AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN MEETING

June 16 – 18, 2009

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0489

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Evaluation of the Common Mechanism of Action of Pyrethroid Pesticides

Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of Agenda).

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

8:30   A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures – Joseph
Bailey, Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and
Policy, EPA

8:40   A.M. 	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members – John
Bucher, Ph.D., Session Chair, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

8:50   A.M.	Welcome and Opening Remarks – Steven Bradbury, Ph.D.,
Deputy Director, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

8:55   A.M.	Goals and Objectives – Tina Levine, Ph.D., Director,
Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

9:00   A.M.	Summary of Proposed Common Mechanism Grouping for the
Pyrethrins and Synthetic Pyrethroids – Anna Lowit, Ph.D., Health
Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs,  EPA; Timothy Shafer,
Ph.D., Integrated Systems Toxicology Division, National Health Effects
and Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, EPA; Edward Scollon, Ph.D., Health Effects Division, Office
of Pesticide Programs,  EPA

10:30 A.M.	Break

10:45 A.M.	Summary of Proposed Common Mechanism Grouping for the
Pyrethrins and Synthetic Pyrethroids (continued)

11:30 A.M.	Public Comment

12:00 noon	Lunch

1:15   P.M.	Public Comment (continued)

2:45   P.M.	Break

3:00   P.M.	Panel Discussion of Charge

Pyrethroids are a class of synthetic insecticides which are structurally
based on the pyrethrins, botanical insecticides extracted from
Chrysanthemum cinerariaefolium. Pyrethroid exposure can occur from food,
water, or non-occupational settings. Potential exposure of the general
public to pyrethroid pesticides has increased over the past decade, due
in part to a shift in usage away from the organophosphate and N-methyl
carbamate pesticides.

Pyrethroids are scheduled for re-evaluation under the Office of
Pesticide Program’s registration review program as required under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Background
information on the program is provided at: http://www.epa.gov/
oppsrrd1/registration review/. The current schedule is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/schedule.htm. An
explanation of the schedule is at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/explanation.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/explanation.htm .

With the passage of the FQPA (1996), EPA was required to consider
available information concerning the cumulative effects on human health
resulting from aggregate exposure to multiple chemicals that have a
common mechanism of toxicity. At this time, although some uncertainties
still exist, the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) believes that there
is sufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate that the pyrethrins and
synthetic pyrethroids share a common mechanism of action. The Agency’s
analysis and preliminary conclusions are provided in the document
titled: “Draft Science Policy Paper: Common Mechanism Grouping for the
Pyrethrins and Synthetic Pyrethroid Pesticides.” This draft issue
paper was developed by the Health Effects Division (HED) of OPP with
support from EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD).
Specifically, OPP is proposing that the naturally occurring pyrethrins
and synthetic pyrethroids form a common mechanism grouping based on 1)
shared structural characteristics; and 2) shared ability to interact
with voltage-gated sodium channels (VGSC), resulting in disruption of
membrane excitability in the nervous system, and ultimately
neurotoxicity characterized by two different toxicity syndromes. As
described in more detail below, OPP is further proposing to subgroup the
pyrethroid CMG into two subgroups representing Type I and II pyrethroids
based on differences in structure, sodium channel perturbations, and
neurobehavioral effects.

The Agency is soliciting comments from the Panel on science issues
related to the common toxicity pathway for pyrethroids, remaining
uncertainties, and the proposal to separate the pyrethroids into two
subgroups (Type I and II) .  Pending the outcome of the June, 2009 peer
review, the pyrethroid pesticides are expected to be subject to
cumulative risk assessment during the forthcoming registration review.

1. Common pathway to neurotoxicity:

a. 	OPP is proposing that the naturally occurring and synthetic
pyrethroids share the ability to interact with voltage-gated sodium
channels (VGSC) resulting in disruption of membrane excitability in the
nervous system, and ultimately neurotoxicity. The shared ability
provides the initial and common key event in the pathway to pyrethroid
neurotoxicity and thus provides a basis for forming a common mechanism
group. As described in Section 4.0 of the draft paper, the Agency has
determined that interaction with the VGSC is an initial and common key
event in the pathway to pyrethroid neurotoxicity.

Unlike the cholinesterase inhibiting organophosphorous and N-methyl
carbamate pesticides, pyrethroids lack a readily measurable in vivo
biomarker for the initial key event (i.e., sodium channel interaction).
Despite this, the scientific evidence correlating pyrethroid-induced
changes in VGSC function with neurotoxicity for purposes of forming a
common mechanism grouping is substantial. Given the availability of
extensive studies on the mechanism of toxicity and toxic effects of
pyrethroids, the lack of an in vivo biomarker does not preclude grouping
via a common mechanism.

Please comment on the evidence which does and does not support the
Agency’s proposal that sodium channel interaction provides the initial
and common toxic event in the pathway to neurotoxicity for the synthetic
pyrethroids and pyrethrins. As part of your response, please comment on
the uncertainty associated with lack of a readily measurable in vivo
biomarker for sodium channel interaction.

b. 	The Agency is aware of studies which show that pyrethroids can bind
to other sites such as the calcium, chloride channels and ligand-gated
chloride channels currents. The Agency acknowledges that interaction
between the pyrethroids and these sites may mediate their potency.
However, the data which support interactions with the calcium, chloride,
and ligand-gated chloride channels are not sufficiently robust for
purposes of common mechanism grouping under the FQPA. Therefore, these
pathways do not provide the basis for establishing their binding as a
common key event leading to neurotoxicity. The Agency has concluded that
the evidence on pyrethroid interaction with the calcium and chloride
channels and ligand-gated chloride channels currents is limited and
inconsistent. The Agency has therefore concluded that the evidence does
not support characterizing these interactions as a common key event in
the pathway to neurotoxicity by the pyrethrins and synthetic pyrethroids
(Section 4.2.5). Please comment on the evidence which does and does not
support this determination.

5:00   P.M.    ADJOURN

AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN MEETING

June 16 – 18, 2009

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0489

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Evaluation of the Common Mechanism of Action of Pyrethroid Pesticides

Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of Agenda).

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

8:30 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures – Joseph
Bailey, Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and
Policy, EPA

8:40 A.M. 	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members – John
Bucher, Ph.D., Session Chair, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

8:50 A.M.	Follow-up from Previous Day’s Discussion

	Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

9:15 A.M.	Panel Discussion of Charge continued

2. Sodium channel structural heterogeneity:

Briefly, mammalian sodium channels are comprised of α and β subunits
that exist in multiple isoforms, giving rise to tissue, regional and
lifestage heterogeneity in sodium channel expression (Goldin 2001;
Plummer and Meisler 1999). Mammalian neurons typically express multiple
isoforms of both α and β subunits, making it difficult to determine
the composition of subunits comprising sodium channel currents in native
neurons. Evaluation of specific alpha- and beta-subunits (either alone
or in combination) may be interesting for purposes of evaluating species
differences, potential population pharmacodynamic variability, and
lifestage differences. With respect to the proposal to form a CMG,
however, incomplete knowledge of the role of the α and β subunits in
pyrethroid toxicity does not discount the role of sodium channel
interaction as a key event in pyrethroid toxicity. As described in
Sections 4.2 and 5.0, the Agency has concluded that although there is
heterogeneity among the subunit combinations, the pathway of toxicity
remains the same---namely that sodium channel interaction as a critical
and initial key event in toxicity of pyrethroids.

Please comment on the scientific support for and against the Agency’s
conclusions with respect to the sodium channel structural heterogeneity
information.

10:15 A.M.	Break

10:30 A.M.	Panel Discussion of Charge continued

3. Sub-grouping the Type I and II pyrethroids:

a.	The Agency has proposed to separate the pyrethrins and synthetic
pyrethroids into Type I and Type II subgroups as discussed in detail in
Section 5.0 of the Draft Science Policy Paper. Briefly, this proposal is
based on the structural difference in Type I and Type II pyrethroids,
i.e, the absence or presence of an α-cyano group, respectively1. This
structural difference is correlated with length of time the sodium
channel is inactivated (-CN=shorter; +CN=longer) which in turn
corresponds with the 2 distinct toxicity syndromes (-CN=T syndrome;
+CN=CS syndrome). This separation is based on a weight of the evidence
evaluation that considered both historical and newer studies from in
vitro (i.e., intact and transected sodium channels and microelectrode
array) and in vivo studies (i.e., motor activity and functional
observational battery).

Please comment on the evidence which does and does not support this
determination.

b.  	With respect to assigning the pyrethroids to sub-groups;

The Agency’s preliminary designation for 11 pyrethroids and pyrethrin
is based on a weight of the evidence assessment utilizing three key
lines of evidence:  presence/absence of the alpha-cyano group, effects
on sodium channel kinetics, and in vivo toxicity syndromes.

Five additional pyrethroids are being characterized in a special FOB
study.  For these five the structure is also known.  Thus for
tetramethrin, cyphenothrin, imiprothrin, phenothrin, and prallethrin,
information from two lines of evidence will be available (structure,
toxicity syndrome) for assigning these.

Tralomethrin is metabolized to deltamethrin in vivo and is also
converted in the environment to deltamethrin.  As such, given the
presence of the alpha-cyano group and its relationship to deltamethrin,
the Agency expects tralomethrin to be assigned a designation of Type II.

Cinerin and jasmolin are naturally occurring pyrethrins and do not have
the alpha-cyano group on their structure.  Thus, the Agency expects
cinerin and jasmolin to be assigned a designation of Type I.

Two other pyrethroids, metofluthrin (non-cyano) and fluvalinate (cyano)
have scant databases.  With respect to their toxicity, the Agency is
unaware of detailed characterization of their profiles which would allow
designation.  Moreover, the Agency is unaware of studies describing
their interactions with sodium channels.   The Agency expects
metofluthrin and fluvalinate to be designated as Type I and Type II
compounds, respectively, based on structure.

Please comment on the Agency’s approach to assigning the pyrethroids
to the Type I and Type II sub-groups.  Please include in your comments
consideration for those without special FOB information and for which
structure will be the major determinant in their designation.

Two pyrethroids, fenpropathrin and esfenvalerate, exhibit
characteristics of Type I and Type II compounds (i.e., “mixed”
Type).  In the anticipated cumulative risk assessment, the Agency must
determine the appropriate approach for these two.  In performing
exposure assessment and ultimately in estimating human risk, several
options have been identified—include fenpropathrin and esfenvalerate
in the Type I sub-group, in the Type II subgroup, or in both subgroups.

Please comment on these possible options and any others identified by
the Panel.

12:00 noon	Lunch

1:15 P.M.	Panel Discussion of Charge continued

4. Evaluation of Dose-Addition of pyrethroids

As discussed in Section 4.4, there are a limited number of mixture
studies on pyrethroids. Electrophysiological studies have evaluated
mixtures of two pyrethroids but used excessive doses and/or lack robust
study designs and statistical analyses. As such, these studies preclude
thorough evaluation of dose or effect addition. More recent studies
include Wolansky et al (2009) and Shafer et al (in prep) which evaluate
motor activity in vivo and micro electrode arrays, a newer assay for
mammalian neural networks, in vitro. The Wolansky et al (2009) and
Shafer et al (in prep) studies were specifically designed to test dose
additivity but endpoints measured in both studies lack in their ability
to establish dose additivity specifically at the level of the sodium
channel.

Please comment on additional research which could be undertaken to
evaluate the assumption of dose-addition as it relates to the proposed
common mechanism pathway.

3:00 P.M.	Break

3:15 P.M.	Panel Discussion of Charge continued

5:00 P.M.      ADJOURN

AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN MEETING

June 16 – 18, 2009

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0489

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Evaluation of the Common Mechanism of Action of Pyrethroid Pesticides

Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of Agenda).

Thursday, June 18, 2009

8:30   A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures – Joseph
Bailey, Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and
Policy, EPA

8:40   A.M. 	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members – John
Bucher, Ph.D., Session Chair, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

8:50   A.M.	Follow-up from Previous Day’s Discussion

	Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

9:15   A.M.	Panel Discussion of Charge (continued as needed)

10:15 A.M.	Break

h

•

Ä

Õ

!

"

#

%

'

(

,

G

H

I

J

r

s

u

}

h

h

}

”

•

–

š

œ

¡

µ

Ë

Õ

h

h

$ h

h

' h

h

$ h

h

h

F

H

j

l

o

q

†

ˆ

¿

Ã

Ä

Ç

Ê

Ô

Õ

Ö

Ù

à

ë

h“

 ഀ׆Āֲༀꂄᄅ悄㟺$␸䠀$葞֠葠褐摧ɂf

ᄀ킄㜂$␸䠀$葠ː摧᭜ª	㜀$␸䠀$摧㼨*	㜀$␸䠀$摧᭜ª

฀や㟽$␸䠀$葝ﴰ摧岚â

ᄀ킄㜂$␸䠀$葠ː摧ཉê

h

h

h

h“

̀Ĥ␷㠀$⑈愀Ĥ摧㺠V

h

h“

h“

! as needed)

12:00 noon	Lunch

1:15   P.M.	Panel Discussion of Charge (continued as needed)

3:00   P.M.	Break

3:15   P.M.	Panel Discussion of Charge (continued as needed)

5:00   P.M.      ADJOURN

Please be advised that agenda times are approximate; when the discussion
for one topic is completed, discussions for the next topic will begin.
For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Official
for this meeting, Joseph Bailey, via telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
(202) 564-8382; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
 The Agency acknowledges that at least two pyrethroids (esfenvalerate
and fenpropathrin) appear to exhibit characteristics of both Type I and
Type II. In the coming months and as the Agency moves into developing
the preliminary cumulative hazard and exposure assessments, the Agency
will make a determination as to how to handle these two pyrethroids in
the actual cumulative risk assessment. The public will have
opportunities to comment on this issue in the future.

 PAGE

 PAGE   7


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67843-67844]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27608]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.
    Extension: Form 18,
OMB Control No. 3235-0121, SEC File No. 270-105.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities

and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously
approved collection of information discussed below.
    Form 18 (17 CFR 249.218) is a registration form used for by a
foreign government or political subdivision to register securities for
listing on a U.S. exchange. The information collected is intended to
ensure that the information required by the Commission to be filed
permits verification of compliance with securities law requirements and
assures the public availability of the information. The information
provided is mandatory and all information is made available to the
public upon request. Form 18 takes approximately 8 hours per response
and is filed by approximately 5 respondents for a total of 40 annual
burden hours. It is estimated that 100% of the total reporting burden
is prepared by the company.
    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 control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of
this notice.

    November 7, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27608 Filed 11-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


February 14, 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: Public Docket EPA HQ OAR 2004 0008 FROM: Bill Charmley Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality U. S. EPA SUBJECT: U. S. EPA Meeting with representatives from the National Institute of Standards and Technology regarding Small Gasoline Engines on December 12, 2005 On December 12, 2005, EPA representatives Glenn Passavant and Bill Charmley met with two researchers from the National Institute of Standards and Technology Building and Fire Research Laboratory, the Fire Research Division. We met with Dr. William Grosshandler, Chief of the Fire Research Laboratory, and Dr. Matthew Bundy, Mechanical Engineer. The meeting took place at the Fire Research Division facilities on the NIST campus in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

The purpose of this meeting was for EPA to describe the Agency plans and existing work regarding our responsibility to perform a safety study regarding the potential fire and burn risks associated with the application of catalytic converters to small gasoline engines, such as those used in lawn and garden equipment. We provided the NIST representatives with a presentation describing the nature of the work we had already completed regarding safety and emissions work on small gasoline engines, as well as a list of the potential risk scenarios we intended to investigate as part of our Safety Study. ( This presentation is the same one that was used at the October 2005 workshop.) We asked the NIST representatives for any input they may have regarding the scope of the work we have undertaken, as well as review of the list of potential risk scenarios we planned on investigating.

Dr. Grosshandler and Dr. Bundy provided us with an overview of the type of fire safety research their group does within NIST. We also were given a tour of a number of their laboratories and analytical capabilities. A brief discussion was held regarding the capabilities and limitations of different infrared thermal image cameras and the techniques used by NIST and others to establish the combustion temperatures for various materials under radiant heat load. Dr. Grosshandler also mentioned his role a as member of the National Association of State Fire Marshals Science Advisory Board and the role his staff might play in the work that the Swedish National Testing and Research Institute is considering on small engines for the International Consortium for Fire Safety, Health and the Environment.


[Federal Register: May 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 83)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 23783-23789]
[DOCID:fr01my07-19]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0546; FRL-8308-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Ohio SO2 Air Quality
Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve an assortment of rules, submitted
by Ohio on May 16, 2006, setting limits on sulfur dioxide
(SO2) emissions. Most significantly, EPA is proposing to
approve rules for Franklin, Stark and Summit Counties and for one
source in Sandusky County that are currently regulated under limits
that EPA promulgated in 1976 as a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). If
finalized, this action would provide that the entire FIP for
SO2 in Ohio would be superseded by approved State limits.
Consequently, EPA is proposing to rescind the entire FIP. EPA is also
proposing to approve several substantive rule revisions and to approve
numerous Ohio rules that update various company names and unit
identifications. Finally, since this rulemaking resolves the issues
which led a court to remand the designation for a portion of Summit
County to EPA for reconsideration, EPA is proposing to promulgate a
designation of attainment for the presently undesignated portion of
this county.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 31, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2007-0546, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-0546. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which

means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail

address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone John Summerhays at<PHONE_NUMBER> before
visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)
886-6067<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is
arranged as follows:

I. Background
II. Review of Ohio's Submittal
    A. General Rules
    B. Rules To Replace FIP Rules
    C. Additional Substantive Rule Revisions
    D. Rules With Only Name Changes or Other Administrative Changes
    E. Designation of Summit County
III. What Action Is EPA Taking?
IV. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Ohio submitted its original State Implementation Plan on January
30, 1972, which EPA partially approved on May 31, 1972, and fully
approved on September 22, 1972. After a court remanded this approval
for EPA to solicit public comments on the rulemaking, Ohio withdrew its
submittal of rules for SO2. In the absence of State rules
for SO2, EPA promulgated a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
for SO2 on August 27, 1976, with numerous subsequent
amendments. The FIP provided limits for 55 Ohio counties.
    On September 12, 1979, Ohio submitted a plan with limits for
SO2 in all 88 Ohio counties. This plan relied on a set of
rules that included 6 rules governing general provisions such as test
methods and compliance schedules, plus one rule for each of the 88
counties setting emission limits for sources in the county. On January
27, 1981, at 46 FR 8481, EPA approved most of the 6 general rules and
approved rules for parts of 13 counties and all of 61 counties. That
rulemaking action also disapproved rules for Summit County because EPA
concluded that the limits did not provide for attainment. That
rulemaking notice provided further history of regulation of
SO2 emissions in Ohio as of that date.
    On April 20, 1982, at 47 FR 16784, EPA approved rules for parts of
3 additional counties and all of another three additional counties. EPA
approved rules for an additional county on June 30, 1982, at 47 FR
28377. EPA approved subsequently submitted Ohio SO2 rules on
May 20, 1988 (at 53 FR 18087), August 23, 1994 (at 59 FR 43290),
October 9, 1996 (at 61 FR 52882), March 30, 1998 (at 63 FR 15091), June
5, 2000 (at 65 FR 35577), January 31, 2002 (at 67 FR 4669), February 2,
2004 (at 69 FR 4856), and January 28, 2005 (at 70 FR 4023).
    As a result of these prior rulemakings, EPA has approved State
rules for all sources in 84 of Ohio's 88 counties and for all but one
source in an 85th county. Counties for which sources remain subject to
the FIP include Franklin County (full county), Stark County (full
county), Summit County (full county), and Sandusky County (only for
Martin Marietta). Ohio submitted further rules on May 16, 2006, most
significantly including State rules to replace these Federal rules.
    In 1978, EPA designated numerous areas in Ohio as nonattainment for
the SO2 air quality standard. EPA interprets section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, to require
approval of state regulations rather than promulgation of a FIP as a
prerequisite for redesignation of areas from nonattainment to
attainment. Thus, some of Ohio's prior submittals of state rules to
replace federal rules served in part to satisfy this prerequisite for
redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
    As stated in 40 CFR 52.1881(a), ``[w]here USEPA has approved the
State's sulfur dioxide plan, those regulations supersede the federal
sulfur dioxide plan contained in [40 CFR 52.1881(b)] and 40 CFR
52.1882.'' On June 29, 1995, at 60 FR 33915, EPA rescinded numerous
federally promulgated Ohio SO2 rules, observing that the
``superseded rules have no effect and are unenforceable, and thus no
longer need be retained in the CFR.'' On January 28, 2005, at 70 FR
4023, in conjunction with approving State rules for several counties,
EPA rescinded the corresponding federally promulgated rules (where
applicable) that were superseded by these State rules. As a result,
what remains of the federally promulgated rules are the following:

--40 CFR 52.1881 paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6), providing
definitions and other general provisions,
--40 CFR 52.1881 paragraphs (b)(7) through (b)(10), providing limits
for sources in Franklin, Sandusky (Martin-Marietta only), Stark, and
Summit Counties, respectively, and
--40 CFR 52.1882, providing schedules for compliance with the federally
promulgated limits.

    Ohio law requires that the State review its regulations every five
years. Ohio conducted this review and concluded that amendments were
warranted for 4 of its 6 general rules and 40 of its county-specific
rules. Since the regulations remain necessary for the State to continue
to attain the SO2 air quality standards, and since only in a
few cases did information become available warranting a revision to
emission limits, most of the revisions reflect administrative changes
such as updating company names and correcting unit identifications.
Ohio adopted these rules effective January 13, 2006, and submitted them
to USEPA on May 16, 2006.
    Ohio currently has no areas designated nonattainment for
SO2. The final area redesignated from

nonattainment to attainment was in Cuyahoga County, which was
redesignated on January 28, 2005, at 70 FR 4023.
    However, a portion of one county, Summit County, has no
designation. As the result of a 1980 remand by the Court of Appeals for
the 6th Circuit, in PPG Industries, Inc. v. Costle (630 F.2d 462), this
area has been undesignated pending EPA's review of modeling analyses
for the area. Such a review is an inherent part of EPA's review of the
adequacy of the rules Ohio submitted regulating SO2
emissions in Summit County. Consequently, in conjunction with
submitting a rule for SO2 emissions in Summit County, Ohio
also requested that EPA reestablish a designation for this area,
requesting that EPA designate this area as attaining the SO2
standard.
    In 1981, EPA published multiple rulemaking notices that led to EPA
taking no action on provisions of Ohio SO2 regulations that
provided for compliance on a 30-day average basis. EPA has approved
only a stack test method (reflecting a 3-hour average) and other tests
reflecting averaging times of generally 24 hours or less. On February
11, 1980, at 45 FR 9101, EPA published notice that EPA would
nevertheless give priority to cases in which companies were violating
SO2 limits on a 30-day average basis or exceeding the limit
on any day by more than 50 percent. This policy remains in effect, and
today's rulemaking makes no change with respect to this issue.

II. Review of Ohio's Submittal

    On May 16, 2006, Ohio EPA submitted 4 amended general
SO2 rules and 40 county-specific SO2 rules. The
county-specific rules include 4 rules that were submitted to supersede
remaining FIP rules, 4 rules that include substantive revisions to the
limits, and 32 rules which only change company names or unit
identifications or make other such administrative changes. Ohio
supplemented this submittal with an email from William Spires to John
Summerhays dated February 22, 2007, providing supplemental information
regarding a source in Sandusky County and requesting that EPA establish
a designation of attainment for Summit County.

A. General Rules

    Ohio submitted revisions to four of its six general SO2
rules: Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-18-01, 3745-18-02, 3745-18-
03, and 3745-18-06. Rule 3745-18-01, entitled ``Definitions,'' was
modified to update the referencing of test methods in the Code of
Federal Regulations, to retain only a general referencing of methods
adopted by the American Society for Testing and Materials, to update
the Web site from which the Code of Federal Regulations may be
obtained, and to make editorial changes in the referencing of relevant
material. Rule 3745-18-02, entitled ``Ambient air quality standards--
sulfur dioxide,'' was modified only to add a preliminary note referring
readers to Rule 3745-18-01 to find dates for applicable reference
material and to specify which location of 40 CFR part 50 (namely,
Appendix A) contains the test method to be used in assessing ambient
air quality. Rule 3745-18-03, entitled ``Attainment dates and
compliance time schedules,'' was revised to correct several facility
identification numbers and to correct other referencing errors. The
updated Web site in Rule 3745-18-01 is incorrect: Instead of ending
``ecfr'', the Web site ends in ``cfr,'' to read http://www.access.gpo.gov/cfr (or http://www.access.gpo.gov/cfr). However,

this error does not change the stringency of any limits. Indeed, all of
the changes to Rules 3745-18-01, 3745-18-02, and 3745-18-03 may be
considered administrative changes that do not change the substance of
the SIP. EPA believes that all of these revisions are approvable.
    Rule 3745-18-06 was revised to add jet engine test stands to a list
of source types that are exempt from the emission limits given in
Ohio's rules for any day that the equipment burns only natural gas. EPA
has approved this exemption as previously worded, on January 28, 2005,
at 70 FR 4023 (see also 69 FR 41336, dated July 8, 2004). The first
listed source type is fuel burning equipment. Thus, this rule revision
may be considered simply a clarification that jet engine test stands
shall have the exemption that fuel burning equipment has. In any case,
the SO2 emissions from burning natural gas from jet engine
test stands is sufficiently low that this combustion need not be
subject to any specific emission regulation. The rule was also subject
to a minor rearrangement. EPA believes this rule is approvable.

B. Rules To Replace FIP Rules

    As noted above, FIP rules remain in 4 counties: Franklin, Sandusky
(applicable only to Martin Marietta), Stark, and Summit Counties. Ohio
submitted rules for each of these counties to replace the FIP rules.
    For Franklin and Summit Counties, Ohio amended its rules to assure
that all sources with emission limits in the FIP have the same limits
in the State rules. Criteria for EPA's review of these rules are
described in guidance issued from the Director of the Air Quality
Management Division to the Director of Region 5's Air and Radiation
Division on September 28, 1994. This memorandum recommended approving
State rules in place of FIP rules if three criteria are met:
    1. That the FIP demonstrated the limits were adequately protective
at the time of promulgation.
    2. There is no evidence now that the FIP and associated emission
limits are inadequate to protect the SO2 national ambient
air quality standards.
    3. The rules do not relax existing emission limits. EPA believes
that these criteria are satisfied, i.e., that limits were appropriately
demonstrated at the time of FIP promulgation to provide for attainment,
that no subsequent evidence suggests otherwise, and that the State's
rules provide limits that are fully as stringent as the existing FIP
limits. The State rules also establish limits for sources that are not
included either in the FIP rules or in the modeling that demonstrated
that the FIP limits provide for attainment. Therefore, EPA believes
that the rules for Franklin and Summit County may be approved and may
supersede the existing FIP rules.
    As noted above, EPA disapproved the State's rules for Summit County
in 1981, stating that modeling evidence indicated that the limits did
not assure attainment. Those rules differed substantially from the FIP
limits and relied on a separate modeling analysis. The prior
disapproval did not in any way indicate inadequacy of the FIP limits to
assure attainment. EPA continues to believe that the FIP limits for
Summit County provide for attainment. Thus, since the State rules have
been modified to reflect the FIP limits, EPA believes the rules now
provide for attainment, and the prior disapproval is moot.
    For Stark County, as with Franklin and Summit Counties, the State
amended its rules as necessary for sources regulated under the FIP to
have limits that match those of the FIP. The Stark County rules also
tighten the limits for one source not regulated under the FIP, namely
Canton Drop Forge. Modeling was conducted to assess impacts of this
source and other nearby sources. This modeling used AERMOD, which is
EPA's recommended model for this application. The modeling included
emissions from all significant sources in this portion of Stark County.
The modeling used 1988 to 1992 meteorological data for Akron, and the
modeling considered the potential downwash effects of the buildings of

Canton Drop Forge and reflected the terrain elevations of the ambient
receptor locations analyzed. Based on its review, EPA finds that this
modeling was properly conducted and finds that the modeling
demonstrates that the State's limits provide for attainment in this
part of Stark County. For the rest of the County, EPA believes that
modeling conducted in support of the FIP continues to represent a
suitable demonstration that the remainder of the County will attain the
standard.
    For Sandusky County, only one source, Martin Marietta, remains
subject to FIP rules. The FIP imposes a limit of 15.42 pounds of
SO2 per ton of material input into the lime kiln. Ohio's
Rule 3745-18-78 (E) imposes a limit of 25 pounds per ton of product. A
comparison of these limits requires a comparison of the quantity of
material input to the quantity of lime produced. Ohio notes in its
supplemental submittal that the weight ratio of limestone input to lime
produced is commonly about two to one, and the ratio of total material
input including fuel (coke and/or coal) is significantly higher than
that. Since the FIP limit involves dividing emissions from each kiln by
the larger quantity of input material, the corresponding limit on a per
ton of product basis (i.e. the limit that would allow the same total
emissions from the plant) would be a substantially higher number. In
particular, the FIP limit corresponds to a limit on a per ton of
product basis that is well over two times the number of pounds allowed
on a per ton of input material basis, i.e. well over 30 pounds per ton
of product. Thus, EPA believes that Ohio's limit is significantly more
stringent. Furthermore, the Federal limit sets a limit on the emissions
``from any stack.'' The facility has multiple stacks, and the federal
limit arguably allows 15.42 pounds per ton of material input from each
stack, which would allow several times that much emissions in total.
The state rule avoids this potential confusion by clearly imposing a
limit on total emissions per ton of product. For these reasons, EPA
believes that Ohio's limit may be approved as a replacement for the FIP
limit.
    EPA has previously approved Ohio's rule for other sources in
Sandusky County. The amended rule updates the names of three companies
and deletes one source from the rule but makes no substantive changes
in the limits. EPA believes that the full rule is approvable.

C. Additional Substantive Rule Revisions

    Two additional rules include substantive revisions to applicable
limits. The first is for Auglaize County. The applicable attainment
demonstration, approved on January 27, 1981 at 46 FR 8481, provides for
emissions above the county's generic limit of 2.6 pounds per million
BTU for several emission points at the Saint Mary's municipal power
plant, but the previously approved rules only authorize emissions above
that generic limit for one unit. Ohio amended its rules to replace a
limit of 6.5 /MM Btu just for boiler number 6 with a limit of
5.9 /MM Btu applicable to both the number 6 and the number 5
boilers. The previously approved attainment demonstration demonstrates
that these limits will provide for attainment, so these amendments are
approvable.
    For Cuyahoga County, Ohio amended its rules to incorporate an
additional general emission limit. In the Cuyahoga County rules that
EPA approved in January 2005, Ohio had generally amended the rules to
match the federally promulgated rules for this county. In particular,
Ohio adopted the federally promulgated generic limit for coal-fired
boilers with greater than 350 MM Btu per hour heat input. However, the
State had failed to adopt the federally promulgated generic limit for
coal-fired boilers with heat input between 10 MM Btu and 350 MM Btu per
hour. The rule submitted on May 16, 2006 adds this second generic limit
that applies to smaller boilers. This limit is part of the plan that
has been demonstrated to provide for attainment, and so the addition of
this limit is approvable.

D. Rules With Only Name Changes or Other Administrative Changes

    As a result of its periodic rule review, Ohio amended numerous
rules to update company names, to correct various unit identifications,
and to correct typographical errors. In addition to making these types
of amendments in the rules discussed above, Ohio made these types of
revisions to the rules for 34 additional counties. The counties for
which Ohio submitted such rules are Allen, Ashtabula, Athens, Butler,
Champaign, Clark, Erie, Fairfield, Geauga, Greene, Hamilton, Hancock,
Lake Lawrence, Lorain, Lucas, Marion, Miami, Montgomery, Muskingum,
Ottawa, Paulding, Pike, Richland, Ross, Scioto, Seneca, Shelby,
Trumbull, Tuscarawas, Van Wert, Washington, Wayne, and Wood Counties.
    Ohio amended two rules because a source had been addressed in an
incorrect county's rules. Specifically, a facility owned by Archer
Daniels Midland (formerly A.E. Staley) is located in Hancock County,
not Seneca County, and so Ohio removed this facility's limits from the
Seneca County rule (Rule 3745-18-80) and inserted the identical limits
in the Hancock County rule (Rule 3745-18-38).
    These various revisions do not affect the stringency of the SIP but
do enhance the clarity of the applicability of these limits. Therefore,
these revised rules are approvable.

E. Designation of Summit County

    EPA published its initial designations on October 5, 1978, at 43 FR
46011. The designation for SO2 for a portion of Summit
County, Ohio, was litigated, with the result that the Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit remanded the designation to EPA for
reconsideration. See PPG Industries, Inc. v. Costle 630 F2d 462 (6th
Cir. 1980). EPA's original nonattainment designation was based in large
part on dispersion modeling analyses indicating that attainment could
not be assured without reductions in allowable emissions from sources
in the county. Thus, the remand was accompanied by an injunction to
reassess the modeling analyses and the adequacy of the emission limits
to assure attainment. Although EPA has subsequently reestablished
designations for some portions of the county, an important part of the
county remains undesignated. Since this rulemaking addresses the
court's request for EPA to reconsider the modeling analysis of limits
necessary to assure attainment, Ohio requested that EPA also
reestablish a designation for this area, in particular requesting that
EPA designate the area attainment.
    As discussed above, Ohio has requested approval of emission limits
that match the limits of the FIP, i.e. limits which modeling underlying
the FIP have demonstrated to provide for attainment. Therefore, no
further review of the modeling underlying the State limits of 1979 is
necessary, and EPA may proceed to establish a designation for the
portion of Summit County that is presently undesignated.
    Air quality monitoring data from 2003 to 2006 indicate that
SO2 concentrations in Summit County are well below the
standards, generally about a third the level of the standards or less.
For the 24-hour standard of 365 ug/m3 (commonly the controlling
standard), the high second high value (i.e., after computing the second
high value for each monitoring site for each year, the highest of these
second high values) is 141 ug/m3. Compared to the annual standard of 80
ug/m3, the highest value is 24 ug/m3. Compared to the 3-hour standard
of 1300 ug/m3, the high second high value is 382 ug/m3.

    Modeling evidence also indicates that the relevant portion of
Summit County is attaining the standard. EPA believes there are no
companies within the undesignated area significantly violating their
SO2 emission limits. EPA has identified one facility
elsewhere in Summit County as a high priority violator with excess
SO2 emissions. However, this facility is approximately 5
kilometers from the nearest edge of the undesignated area. Furthermore,
whereas the attainment modeling for the undesignated part of Summit
County reflects emissions from several significant sources, including
Firestone Rubber (a Barberton facility of a division called Seiberling
Tire and Rubber Company), Midwest Rubber Company, and Ohio Brass, these
facilities have now shut down. Therefore, if the modeling underlying
the attainment demonstration were redone with current actual emission
rates replacing maximum allowable emissions, the results of this
modeling would show that SO2 concentrations in the
undesignated area are well below the standard. Therefore, EPA believes
that this area should be designated attainment. While EPA has not
analyzed whether the excess emissions noted above might be causing
violations of the air quality standards elsewhere in the county, EPA
believes that any such violations will be resolved by its current
enforcement action, so that no change in the attainment designation of
the remainder of the county is warranted. Thus, in combination, EPA
believes that all of Summit County should be designated as attaining
the SO2 standards.
    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act describes several
prerequisites for redesignation of areas from nonattainment to
attainment. Because the relevant portion of Summit County is not
designated nonattainment and in fact has no designation, these
provisions of Section 107(d)(3)(E) are not germane here.

III. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve 44 rules for SO2 in Ohio,
including 4 general rules, 4 county-specific rules that replace FIP
rules, 2 county-specific rules that incorporate substantive changes in
limits, and 34 county-specific rules that reflect only administrative
changes such as updating company names. EPA is also proposing to
establish an attainment designation for the portion of Summit County
that is presently undesignated. For simplicity, EPA is proposing to
combine the designations into a single designation for the entire
county rather than have separate designations for four subdivisions of
the county.
    By this action, EPA is proposing that state rules would supersede
the last remaining portions of the FIP that was promulgated in 1976 et
seq. Therefore, the FIP may be removed from the CFR if and when EPA
makes final the action proposed today. Even after the FIP is removed,
EPA may continue to take enforcement action against violations of the
FIP limits discovered to have occurred during the time the FIP was in
effect.
    Today's notice provides proposed revisions to the CFR to implement
the actions proposed here. EPA is proposing to rescind the entirety of
40 CFR 52.1881(b) (including general provisions and county-specific
limits) and of 40 CFR 52.1882 (providing FIP compliance schedules).
Since EPA is proposing that Ohio has approvable rules for the entire
State, EPA is proposing to rescind the sections of 40 CFR 52.1881(a)
that identify counties for which EPA has taken no action or has
disapproved the state's plan. EPA is proposing to replace the listing
of counties having approved rules with a rule-by-rule listing of
approved rules. EPA is proposing that the action concerning the
designation of Summit County would establish a simplified, county-wide
designation of attainment. Since EPA is proposing to address the court
remand that has affected the designations for Summit County, EPA is
proposing to rescind the footnotes that identify the effects of the
remand. (EPA is also proposing to rescind the footnote that was
inadvertently applied to the designation of Trumbull County.)

IV. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty
beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as
described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant regulatory action,'' this
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a
prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of
a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the
Clean Air Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the
NTTAA do not apply.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur oxides.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Sulfur dioxide, Wilderness areas.

    Dated: April 19, 2007.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 52 and 81, chapter I,
of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart KK--Ohio

    2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(136) to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.1870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (136) On May 16, 2006, Ohio submitted numerous regulations for
sulfur dioxide. These regulations were submitted to replace the
remaining federally promulgated regulations, to make selected revisions
to applicable limits, and to update company names and make other
similar administrative changes.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. Ohio Administrative Code Rules
3745-18-01, 3745-18-02, 3745-18-03, 3745-18-06, 3745-18-08, 3745-18-10,
3745-18-11, 3745-18-12, 3745-18-15, 3745-18-17, 3745-18-18, 3745-18-24,
3745-18-28, 3745-18-29, 3745-18-31, 3745-18-34, 3745-18-35, 3745-18-37,
3745-18-38, 3745-18-49, 3745-18-50, 3745-18-53, 3745-18-54, 3745-18-57,
3745-18-61, 3745-18-63, 3745-18-66, 3745-18-68, 3745-18-69, 3745-18-72,
3745-18-76, 3745-18-77, 3745-18-78, 3745-18-79, 3745-18-80, 3745-18-81,
3745-18-82, 3745-18-83, 3745-18-84, 3745-18-85, 3745-18-87, 3745-18-90,
3745-18-91, and 3745-18-93, adopted on January 13, 2006, effective
January 23, 2006.
    (ii) Additional material. Letter from Joseph P. Koncelik, Director,
Ohio EPA, to Bharat Mathur, EPA Region 5, dated May 16, 2006, with
attachments providing supporting material.
    3. Section 52.1881 is amended as follows:
    a. By revising paragraph (a)(4).
    b. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(7), (a)(8), and (b).

Sec.  52.1881  Control strategy: Sulfur oxides (sulfur dioxide).

    (a) * * *
    (4) Notwithstanding the portions of Ohio's sulfur dioxide rules
identified in this section that EPA has either disapproved or taken no
action on, EPA has approved a complete plan addressing all counties in
the State of Ohio. EPA has approved the following rules, supplemented
by any additional approved rules specified in 40 CFR 52.1870:
    (i) Rules as effective in Ohio on December 28, 1979: OAC 3745-18-04
(measurement methods)--except for five disapproved paragraphs ((D)(2),
(D)(3), (E)(2), (E)(3), and (E)(4)) and three paragraphs approved later
((D)(8), (D)(9), and (E)(7)), OAC 3745-18-05 (ambient monitoring), OAC
3745-18-08 (Allen)--except for one paragraph approved later (Cairo
Chemical), OAC 3745-18-09 (Ashland County), OAC 3745-18-13 (Belmont),
OAC 3745-18-14 (Brown), OAC 3745-18-16 (Carroll), OAC 3745-18-19
(Clermont)--except for one paragraph approved later (CG&E Beckjord),
OAC 3745-18-20 (Clinton), OAC 3745-18-21 (Columbiana), OAC 3745-18-23
(Crawford), OAC 3745-18-25 (Darke), OAC 3745-18-26 (Defiance), OAC
3745-18-27 (Delaware), OAC 3745-18-30 (Fayette), OAC 3745-18-32
(Fulton), OAC 3745-18-36 (Guernsey), OAC 3745-18-39 (Hardin), OAC 3745-
18-40 (Harrison), OAC 3745-18-41 (Henry), OAC 3745-18-42 (Highland),
OAC 3745-18-43 (Hocking), OAC 3745-18-44 (Holmes), OAC 3745-18-45
(Huron), OAC 3745-18-46 (Jackson), OAC 3745-18-48 (Knox), OAC 3745-18-
51 (Licking), OAC 3745-18-52 (Logan), OAC 3745-18-55 (Madison), OAC
3745-18-58 (Medina), OAC 3745-18-59 (Meigs), OAC 3745-18-60 (Mercer),
OAC 3745-18-62 (Monroe), OAC 3745-18-64 (Morgan)--except for one
paragraph approved later (OP Muskinghum River), OAC 3745-18-65
(Morrow), OAC 3745-18-67 (Noble), OAC 3745-18-70 (Perry), OAC 3745-18-
73 (Portage), OAC 3745-18-74 (Preble), OAC 3745-18-75 (Putnam), OAC
3745-18-86 (Union), OAC 3745-18-88 (Vinton), OAC 3745-18-89 (Warren),
OAC 3745-18-92 (Williams), and OAC 3745-18-94 (Wyandot);
    (ii) Rules as effective in Ohio on October 1, 1982: OAC 3745-18-64
(B) (OP Muskinghum River in Morgan County);
    (iii) Rules as effective in Ohio on October 31, 1991: OAC 3745-18-
04 (D)(7), (D)(8)(a) to (D)(8)(e), (E)(5),

(E)(6)(a), (E)(6)(b), (F), (G)(1) to (G)(4), and (I);
    (iv) Rules as effective in Ohio on July 25, 1996: OAC 3745-18-47
(Jefferson);
    (v) Rules as effective in Ohio on March 21, 2006: OAC 3745-18-22
(Coshocton), OAC 3745-18-33 (Gallia), and OAC 3745-18-71 (Pickaway);
    (vi) Rules as effective in Ohio on September 1, 2003: OAC 3745-18-
56 (Mahoning); and
    (vii) Rules as effective in Ohio on January 23, 2006: OAC 3745-18-
01 (definitions), OAC 3745-18-02 (air quality standards), OAC 3745-18-
03 (compliance dates), OAC 3745-18-06 (general provisions), OAC 3745-
18-07 (Adams), OAC 3745-18-10 (Ashtabula), OAC 3745-18-11 (Athens), OAC
3745-18-12 (Auglaize), OAC 3745-18-15 (Butler), OAC 3745-18-17
(Champaign), OAC 3745-18-18 (Clark), OAC 3745-18-24 (Cuyahoga), OAC
3745-18-28 (Erie), OAC 3745-18-29 (Fairfield), OAC 3745-18-31
(Franklin), OAC 3745-18-34 (Geauga), OAC 3745-18-35 (Greene), OAC 3745-
18-37 (Hamilton), OAC 3745-18-38 (Hancock), OAC 3745-18-49 (Lake), OAC
3745-18-50 (Lawrence), OAC 3745-18-53 (Lorain), OAC 3745-18-54 (Lucas),
OAC 3745-18-57 (Marion), OAC 3745-18-61 (Miami), OAC 3745-18-63
(Montgomery), OAC 3745-18-66 (Muskingum), OAC 3745-18-68 (Ottawa), OAC
3745-18-69 (Paulding), OAC 3745-18-72 (Pike), OAC 3745-18-76
(Richland), OAC 3745-18-77 (Ross), OAC 3745-18-78 (Sandusky), OAC 3745-
18-79 (Scioto), OAC 3745-18-80 (Seneca), OAC 3745-18-81 (Shelby), OAC
3745-18-82 (Stark), OAC 3745-18-83 (Summit), OAC 3745-18-84 (Trumbull),
OAC 3745-18-85 (Tuscarawas), OAC 3745-18-87 (Van Wert), OAC 3745-18-90
(Washington), OAC 3745-18-91 (Wayne), and OAC 3745-18-93 (Wood).
* * * * *

Sec.  52.1882  [Removed]

    4. Section 52.1882 is removed and reserved.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

    5. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

    6. The table in Sec.  81.336 entitled ``Ohio--SO2'' is
amended by removing the three footnotes and revising the entries for
Summit and Trumbull Counties to read as follows:

Sec.  81.336  Ohio.

* * * * *

                                                    Ohio--SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Better than
         Designated area             Does not meet        Does not meet          Cannot be           national
                                   primary  standards  secondary standards       classified         standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Summit County...................  ...................  ...................  ...................               X
Trumbull County.................  ...................  ...................  ...................               X

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E7-8295 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 88064-88065]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27983]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2711-025]

Northern States Power Company; Notice of Application Tendered for
Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests and
Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and Deadline for
Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Subsequent Minor License.
    b. Project No.: 2711-025.
    c. Date Filed: November 30, 2023.
    d. Applicant: Northern States Power Company (Northern States
Power).
    e. Name of Project: Trego Hydroelectric Project (Trego Project).
    f. Location: The project is located on the Namekagon River in the
City of Trego in Washburn County, Wisconsin.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Donald Hartinger, Director of Renewable Operation-Hydro, Xcel
Energy, 414 Nicollet Mall, 2, Minneapolis, MN 55401; phone (651) 261-
7668; or Matthew Miller, Environmental Analyst, Xcel Energy, 1414 W
Hamilton Ave., P.O. Box 8, Eau Claire, WI 54702-0008; phone 715-737-
1353.
    i. FERC Contact: Laura Washington<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    j. Cooperating Agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2023).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: January 29, 2024.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or(202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include docket
number P-2711-025.
    m. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The existing Trego Project consists of the following existing
facilities: (1) a 435.2-acre reservoir; (2) a 642-foot-long, 43.5-foot-
high concrete dam; (3) a 59.5-foot-long, 74-feet-high powerhouse
containing two James Leffel Company vertical Francis-type turbines with
a total generating capacity of 1.2 megawatts; (4) a tailwater; and (5)
a 49-foot-long transmission line. Northern States Power is not
proposing any changes to project facilities or operation.
    o. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's
website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or (202)
502-8659 (TTY).
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].
    p. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions to the schedule will
be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Deficiency Letter (if necessary).......  February 2024.
Request Additional Information (if necessary)  February 2024.
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments........  May 2024.
Issue Acceptance Letter......................  June 2024.
Request Additional Information (if necessary)  July 2024.

Issue Scoping Document 2 (if necessary)......  August 2024.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: December 14, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-27983 Filed 12-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


\* MERGEFORMAT
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                                                                      OFFICE OF
                                                            CHEMICAL SAFETY AND
                                                           POLLUTION PREVENTION

MEMORANDUM

Date:	April 5, 2011

SUBJECT:	Tetrachlorvinphos.  Request for Waiver of a Swine Magnitude of Residue Study

PC Code:  083701/083702
DP Barcode:  D320857
Decision No.:  359967
Registration No.:  Not Applicable
Petition No.: Not Applicable
Regulatory Action: Reregistration Follow-up
Risk Assessment Type: Not Applicable
Case No.: 0321
TXR No.: Not Applicable
CAS No.: 22248-79-9
MRID Nos.: None
40 CFR: 180.252

FROM:	Christine L. Olinger, Chemist
		Risk Assessment Branch VII
		Health Effects Division (7509P)
		Office of Pesticide Programs

THRU:	Alexandra LaMay, Biologist
		Michael S. Metzger, Chief,
		Risk Assessment Branch VII
		Health Effects Division (7509P)
		Office of Pesticide Programs

TO:	James Parker, CRM
		Risk Management and Implementation Branch II
		Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P)
		Office of Pesticide Programs

Tetrachlorvinphos is an organophosphate insecticide used as a direct animal treatment and feed through on poultry, ruminants, and swine.  In a recent review of poultry and ruminant magnitude of residue (MOR) studies HED reiterated the reregistration requirement to also conduct a magnitude of residue study in swine (C. Olinger; 10/7/10; D320848, D320858, D320859, and D381350).  HED had previously recommended for this study in the Residue Chemistry Chapter to the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) (F. Suhre, DP Barcode D199644, 7/6/94) and the HED Chapter to the RED (C. Swartz, 12/8/99, D261626).  In response, SRA International, on behalf of the Tetrachlorvinphos Task Force (TCVPTF), has requested a waiver of this study.  The Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (PRD) has requested HED review of this submission.

REGISTRANT WAIVER REQUEST

KMG-Bernuth, Inc. (KMG) has performed and submitted to the Agency two MOR studies, one in dairy cows (MRID No. 47193001) and one in poultry (MRID No. 4758301) as well as nature of the residue (NOR) studies in both animal species. The metabolite profile was identified and quantified in animals as a result of these studies.

TCVPTF believes that the ruminant study would likely produce higher residues than a swine study, since the material would likely remain in a ruminant digestive system longer than swine.  According to their submission, it is well-documented that residence time in swine intestines is significantly shorter relative to that in a ruminant; a swine study would not be expected to provide any more meaningful information than can be inferred from the existing feeding studies. In addition, the TCVPTF has stated that both the NOR and MOR studies demonstrated the very poor absorption of TCVP following both oral and dermal administration.  This poor absorption is designed into Rabon Oral Larvicide products (by requiring [specifying] a very large particle size) because product efficacy is predicated upon TCVP passing through the animal and being excreted intact in order for it to be effective.

HED RECOMMENDATION

HED has considered the product use information, existing guidance, and the registrant's submission.  The magnitude of residue data show that most of the residues are found as a result of the dermal treatment; residues from livestock treated only with the feed through were substantially less than the residues from both dermal and feed-through treatment.  This is consistent with the registrant's discussion on the poor oral absorption.  The application rates for ruminants and swine are generally comparable as noted in Table 1 at the end of this review (and is copied from the 10/7/10 review).  Note that in residue monitoring of livestock from 2001-2009 USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has never detected residues of tetrachlorvinphos per se and the USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP) has detected tetrachlorvinphos twice in milk at very low levels.

Residues in swine are not likely to be higher than the residues in ruminants.  Therefore, HED recommends for the waiver of the swine magnitude of residue study and will translate the ruminant data to swine.  The recommended tolerance levels for swine (hog) meat, meat by-products, and fat may be found in Table 2.

Table 1.   Summary of Registered Directions for Use of Tetrachlorvinphos. [1]
Application Type/Mode
                                  Formulation
                                [EPA Reg. No.]
                               Application Rate
                        Use Directions and Limitations
                                 Cattle, Beef
Direct animal spray
                                    50% WP
                                  [61483-43]
                   0.5-1.0 gal of 0.35-0.5% solution/animal;
             (equivalent to a maximum rate of 18.9 g ai/animal)

Apply as a low pressure coarse spray and apply only to point before runoff.  No retreatment restrictions are specified.  There is no withholding period from last application to slaughter.

                                    23% EC
                                  [61483-50]
0.5-1.0 gal of a spray solution per animal with spray solution made by diluting 1 gal of 23% EC in 75 to 200 gal of water
                        (equivalent to 11 g ai/animal)
Do not treat more often than every 10 days.  Do not apply to calves under 6 months of age.  Brahman and Brahman-cross cattle should not be treated as they may show hypersensitivity to organophosphate pesticides.  Do not apply in combination with other organophosphate pesticides (e.g., trichlorfon).  There is no withholding period from last application to slaughter.
Feed through (oral)
                                    7.76% G
                                  [61438-48]
                              70 mg/100 lb BW/day
                      (equivalent to 0.24 g ai/750 kg BW)
For use as an oral larvicide in cattle feeds to prevent the development of flies in the manure of treated cattle.  Concentrate must be mixed with feed.
Direct animal dusting
                                     3% D
                                  [61483-45]
                              1.7-3.4 g ai/animal
Apply to the upper portions of the back, neck, and poll by hand dusting or self-treating dust bag.  Repeat as necessary.
                               Cattle, Lactating
Direct animal spray
                                    23% EC
                                  [61483-50]
0.5 gal of a spray solution per animal with the spray solution made by diluting 1 gal of 23% EC in 200 gal of water
                         (equivalent to 4 g ai/animal)
Repeat as necessary (general label directions specify do not apply more than once a day).  Do not apply to calves under 6 months of age.  No milk discard is required.  Care should be taken that the spray does not come in direct contact with the cow's teats unless they are washed with an approved cleansing solution and dried before milking.  Apply the spray at least 20 minutes prior to milking or after milking has been completed.
Feed through (oral)
                                    97.3% G
                                  [61483-47]

                                    7.76% G
                                  [61438-48]
                              70 mg/100 lb BW/day
                      (equivalent to 0.24 g ai/750 kg BW

For use as an oral larvicide in cattle feeds to prevent the development of flies in the manure of treated cattle.  Concentrate must be mixed with feed.
Direct animal dusting
                                     3% D
                                  [61483-45]
                              1.7-3.4 g ai/animal
Apply to the upper portions of the back, neck, and poll by hand dusting or self-treating dust bag.  Repeat as necessary.
                                    Poultry
Direct animal spray
                                    50% WP
                                  [61483-43]

1.0 gal of 0.5% solution/100 birds (equivalent to a maximum rate of 0.19 g ai/bird)
Spray the vent and fluff of wire cages from below.  Repeat when necessary but do not repeat more than every 14 days.

                                    23% EC
                                  [61483-50]
1.0 gal of a spray solution per 100 birds with the spray solution made by diluting 1 gal of 23% EC in 50 gal of water

Direct animal dusting
                                     3% D
                                  [61483-45]
                             0.03 lb ai/300 birds
For individual treatment of poultry in wire cages.  Direct dust to vent and fluff area.  Group treatment may be preferred.  Dust should reach skin.  Wire rungs and corners should also be treated.
                                     Swine
Direct animal spray
                                    50% WP
                                  [61483-43]
                    0.25 to 0.5 gal of 0.5% solution/animal
               (equivalent to a maximum rate of 9.5 g ai/animal)
Apply as a low pressure coarse spray and apply only to point before runoff.  Repeat in 2 weeks if necessary.  There is no withholding period from last application to slaughter.
Feed through (oral)
                                    7.76% G
                                  [61438-48]
                              22.7 mg/1000 lb BW;
                             0.077 g ai/750 kg BW
For use as an oral larvicide in swine feeds to prevent the development of flies in the manure of treated cattle.  Concentrate must be mixed with feed.
Direct dusting of animal
                                     3% D
                                  [61483-45]
                             2.6-3.4 g ai/animal
Apply by conventional hand or power duster to each animal with special attention given to the neck and around the ear.
[1]Note:  Application rates for backrubber and premise treatments are not included in this table as they are likely to lead to lower exposure than the direct application via sprays and dusts.  Only the use directions from products registered by the technical registrant, KMG-Bernuth, are included.

Table 2. 	Tolerance Reassessment Summary for Tetrachlorvinphos for Hog Commodities.
Commodity
                                  Established
                                 Tolerance [1]
                                     (ppm)
                             Maximum Residues [2]
                                     (ppm)
                           Reassessed Tolerance [3]
                                     (ppm)
Comments;
Correct Commodity Definition
Hog, fat (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se)
                                      0.2
                         0.84 (0.56) subcutaneous fat;
                          0.75 (0.34) peritoneal fat
                                      1.0
Hog, fat (of which no more than 0.6 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se)
Hog, kidney (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se)
                                      1.0
                                      --
                                    Remove
See hog, meat byproducts
Hog, liver (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se)
                                      0.5
                                      --
                                    Remove
See hog, meat byproducts
Hog, meat (of which no more than 2.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se)
                                      2.0
                              0.27 (0.21) muscle
                                      0.3
Hog, meat (of which no more than 0.2 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se)
Hog, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver
                                      1.0
                            0.16 (<0.01) liver;
                             0.28 (0.015) kidney;
                         0.84 (0.56) subcutaneous fat;
                          0.75 (0.34) peritoneal fat;
                              0.27 (0.21) muscle
                                      1.0
Hog, meat byproducts (of which no more than 0.6 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) [4]
[1]   Time-limited tolerances; current tolerance expression is for the combined residues of tetrachlorvinphos [(Z)-2-chloro-1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)vinyl dimethyl phosphate] and its metabolites, 1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)-ethanol (free and conjugated forms), 2,4,5-trichloroacetophenone, and 1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)-ethanediol; should also include des-O-methyl tetrachlorvinphos.
[2]   Total residues of tetrachlorvinphos and its metabolites, TCVP-deme, TCPEone, TCPEol (free and conjugated forms), and TCPEdiol (free and conjugated), expressed in terms of parent equivalents; the value in parentheses represents the maximum residues of the parent tetrachlorvinphos.
[3]   Reassessed tolerance is based on the maximum residue from the respective magnitude of the residue study; the maximum residues of the parent tetrachlorvinphos are reported in the corrected commodity definition.
[4]  According to the 18 July 2007 Minutes of the HED ChemSAC meeting, the guidance document will be revised to include language detailing the use of the highest residue data for any tissue (liver, kidney, fat, skin or muscle) to determine the tolerance for meat byproducts.  A single tolerance on "meat byproducts" will be recommended based on that highest residue, and individual tolerances will no longer be set on liver, kidney, or meat byproducts (except liver and kidney).