded that extending the REI for hand harvesting to 14 days, equivalent to the pre harvest interval ( PHI), would not result in grower impacts. However, within the season, the maximum REI that would not interfere with orchard activities is seven days. In particular, peaches and nectarines must be thinned, preferably by hand, to guarantee that fruit growth is consistent with fresh market standards. Extension of phosmet REIs beyond 7 days would interfere with this practice. With the extension of the REIs as described above, EPA believes that the benefits of the phosmet use on nectarines/ peaches are high and with the additional mitigation measures outlined below, these benefits outweigh the risks, for the following reasons: ( 1) An REI greater than seven days would interfere with key crop production practices. ( 2) If a longer REI is imposed, growers would have to replace phosmet with one or more of several available alternatives which would likely result in increased production costs because alternatives are more costly. ( 3) It is likely that the alternatives would have to be applied more often to achieve similar control, and could result in applications of additional pesticides to control secondary pests.

EPA recognizes that the worker risk assessment indicates that existing MOEs at current label rates are insufficient to ensure that there is not a concern that workers will be exposed to levels of phosmet that will result in cholinesterase depression  a precursor of adverse neurological effects. The Agency is proposing to extend, as practicable, the REI to mitigate these concerns. Although the mitigation will not result in an MOE of 100, the Agency believes that the MOEs likely overestimate risks to reentry workers and EPA is not aware of incident information, monitoring data or other sources of information that numerous worker poisoning incidents are occurring. Lastly, the mitigation measures outlined below are feasible and will also reduce the existing risks to some extent.

In addition to extending the REI EPA is proposing the following mitigation and followup

 issue a data call in for a confirmatory biomonitoring study of workers  require label amendments for buffer zones around houses and occupied dwellings  require label amendments to eliminate phosmet use in " pick your own" operations  require label amendments to eliminate aerial application EPA considered additional clothing for re entry workers. However, this is not considered feasible due to heat stress and other concerns. Pears Current Use Parameters Label rate: 1.5  5.0 lbs ai/ A per application, repeat as necessary in accordance with insect infestation and local and state spray programs. 14 Max application rate: 11.2 lbs ai/ A per season Typical rate: 3.06 lbs ai/ A per application, 1 2 applications per season Current REI: 3 days for agricultural workers, 14 days for " pick your own" operations Current PHI: 7 days Post Application Worker Risks The calculated short term MOE for high exposure activities at the typical application rate of 3.06 lbs ai/ A at 3 days is 29, and the intermediate term MOE is 7. The maximum rate for pears is 5.0 lbs ai/ A, so the calculated MOEs would be reduced by approximately 60% if the maximum application rate is used.

Alternatives and Qualitative Grower Impacts An REI of greater than 7 days would interfere with irrigation, mowing, scouting and hand harvesting activities. An REI of greater than 14 days would interfere with fire blight removal activities.

Alternatives ( chemical class) for pears include chlorpyrifos, diazinon and naled ( organophosphate); acetamiprid, imidacloprid, thiacloprid, thiamethoxam ( neonicotinoids) indoxacarb ( oxadiazine) carbaryl ( carbamate); esfenvalerate, fenpropathrin, lambda cyhalothrin, and permethrin ( synthetic pyrethroids); diflubenzuron, methoxyfenozide, novaluron, pyriproxyfen, and tebufenozide ( insect growth regulators); spinosad ( actinomycete derivative); Bacillus thuringiensis ( biopesticide); mating disruption ( pheromones); Kaolin ( clay)

The Agency believes that acetamiprid and methoxyfenozide are among the most effective and promising alternatives to phosmet.

Proposed Decision/ Mitigation/ Rationale The Agency is proposing to extend the REI to 7 days which would increase the shortterm MOE to 47 and the intermediate MOE to 11. The Agency acknowledges that in 2001, EPA concluded that extending the REI to 7 days would not interfere with orchard activities for irrigation, mowing, scouting and hand harvesting. Extension of phosmet REIs beyond 7 days would interfere with these practices.

With the extension of the REIs as described above, EPA believes that the benefits of the phosmet use on pears is high and with the additional mitigation measures outlined below, these benefits outweigh the risks, for the following reasons: ( 1) A REI greater than seven days would interfere with key crop production practices. ( 2) If a longer REI is imposed, growers would have to replace phosmet with one or more of several available alternatives which would likely result in increased production costs because alternatives are more costly. ( 3) It is likely that the alternatives would have to be applied more often to achieve similar control, and could result in applications of additional pesticides to control secondary pests. 15 EPA recognizes that the worker risk assessment indicates that existing MOEs at current label rates are insufficient to ensure that there is not a concern that workers will be exposed to levels of phosmet that will result in cholinesterase depression  a precursor of adverse neurological effects. The Agency is proposing to extend, as practicable, the REI to mitigate these concerns. Although the mitigation will not result in an MOE of 100, the Agency believes that the MOEs likely overestimate risks to reentry workers and EPA is not aware of incident information, monitoring data or other sources of information that numerous worker poisoning incidents are occurring. Lastly, the mitigation measures outlined below are feasible and will also reduce the existing risks to some extent.

In addition to extending the REI EPA is proposing the following mitigation and followup

 issue a data call in for a confirmatory biomonitoring study of workers  require label amendments for buffer zones around houses and occupied dwellings  require label amendments to eliminate phosmet use in " pick your own" operations  require label amendments to eliminate aerial application EPA considered additional clothing for re entry workers. However, this is not considered feasible due to heat stress and other concerns.

Plums/ Prunes Plums and plums grown for prunes are typically distinct varieties with different production practices although the trees themselves are quite similar and suffer from similar pests, therefore, the Agency's assessment and decisions are the same for these crops.

Current Use Parameters Label rate: 1.5   3.0 lbs ai/ A per application, repeat as necessary in accordance with insect infestation and local and state spray programs. Max application rate: 9.1 lbs ai/ A per season, Typical rate: 2.91 lbs ai/ A per application, 1 2 applications per season Current REI: 3 days for agricultural workers, 14 days for " pick your own" operations Current PHI: 7 days Post Application Worker Risks The calculated short term MOE for high exposure activities at the maximum application rate at 3 days is 36, intermediate term is 9.

Alternatives and Qualitative Grower Impacts California, the major producer of plums and prunes, has established a five day REI for phosmet in stone fruit. A REI greater than five days would likely interfere with key mid 16 season crop production practices, such as propping up fruit laden tree limbs to avoid breakage. A REI of seven days, equivalent to the pre harvest interval ( PHI) would accommodate hand harvesting and permit an application of phosmet to protect fruit from insect damage immediately prior to harvest.

The Agency has identified several alternatives for plums and prunes grown in the West: Bacillus thuringiensis ( Bt), carbaryl, permethrin, esfenvalerate, methidathion, dormant oil ( with or without chlorpyrifos, diazinon or esfenvalerate), methomyl, and mating disruption ( for the oriental fruit moth only). In addition, several materials have been registered including methoxyfenozide ( labeled for ` control' of codling moth, oriental fruit moth, and peach tree borer), pyriproxyfen ( only for ` suppression' of oriental fruit moth and peach tree borer), spinosad ( controls oriental fruit moth, peach tree borer, and citrus cutworm).

In the eastern U. S. region, esfenvalerate is the most likely alternatives for plum curculio. Currently, spinosad is available for the control of the apple maggot and two neonicotinoids, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam, are available to control the plum curculio. However, imidacloprid is labeled only for ` suppression' and may have limited efficacy.

Proposed Decision/ Mitigation/ Rationale Extending the REI to 7 days would increase the short term MOE to 47. Intermediate term exposures would not be expected given the low volume of phosmet ( 43,000 lbs/ yr) used throughout the country.

With the extension of the REIs as described above, EPA believes that the benefits of the phosmet use on plums/ prunes are high and with the additional mitigation measures outlined below, these benefits outweigh the risks, for the following reasons: ( 1) A REI greater than seven days would interfere with key crop production practices. ( 2) If a longer REI is imposed, growers would have to replace phosmet with one or more of several available alternatives which would likely result in increased production costs because alternatives are more costly. ( 3) It is likely that the alternatives would have to be applied more often to achieve similar control, and could result in applications of additional pesticides to control secondary pests.

EPA recognizes that the worker risk assessment indicates that existing MOEs at current label rates are insufficient to ensure that there is not a concern that workers will be exposed to levels of phosmet that will result in cholinesterase depression  a precursor of adverse neurological effects. The Agency is proposing to extend, as practicable, the REI to mitigate these concerns. Although the mitigation will not result in an MOE of 100, the Agency believes that the MOEs likely overestimate the risks to reentry workers and EPA is not aware of incident information, monitoring data or other sources of information that numerous worker poisoning incidents are occurring. Lastly, the mitigation measures outlined below are feasible and will also reduce the existing risks to some extent. 17 In addition to extending the REI EPA is proposing the following mitigation and followup

 issue a data call in for a confirmatory biomonitoring study of workers  require label amendments for buffer zones around houses and occupied dwellings  require label amendments to eliminate phosmet use in " pick your own" operations  require label amendments to eliminate aerial application EPA considered additional clothing for re entry workers. However, this is not considered feasible due to heat stress and other concerns.

Debra Edwards, Ph. D., Director Special Review and Reregistration Division


18014 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 67 / Thursday, April 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules ( c) Before further flight and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 hours time inservice perform the following: ( 1) Clean each tail rotor drive shaft bearing support. Using a 6 power or higher magnifying glass and a bright light, visually inspect the attach lugs of the bearing supports B and C ( shown in Figure 1) for cracks, particularly in the area extending from the bend radius to the attaching screws and rivets connecting the bearing supports to the tail boom. Before further flight, replace each cracked bearing support with an airworthy bearing support. ( 2) Inspect each bearing attach hardware lock plate for bent open tabs and slippage marks for attach hardware looseness or rotation. Before further flight, replace any loose bearing attach hardware ( including lock plates found bent or open due to bolt rotation) with airworthy hardware. ( d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Regulations Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may concur or comment and then send it to the Manager, Regulations Group.

Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Regulations Group.

( e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations ( 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the helicopter to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed in Luftfahrt Bundesamt ( Federal Republic of Germany) AD's 1998   033/ 7 and 1998   389, both dated September 14, 1998.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 29, 2000. Henry A. Armstrong, Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [ FR Doc. 00   8520 Filed 4   5   00; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910   13   U ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [ TX   107   2   7424b; FRL   6567   6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Control of Air Pollution From Volatile Organic Compounds, Vent Gas Control and Offset Lithographic Printing Rules AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking action on revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan ( SIP). This document covers three separate actions: Approving the Revisions to the 30 TAC, Chapter 115, Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds ( VOC), Subchapter B, Division 2, Vent Gas Control ( bakery oven emissions) rule as meeting our Reasonably Available Control Technology ( RACT) requirements for controlling the VOC emission from such major sources in the Dallas/ For Worth ( D/ FW) ozone nonattainment area; converting EPA's limited approval of certain sections in 30 TAC, Chapter 115, Control of Air Pollution from VOC, Subchapter B, Division 2, Vent Gas Control ( bakery oven emissions) rule to a full approval as meeting the RACT requirements for controlling the VOC emission from such major sources in the D/ FW ozone nonattainment area. By this approval action, we are saying that Texas will be implementing the RACT for VOC emissions resulting from operation of the bakeries in the D/ FW area; and approving that the revisions to the 30 TAC, Chapter 115, Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds ( VOC), Subchapter E, Division 4, Offset Lithography Printing as meeting our RACT requirements for controlling the VOC emission from such major sources in the D/ FW ozone nonattainment area. By this approval action, we are saying that Texas will be implementing the RACT for VOC emissions resulting from operation of the offset lithography printing sources in the D/ FW area. The EPA is approving these revisions to regulate emissions of VOCs as meeting RACT in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act. In the `` Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comment. The EPA has explained its reasons for this approval in the preamble to the direct final rule. If EPA receives no relevant adverse comments, the EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule. If EPA receives relevant adverse comment, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. The EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. DATES: Written comments must be received by May 8, 2000. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Mr. Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section ( 6PD   L), at the EPA Region 6 Office listed below. Copies of documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following locations. Anyone wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least two working days in advance. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section ( 6PD   L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202   2733. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Shar, P. E., Air Planning Section ( 6PD   L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202   2733, telephone ( 214) 665   6691.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document concerns Control of Air Pollution from Vent Gas Control ( bakery oven emissions) and offset lithographic printing rules in the D/ FW ozone nonattainment area. For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action that is located in the `` Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register publication.

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

Dated: March 21, 2000. Lynda F. Carroll, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. [ FR Doc. 00   7733 Filed 4   5   00; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   U ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 258 [ FRL   6571   3; F   2000   ALPA   FFFFF]

Alternative Liner Performance, Leachate Recirculation, and Bioreactor Landfills: Request for Information and Data AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Request for information and data.

SUMMARY: EPA is requesting comments and information on two issues related to the Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. First, we need data and information on the performance of alternative liner designs compared to the performance of composite liners VerDate 20< MAR> 2000 09: 44 Apr 05, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 06APP1. SGM pfrm08 PsN: 06APP1 18015 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 67 / Thursday, April 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules when leachate is recirculated. Provisions in the municipal solid waste landfill ( MSWLF) criteria prohibit leachate recirculation at an MSWLF unless the unit has a composite liner as described in these regulations. Recently, various stakeholder groups ( e. g., States, local governments, solid waste associations, and industry) have suggested that there are alternative liner designs that would work as well as, if not better than, the specific liner designs currently required by the criteria. Second, EPA is also requesting data and information on the design and performance of bioreactor landfills. In recent years, bioreactor landfills have gained recognition as a possible innovation in solid waste management. The bioreactor landfill is generally defined as a landfill operated to transform and more quickly stabilize the readily and moderately decomposable organic constituents of the waste stream by purposeful control to enhance microbiological processes. Bioreactor landfills often employ liquid addition including leachate recirculation, alternative cover designs, and state ofthe art landfill gas collection systems. DATES: EPA must receive your responses on leachate recirculation and alternative liner performance by August 7, 2000. EPA must receive your responses on bioreactors by October 6, 2000. ADDRESSES: See section I of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information: Contact the RCRA Hotline at 800 424   9346 or TDD 800 553   7672 ( hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call 703 412   9810 or TDD 703 412   3323. For information on specific aspects of this document: Contact Dwight Hlustick, Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division of the Office of Solid Waste ( mail code 5306W), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters ( EPA, HQ) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; 703/ 308   8647 [ HLUSTICK. DWIGHT@ EPAMAIL. EPA. GOV].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Submitting Responses to This Document How May I Respond to This Document? What Information Should I Include in My Response? What Will EPA Do With the Information You Submit? II. What Will Be the Official Record for This Document? How May I See Responses to This Document? Where May I Find Information on This Action on the Internet? III. What Is the Authority for This Request? IV. Description of EPA's Current Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Regulations V. Description of Current Regulations for Landfill Liners Performance Standard Design Standard VI. What Are Existing Requirements for Leachate Recirculation? Description of Technical Guidance for Landfill Design Description of Concerns With Respect to Leachate Recirculation VII. What Information Would EPA Like to Have About Alternative Liner Performance and Leachate Recirculation? VIII. Concerns With Respect to Bioreactors Information Needs With Respect to Bioreactors IX. Conclusion I. Submitting Responses on This Document How May I Respond to This Document?

You may submit your information in hard copy ( paper) or using electronic mail. All comments must reference docket number F   2000 ALPA FFFFF. You should not submit electronically any confidential business information. · Mail: Please submit an original and two copies to: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste ( 5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters ( EPA, HQ) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington DC 20460. · Hand Deliveries: Please submit an original and two copies of information to: RCRA Information Center ( RIC), Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia. · Electronic Submittals: Please submit electronic information through the Internet to: rcra docket@ epa. gov. Your responses in electronic format must also be indentified by docket number F   2000   ALPA   FFFFF. You must provide your electronic submittals as ASCII files and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. You should not submit electronically any confidential business information ( CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste ( 5305W), U. S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania NW, Washington, DC 20460.

What Information Should I Include in My Response?

Your comments will be most effective if you follow the suggestions below: · Explain your views as clearly as possible. · Provide solid technical data to support your views. · If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate. · Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. · Offer specific alternatives. · Refer your comments to specific sections of this notice or MSWLF criteria. · Be sure to submit your information by the deadline in this notice. · Be sure to include the name, date, and docket number with your submittals.

What Will EPA Do With the Information You Submit?

We will review all responses to this action as well as additional information in our own data base in considering whether to propose to revise the Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ( 40 CFR part 258). EPA will not respond directly on an individual basis to those providing information to the Agency as a result of this action, but will address issues raised by the respondents in future Federal Register notices. In addition, all responses to this information request notice will be incorporated into the docket for any rulemaking proposals on the subject criteria.

II. What Will Be the Official Record for This Document?

The official record for this action will be kept in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will transfer all electronic submittals into paper form and place them in the official record, which will also include all responses submitted directly in writing. The official record is the paper record maintained at the RCRA Information Center ( RIC), Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia.

How May I See Responses to This Document?

All responses to this document are available for viewing in the RCRA Information Center ( RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is open from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review docket materials, we recommend that the public make an appointment by calling 703 603   9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $ 0.15/ page.

Where May I Find Information on This Action on the Internet?

Information on this action, consisting of this notice and a fact sheet, may be found at the following Internet site: http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ non hw/ muncpl/ landfill/ leachate. htm.

VerDate 20< MAR> 2000 15: 13 Apr 05, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 06APP1. SGM pfrm07 PsN: 06APP1 18016 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 67 / Thursday, April 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules III. What Is the Authority for This Request?

Any revisions to Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ( 40 CFR part 258) will be made under Sections 1008, 2002 ( general rule making authority), 4004, and 4010 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended. Revisions may also be made under Section 405 of the Clean Water Act which addresses the disposal of sewage sludge.

IV. Description of EPA's Current Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Regulations As specified in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the federal role is to establish overall regulatory direction through the provision of minimum nationwide standards for MSWLFs. On October 9, 1991, EPA issued revised Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ( 40 CFR part 258; 56 FR 50978). These criteria establish minimum national performance standards necessary to ensure that `` no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment'' will result from solid waste disposal facilities. MSWLFs typically receive household waste, nonhazardous commercial, institutional and industrial waste, household hazardous waste and conditionally exempt small quantity generator ( CESQG) hazardous waste. The criteria are implemented in one of two ways. The first, and preferred alternative, is that each State would implement the criteria after receiving approval by EPA of its municipal solid waste landfill permit program or other system of prior approval. The criteria contain provisions that allow States to develop and rely on alternative approaches that deal with site specific conditions. Therefore, the actual planning and direct implementation of solid waste programs is principally a function of State governments and those owners and operators, including local governments, of MSWLFs, not the federal government. The second alternative is that the program would be self implementing by landfill owners and operators in those States that have not received EPA approval of their MSWLF permitting programs. In this case, the regulations provide less flexibility than for approved States. As of March 1, 2000, 49 states and territories had received approval of their programs and are implementing these regulations. V. Description of Current Regulations for Landfill Liners The criteria set forth two methods for complying with liner requirements for municipal solid waste landfills. The first is a performance standard and the second is a specific design standard.

Performance Standard The performance standard is set forth in § 258.40( a)( 1). Under this standard, a landfill owner or operator may rely on the design of their choice, provided the design ensures that the concentration values for the constituents listed in the following table will not be exceeded in the uppermost aquifer at the relevant point of compliance as determined by the Director of an approved State.

TABLE 1.   CONCENTRATION VALUES NOT TO BE EXCEEDED AT THE POINT OF COMPLIANCE Chemical MCL ( mg/ l)

Arsenic ............................................ 0.05 Barium ............................................ 1.0 Benzene .......................................... 0.005 Cadmium ........................................ 0.01 Carbon tetrachloride ....................... 0.005 Chromium ( hexavalent) .................. 0.05 2,4 Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid .... 0.1 1,4 Dichlorobenzene ....................... 0.075 1,2 Dichloroethane ......................... 0.005 1,2 Dichloroethylene ....................... 0.007 Endrin ............................................. 0.0002 Fluoride ........................................... 4 Lindane ........................................... 0.004 Lead ................................................ 0.05 Mercury ........................................... 0.002 Methoxychlor .................................. 0.1 Nitrate ............................................. 10 Selenium ......................................... 0.01 Silver ............................................... 0.05 Toxaphene ...................................... 0.005 1,1,1 Trichoromethane ................... 0.2 Trichloroethylene ............................ 0.005 2,4,5 Trichlorophenoxy acetic acid 0.01 Vinyl Chloride ................................. 0.002 The point of compliance can be no more than 150 meters from the waste management unit boundary and must be on land owned by the owner of the MSWLF ( see 40 CFR 258.40( d)). The criteria require that in determining whether the performance standard is met, the Director of the approved State program shall consider the following factors in his/ her determination: 1. The hydrogeologic characteristics of the facility and the surrounding land; 2. The volume and the physical and chemical characteristics of the leachate; 3. The quantity, quality, and direction of flow of ground water; 4. The proximity of and withdrawal rate of the groundwater users; 5. The availability of alternative drinking water supplies; 6. The existing quality of the ground water, including other sources of contamination and their cumulative impacts on the ground water, and whether the ground water is currently used or reasonably expected to be used for drinking water; 7. Public health, safety, and welfare effects; and 8. Practical capability of the owner or operator.

Design Standard The second method for compliance with the criteria is to install a liner system that meets the specific design criteria described in 40 CFR 258.40( a)( 2) and set forth in 40 CFR 258.40( b). Section 258.40( a)( 2) states that the liner system must contain a composite liner and Section 258.40( b) defines a composite liner as a system comprised of two components: 1. An upper component consisting of a minimum of 30 mil flexible membrane liner ( 60 mil if high density polyethylene ( HDPE) is used); and 2. a lower component consisting of compacted soil at least two feet deep with a hydraulic conductivity of no more than 1x 10 ¥ 7 cm/ sec. We based this decision on a desire to ensure that leachate reaching the liner would be efficiently collected ( 56 FR 51056). The design standards require that the leachate collection system be capable of maintaining a hydraulic head within the landfill of 30 cm or less.

VI. What Are the Existing Requirements for Leachate Recirculation?

The liquid restrictions in Subpart C of Part 258 only allow leachate recirculation in MSWLFs that are constructed with a composite liner and leachate recirculation system as described in 40 CFR 258.28( a)( 2). The recirculation of leachate is not allowed in landfills which have an alternative liner design even if the design meets the performance standard in 40 CFR 258.40( a)( 1). At the time these regulations were promulgated, we believed MSWLFs needed a composite liner and leachate control system as described at 40 CFR 258.40( a)( 2) to ensure that ground water would be protected.

Description of Technical Guidance for Landfill Design EPA published a technical manual entitled `` Solid Waste Disposal Criteria'' ( EPA530   R   93   017, NTIS PB94   100   450, Internet site: http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ non hw/ muncpl/ landfill/ techman/) in 1993. Chapter 4 of this manual entitled `` Design Criteria'' sets forth additional guidance in the VerDate 20< MAR> 2000 15: 16 Apr 05, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 06APP1. SGM pfrm07 PsN: 06APP1 18017 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 67 / Thursday, April 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules following areas: ( 1) Design concepts, ( 2) design calculations, ( 3) physical properties, and ( 4) construction methods. This chapter of the guidance document also addresses the following: Designs Based on the Performance Standard · Leachate characterization and leakage assessment; · Leachate migration in the subsurface; · Leachate migration models; · Relevant point of compliance assessment.

Description of Concerns With Respect to Leachate Recirculation Many MSWLF stakeholders ( e. g., States, local governments, solid waste associations, and industry) believe that under certain conditions, leachate recirculation should be allowed when alternative liners are used. In fact, some believe that alternative liner technologies can be superior to the composite liner design specified in the criteria. We are trying to determine if it is possible to design and operate MSWLFs safely when alternative liner designs are used and leachate is recirculated. As required by the regulations, such an alternative liner design must assure that the performance standard specified at 40 CFR 258.40( a)( 1) and the requirement to maintain a hydraulic head within the landfill of 30 cm. or less are met.

VII. What Information Would EPA Like to Have About Alternative Liner Performance and Leachate Recirculation?

We are interested in determining whether and which types of alternative liners are capable of meeting the design performance standard described above including maintaining a hydraulic head at acceptable levels. More specifically we are seeking data and information on the following issues and questions: · Should EPA revise the MSWLF regulations to allow leachate recirculation when alternative liners are used, and under what conditions should leachate recirculation be allowed? · Should only specified alternative liner designs be allowed if leachate is recirculated? · When alternative liners are used, what would be the impact of leachate recirculation on leachate quality and quantity and attainment of the concentration values specified in Table 1 in ground water at the point of compliance? · Does EPA need to specify other requirements in the MSWLF Criteria to ensure that landfills that recirculate leachate when using alternative liners protect ground water and maintain the hydraulic head with the landfill at 30 cm. or less? · To what degree does leachate recirculation accelerate the stability of the leachate and the remaining decomposable solids in a landfill? How can EPA make a determination when a landfill is sufficiently stabilized? · Should EPA revise the technical manual? If so, how? We are particularly interested in information on how to advise owners and operators to characterize leachate and leachate leakage rates properly when conducting leakage migration modeling to demonstrate that a landfill which recirculates leachate meets the performance standard specified in 40 CFR 258.40( a)( 1). For example, should we be suggesting different methodologies to quantify input parameters? Are there non steady state situations that we should be addressing in the guidance? What are the effects of leachate recirculation on heavy metals in the leachate, and subsequently in the ground water? Should the groundwater models identified in this guidance be updated? If so, what models are appropriate?

VIII. Concerns With Respect to Bioreactors Recent communications from MSWLF stakeholders indicate that there is a growing interest in bioreactor landfills. Bioreactor landfills represent a potential new approach to solid waste management. A bioreactor landfill can be generally defined as a sanitary landfill operated to transform and stabilize the readily and moderately decomposable organic constituents of the waste stream by purposeful control to enhance microbiological processes. While categorizations of bioreactor landfills vary, operational parameters often employ leachate recirculation, alternative cover designs, liquids addition to optimize moisture content in the waste, and state of the art landfill gas collection systems. Bioreactor landfills have been operated under both anaerobic and aerobic conditions. Thus, the term bioreactor landfill is a management concept for MSWLFs encompassing a variety of MSWLF practices.

Information Needs With Respect to Bioreactors At this time, EPA lacks adequate data and information on the design, operation, and performance of bioreactor landfills to evaluate this technology. We are unsure about the appropriateness of revising the MSWLF Criteria, as some stakeholders have suggested to the Agency, to allow for design and operation of bioreactor landfills ( e. g., allowing the addition of additional liquids to municipal landfills to optimize waste degradation). Therefore, we are today seeking data and other information on the design, operation, and performance of bioreactor landfills. We are specifically requesting comment and data in the following areas. · The nature and scope of current bioreactor landfill projects both within the U. S. and abroad. · The impact ( advantages and disadvantages) of leachate recirculation and liquids addition ( with or without the addition of air) on leachate quality, waste settlement, waste slope and stability, and landfill gas yield. · Modifications that have been made to daily cover to optimize biodegradation. · Changes to final cover that have been made to optimize biodegradation or to incorporate materials which convert landfill gas to carbon dioxide and water. See, for example `` Approaching Sustainable Landfilling,'' Alexander Zach, et al.; and `` Biological Pretreatment of MSW as a Measure to Save Landfill Volume and Deter Birds,'' Florian Koelsch and Richard T. Reynolds, Proceedings of Fifteenth International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management, December 12   15, 1999, Philadelphia, PA. Proceedings published by Widener University School of Engineering and the University of Pennsylvania. · Additional monitoring requirements necessary to ensure that a bioreactor ( with or without air addition) is functioning properly over the life of the landfill. · Approaches that have been taken to close bioreactor landfills and to care for the landfill during the post closure care period to ensure protection of human health and the environment. · The potential public health, environmental, and economic impacts of adding liquid wastes, such as sewage sludge, grey water or animal feedlot liquid wastes to the MSWLF. · For bioreactors which have been operating in the aerobic mode, what methods have been used to provide for aeration and how to control temperature in the waste mass. · The appropriateness of liner designs different from the specific design described in 40 CFR 258.40( a)( 2) when liquids are added to a MSWLF to enhance biodegradation. · Project economics for the design, construction, and operation of VerDate 20< MAR> 2000 15: 13 Apr 05, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 06APP1. SGM pfrm07 PsN: 06APP1 18018 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 67 / Thursday, April 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules bioreactor landfills ( with or without air addition).

· The Clean Air Act Section 111( d) and greenhouse gas emissions impact of operating a municipal solid waste landfill as a bioreactor landfill, i. e., will the addition of air or liquids affect the ability of a landfill to comply with air regulations?

· The comparative cost effectiveness and environmental benefits of the bioreactor landfill relative to managing segregated organic wastes through composting and placing noncompostable waste in a standard municipal landfill ( i. e., one not operated as a bioreactor).

· Are there management and safety issues associated with landfill gas generation and control at bioreactor landfills that need to be addressed in regulations or guidance?

· Are there relevant patent issues associated with anaerobic, aerobic, or other bioreactor landfills of which EPA should be aware?

IX. Conclusion After reviewing the literature on leachate recirculation, alternative liner designs, and bioreactor landfills and information and data received during this comment period, the Agency will make a determination concerning what future actions, if any, we will take on the issues discussed in this document.

Dated: March 22, 2000.

Elizabeth Cotsworth,

Director, Office of Solid Waste. [ FR Doc. 00   8400 Filed 4   5   00; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 761 [ OPPTS   66009G; FRL   6553   6]

RIN 2070   AD27 Use Authorization for, and Distribution in Commerce of, Non liquid Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Notice of Availability; Partial Reopening of Comment Period; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: EPA is extending the comment period for the proposed rule which published in the Federal Register of December 10, 1999. That action solicited additional information on the use and concentration of polychlorinated biphenyls ( PCBs) found in certain non liquid PCB ( NLPCB) applications. It also announced the availability, for comment, of data that were submitted to EPA after the comment period closed for the December 6, 1994 proposal. In addition to authorizing certain NLPCB uses, the proposed provision ( § 761.30( q)) would have required compliance with several conditions ( e. g., notification, marking, air monitoring and standard wipe tests, remediation, repair and/ or removal, reporting and recordkeeping requirements). EPA is extending the 120   day data submission period, as well as the 90   day comment period on existing and new data submissions. In response to a request for more time to develop the requested data, EPA is extending the comment periods to obtain data that may support an authorization which would require few, if any, conditions but is protective of health and the environment. DATES: Data submissions, identified by docket control number OPPTS   66009G, must be received on or before October 10, 2000. Comments on any of the data submissions and/ or relevant docket materials, identified by docket control number OPPTS   66009G, must be received on or before January 10, 2001. ADDRESSES: Submit data and comments by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit III. of the `` SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.'' To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPPTS   66009G in the subject line on the first page of your response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Barbara Cunningham, Director, Office of Program Management and Evaluation, ( 7401), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone numbers: ( 202) 554   1404; e mail address: TSCAHotline epa. gov. For technical information contact: Peggy Reynolds, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, National Program Chemicals Division, ( 7404), Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: ( 202) 260   3965; e mail address: reynolds. peggy@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be affected by this supplemental action if you own, use, process, or distribute PCBs in commerce. Affected categories and entities include:

Categories NAICS Codes Examples of Potentially Affected Entities Industry 31 33, 211, 5133 Electroindustry manufacturers, oil and gas extraction, endusers of electricity, telecommunications and general contractors Utilities and rural electric cooperatives 2211 Electric power and light companies Individuals, Federal, State Municipal Governments hospitals and colleges 921, 622, 6113 Individuals and agencies which own, use, process and distribute PCBs in commerce 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 the table 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 or not this action applies to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business is affected VerDate 20< MAR> 2000 09: 44 Apr 05, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 06APP1. SGM pfrm08 PsN: 06APP1


Camp Bullis Monitor:

Violating Development in western Guadalupe County and Seguin,

TX, is located East

Southeast of the Camp Bullis monitor in Bexar County.

Seguin, TX


[Federal Register: January 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 1)]
[Notices]
[Page 160-161]
[DOCID:fr02ja09-65]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59163; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-097]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule
Change by The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC Adopting a Limited Exemption From
OATS Order Data Recordation Requirements for Registered Options Market
Makers

December 24, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 12, 2008, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''),
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Nasdaq proposes to adopt a limited exemption from OATS order data
recordation requirements for Bona Fide Hedging Transactions in Nasdaq-
listed equities that are transacted by Nasdaq members that are
registered market makers in standardized options.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are in [brackets].\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Changes are marked to the rule text that appears in the
electronic manual of Nasdaq found at http://nasdaq.complinet.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

6951. Definitions

    For purposes of the Rule 6950 Series:
    (a)-(h) No change.
    (i) ``Order'' shall mean any oral, written, or electronic
instruction to effect a transaction in an equity security listed on
The Nasdaq Stock Market that is received by a member from another
person for handling or execution, or that is originated by a
department of a member for execution by the same or another member,
other than any such instruction to effect (1) a proprietary
transaction originated by a trading desk in the ordinary course of a
member's market making activities in a Nasdaq-listed equity security
or (2) effect a Bona Fide Hedge Transaction involving a Nasdaq-
listed equity security originated by a trading desk in the ordinary
course of the member's options market making activities.
    (j)-(n) No change.
* * * * *

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq proposes to modify its OATS rules to adopt a limited
exemption from OATS order recordation requirements for bona fide
hedging transactions in Nasdaq-listed equity securities that are part
of a Nasdaq member's market

making activity in options. The proposal applies to options transaction
on any options market in any standardized option made available for
clearing through the Options Clearing Corporation.
    OATS is an integrated audit trail of order, quote, and trade
information for Nasdaq equity securities used to recreate events in the
life cycle of orders and more completely monitor the trading practices
of member firms. The basis for OATS is customer protection through the
transparency of the executions of customer orders in equity securities.
OATS was designed to provide an accurate, time-sequenced record of
orders and transactions, beginning with the receipt of an equity order
at the first point of contact between the broker-dealer and the
customer or counterparty and further documenting the life of the equity
order through the process of execution.
    Consistent with that basis, there is currently no OATS requirement
with respect to options listed on the NASDAQ Options Market.
Additionally, there are currently exemptions from OATS requirements for
orders entered by market makers in Nasdaq securities and by proprietary
trading firms because such orders are not submitted on behalf of
customers and therefore do not necessitate the customer protection
provided by OATS.
    The proposed rule change does not impact the customer protection
orientation of OATS since, by definition, bona fide hedging
transactions in equity securities that are undertaken by options market
makers do not involve customer orders in those equity securities.
Rather, bona fide hedging transactions in equity securities are
undertaken by an options market maker to hedge against the firm risk
that it creates through its conduct as a registered options market
maker. Accordingly, submitting bona fide hedging transactions to OATS
recording requirements provides no customer protection or equivalent
regulatory benefit. It is also very expensive for firms that are not
currently FINRA members or that do not currently trade NASDAQ equities
to develop and maintain the compliance systems and compliance staff
required to continuously monitor the daily transmission of OATS data.
    Additionally, information regarding bona fide hedging transactions
retained by a registered NOM market maker is otherwise available to
FINRA and Nasdaq Regulation through Nasdaq's electronic delivery
systems, upon request. This information includes trade reporting data,
including order time and sales data captured by the Nasdaq system.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that the proposal is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve the proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-097 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-097. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-097 and should
be submitted on or before January 23, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-31203 Filed 12-31-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P