[Federal Register: February 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 23)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 5708-5715]
[DOCID:fr04fe10-17]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 228

[EPA-R10-OW-2010-0086; FRL-9109-4]

Ocean Dumping; Designation of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Sites Offshore of the Siuslaw River, OR

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to designate two new ocean dredged material
disposal sites near the mouth of the Siuslaw River, Oregon, pursuant to
the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, as amended
(MPRSA). The new sites are needed primarily to serve the long-term need
for a location to dispose of material dredged from the Siuslaw River
navigation channel, and to provide a location for the disposal of
dredged material for persons who have received a permit for such
disposal. The newly designated sites will be subject to ongoing
monitoring and management to ensure continued protection of the marine
environment.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received no later than
March 8, 2010.

ADDRESSES: For more information on this proposed rule, Docket ID No.
EPA-R10-OW-2010-0086 use one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for accessing the docket and materials related to this
proposed rule.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Jessica Winkler, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Office of Ecosystems, Tribal and Public Affairs
(ETPA-088), Environmental Review and Sediment Management Unit, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101.
    Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during
normal business hours for the regional library at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Library, 10th Floor, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101. For access to the
documents at the Region 10 Library, contact the Region 10 Library
Reference Desk at<PHONE_NUMBER>, between the hours of 9 a.m. to 12
p.m., and between the hours of 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays, for an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Winkler, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Ecosystems, Tribal and Public
Affairs (ETPA-083), Environmental Review and Sediment Management Unit,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101, phone number:
(206) 553-7369, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Potentially Affected Persons

    Persons potentially affected by this action include those who seek
or might seek permits or approval by EPA to dispose of dredged material
into ocean waters pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA), 33 U.S.C. 1401 to 1445. EPA's
proposed action would be relevant to persons, including organizations
and government bodies seeking to dispose of dredged material in ocean
waters offshore of the Siuslaw River, Oregon. Currently, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) would be most affected by this action.
Potentially affected categories and persons include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Examples of potentially
                Category                        regulated persons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Government.....................  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                                          Civil Works Projects, and
                                          other Federal Agencies.
Industry and General Public............  Port Authorities, Marinas and
                                          Harbors, Shipyards and Marine
                                          Repair Facilities, Berth
                                          Owners.
State, local and tribal governments....  Governments owning and/or
                                          responsible for ports,
                                          harbors, and/or berths,
                                          Government agencies requiring
                                          disposal of dredged material
                                          associated with public works
                                          projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding persons likely to be affected by this
action. For any questions regarding the applicability of this action to
a particular person, please refer to the contact person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

2. Background

a. History of Disposal Sites Offshore of the Siuslaw River, Oregon

    Historically, three ocean dredged material disposal sites, an
Interim Site and two selected sites were used by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) for the disposal of sediments dredged from the
Siuslaw River navigation project. The ``Interim Site,'' former Site A,
was included in the list of approved interim ocean disposal sites for
dredged material in the Federal Register in 1977 (42 FR 2461), a status
superseded by later statutory changes to the MPRSA. Mounding at Site A
and concern over the potential for ocean currents to move sediments
from Site A back into the dredged channel resulted in a selection of
disposal Sites B and C by the Corps pursuant to Section 103 of the
MPRSA. That authority allows the Corps to select a site or sites for
disposal when a site has not been designated by EPA. The selection of
Sites B and C was intended to reduce potential hazards associated with
mounding at Site A. The selection of Sites B and C was also intended to
increase long-term disposal site capacity near the mouth of the Siuslaw
River. EPA concurred on the selection and approved the Corps' request
to continue to use Sites B and C through the end of the 2009 dredging
season. Sites B and C, as selected, are not suitable for designation by
EPA pursuant to Section 102 of the MPRSA because of mounding taking
place in both sites. To provide for sufficient disposal capacity over
the long term, EPA proposes to designate two sites, a North Site and a
South Site, for the ocean disposal of dredged material near the Siuslaw
River in the vicinity of former Sites A, B and C.
    The proposed designation of the two ocean disposal sites for
dredged material does not mean the Corps or EPA has approved of the use
of the sites for open water disposal of dredged material from any
specific project. Before disposal of dredged material at either of the
proposed Siuslaw River Sites can commence by any person, EPA and the
Corps must evaluate the project according to the ocean dumping
regulatory criteria (40 CFR part 227) and authorize disposal. EPA
independently evaluates proposed dumping and has the right to restrict
and/or disapprove of the actual disposal of dredged material if EPA
determines that environmental requirements under the MPRSA have not
been met.

b. Location and Configuration of Siuslaw River Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Sites

    This action proposes the designation of two Siuslaw River ocean
dredged material sites to the north and south, respectively, of the
mouth of the Siuslaw River. The coordinates, listed below, and Figure
1, below, show the location of the two proposed Siuslaw River ocean
dredged material disposal sites (Siuslaw River ODMD Sites, North and
South Sites, or Sites). The configuration of the North Site is expected
to allow dredged material disposed in shallower portions of the Site to
naturally disperse into the littoral zone and augment shoreline
building processes. The proposed designation of two Sites will allow
EPA to adaptively manage the Sites to avoid creating mounding
conditions that could contribute to adverse impacts to navigation.
    The coordinates for the two Siuslaw River ODMD Sites are, in North
American Datum 83 (NAD 83):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        North Siuslaw ODMD site              South Siuslaw ODMD site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
44[deg]01'31.03'' N, 124[deg]10'12.92''  44[deg]00'46.72'' N,
 W.                                       124[deg]10'26.55'' W.
44[deg]01'49.39'' N, 124[deg]10'02.85''  44[deg]01'06.41'' N,
 W.                                       124[deg]10'24.45'' W.
44[deg]01'31.97'' N, 124[deg]09'01.86''  44[deg]01'04.12'' N,
 W.                                       124[deg]09'43.52'' W.
44[deg]01'13.45'' N, 124[deg]09'11.41''  44[deg]00'44.45'' N,
 W.                                       124[deg]09'45.63'' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The two Sites would be situated in approximately 30 to 125 feet of
water located to the north and south of the entrance to the Siuslaw
River on the southern Oregon Coast (see Figure 1). The dimensions of
the proposed Sites are 4,800 by 2,000 feet and 3,000 by 2,000 feet,
respectively.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04FE10.001

c. Management and Monitoring of the Sites

    The proposed Siuslaw Sites are expected to receive sediments
dredged by the Corps to maintain the federally authorized navigation
project at the Siuslaw River, Oregon and dredged material from other
persons who have obtained a permit for the disposal of dredged material
at the Sites. All persons using the Sites are required to follow a Site
Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the Sites. The SMMP includes
management and monitoring requirements to ensure that dredged materials
disposed at the Sites are suitable for disposal in the ocean and that
adverse impacts of disposal, if any, are addressed to the maximum
extent practicable. The SMMP for the Siuslaw River Sites, in addition
to the aforementioned, also addresses management of the Sites to ensure
adverse mounding does not occur and to ensure that disposal events are
timed to minimize interference with other uses of ocean waters in the
vicinity of the proposed Sites. The SMMP is available as a draft
document for review and comment at this time. The public is encouraged
to take advantage of this opportunity to read and submit comments on
the draft SMMP.

d. MPRSA Criteria

    In proposing to designate these Sites, EPA assessed the proposed
Sites against the criteria of the MPRSA, with particular emphasis on
the general and specific regulatory criteria of 40 CFR part 228, to
determine whether the proposed site designations satisfy those
criteria. EPA's draft Siuslaw River, Oregon Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Sites Evaluation Study and Environmental Assessment (EA),

provides an extensive evaluation of the criteria and other related
factors for the designation of these Sites. The EA is available as a
draft document for review and comment at this time. The public is
encouraged to take advantage of this opportunity to read and submit
comments on the draft EA.
General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5)
    (1) Sites must be selected to minimize interference with other
activities in the marine environment, particularly avoiding areas of
existing fisheries or shellfisheries, and regions of heavy commercial
or recreational navigation (40 CFR 228.5(a)).
    EPA reviewed the potential for the Sites to interfere with
navigation, recreation, shellfisheries, aquatic resources, commercial
fisheries, protected geologic features, and cultural and/or
historically significant areas and found low potential for conflicts.
The proposed Sites would be located close to the approach to the
Siuslaw River entrance channel but are unlikely to cause interference
with navigation or other uses near the mouth of the Siuslaw River
provided close communication and coordination is maintained with other
users, vessel traffic control and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). Based on
the past history of fishing and disposal operations near the mouth of
the Siuslaw River use conflicts are not expected to occur. There is the
potential for other recreational users, for example, surfers, boaters,
boarders, and divers, to use the near-shore area in the vicinity of the
Sites, but EPA does not expect disposal operations at the Sites to
conflict with recreationists. The draft SMMP outlines site management
objectives, including minimizing interference with other uses of the
ocean. Should a site use conflict be identified, site use could be
modified according to the SMMP to minimize that conflict.
    (2) Sites must be situated such that temporary perturbations to
water quality or other environmental conditions during initial mixing
caused by disposal operations would be reduced to normal ambient levels
or undetectable contaminant concentrations or effects before reaching
any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known geographically limited
fishery or shellfishery (40 CFR 228.5(b)).
    Based on EPA's review of modeling, monitoring data, analysis of
sediment quality, and history of use, no detectable contaminant
concentrations or water quality effects, e.g., suspended solids, would
be expected to reach any beach or shoreline from disposal activities at
the Sites. The primary impact of disposal activities on water quality
is expected to be temporary turbidity caused by the physical movement
of sediment through the water column. All dredged material proposed for
disposal will be evaluated according to the ocean dumping regulations
at 40 CFR 227.13 and guidance developed by EPA and the Corps. In
general, dredged material which meets the criteria under 40 CFR
227.13(b) is deemed environmentally acceptable for ocean dumping
without further testing. Dredged material which does not meet the
criteria of 40 CFR 227.13(b) must be further tested as required by 40
CFR 227.13(c).
    Disposal of suitable material meeting the regulatory criteria and
deemed environmentally acceptable for ocean dumping will be allowed at
the proposed Sites. Most of the dredged material (approximately 97%) to
be disposed of at the Sites is expected to be sandy material, while a
small amount of material (up to 3% of the material) would be classified
as fine-grained. Occasionally, naturally occurring debris may be
present in the dredged material. Hopper dredges, which are used for the
Corps' annual navigational dredging, are not capable of removing debris
from the dredge site. However, specific projects may utilize a
clamshell dredge, in which case there is the potential for the
occasional placement of naturally occurring debris at the disposal
Sites.
    Sediment movement in the littoral zone consists of two mechanisms
depending upon the size of the sediment. Material that is finer than
sand size is carried in suspension in the water and moves offshore
relatively quickly. Sediments sand size or coarser may be occasionally
suspended by wave action near the bottom, and are moved by bottom
currents or directly as bedload. Tidal, wind and wave forces contribute
to generating bottom currents, which act in relation to the sediment
grain size and water depth to transport sediment.
    (3) The sizes of disposal sites will be limited in order to
localize for identification and control any immediate adverse impacts,
and to permit the implementation of effective monitoring and
surveillance to prevent adverse long-range impacts. Size,
configuration, and location are to be determined as part of the
disposal site evaluation (40 CFR 228.5(d)).
    To ensure site managers can be responsive to the specifics of each
dredging season based on dredge schedules and recorded seasonal
sediment transport patterns north and south along the Oregon coast, EPA
proposes to designate two Sites which nearly double the footprints of
former Section 103 sites B and C. The larger Site footprints are needed
to include nearshore areas where material can disperse into the active
littoral zone, limit wave effects due to mounding, and keep material
from reentering the navigation channel. Use of the shallower portion of
the North Site will facilitate increased sediment transport thereby
increasing long-term site capacity. Preferential utilization of the
shallow portions of the North Site also meets the management goal of
keeping material in the littoral system. However, as seen in the 1977
Interim Site, mounding could occur if too much material is placed too
quickly in shallow water. The designation of multiple sites with deeper
areas within the sites, allows site managers to be responsive to annual
and long-term sediment transport patterns. Effective monitoring of the
Sites is necessary and required. EPA will require annual bathymetric
surveys for each Site to monitor each Site for site capacity and
potential mounding concerns. These surveys will inform the active
management of the proposed Sites.
    (4) EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites
beyond the edge of the continental shelf and other such sites where
historical disposal has occurred (40 CFR 228.5(e)).
    Locations off the continental shelf in the Pacific Ocean are
generally inhabited by stable benthic and pelagic ecosystems on steeper
gradients that are not well adapted to the type of frequent disturbance
events that are typical of dredged material disposal in ocean waters.
The proposed Sites will incorporate historic disposal locations within
the footprint of each Site and will not be located off the continental
shelf. Disposal off the continental shelf would remove natural
sediments from the nearshore littoral transport system, a system that
functions with largely non-renewable quantities of sand in Oregon. Some
of the material disposed at the proposed Sites is expected to be
available to the littoral system. The loss of the present volumes of
Siuslaw River dredged material if disposed off of the continental shelf
would be unlikely to result in disruption of the mass balance of the
existing littoral system but keeping this material in the littoral
system with the potential to sustain a dynamic equilibrium along the
Oregon coast is considered a benefit.
Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6)
    (1) Geographical Position, Depth of Water, Bottom Topography and
Distance from Coast (40 CFR 228.6(a)(1)).

    EPA does not anticipate that the geographical position, including
the depth, bottom topography and distance from the coastline in the
vicinity of the proposed Sites will cause adverse effects to the marine
environment. As EPA understands the currents at the proposed Sites and
the influence of those currents on the movement of material in the
area, there is a high likelihood that some of the material disposed at
the Sites, especially within the shallower portion of the North site,
will be transported to the littoral sediment circulation system.
    To help avoid adverse mounding at the Sites, site management may
include establishing ``cells'' along the nearshore portions of each
Site and assigning numbers of ``dumps'' to each cell to minimize
material accumulation and avoid excessive or persistent mounding.
Disposal may also alternate as necessary between the two Sites to allow
for maximum dispersal of material and minimal impact to each Site.
    (2) Location in Relation to Breeding, Spawning, Nursery, Feeding,
or Passage Areas of Living Resources in Adult or Juvenile Phases (40
CFR 228.6(a)(2)).
    The proposed Sites are not located in exclusive breeding, spawning,
nursery, feeding or passage areas for adult or juvenile phases of
living resources. Near the Sites, a variety of pelagic and demersal
fish species, including salmon, as well as shellfish, are found. The
benthic fauna at the sites is common to nearshore, sandy, wave-
influenced regions of the Pacific Coast in Oregon and Washington.
    (3) Location in Relation to Beaches and Other Amenity Areas (40 CFR
228.6(a)(3)).
    The Sites, although located in close proximity to the Siuslaw River
navigation channel, and near the northern boundary of the Oregon Dunes
National Recreation Area, are located a sufficient distance offshore to
avoid adverse impacts to beaches and other amenity areas. Two public
recreation areas located to the north of the Siuslaw River, Heceta
Beach Park and Harbor Vista Park, are not expected to be impacted by
the designation of the Sites. Transportation of dredges or barges to
and from the Sites to dispose of dredged material will be coordinated
to avoid disturbance of other activities near the Siuslaw River
entrance channel. There are no rocks or pinnacles in the vicinity of
either Site. The Sites are sized and located to provide long-term
capacity for the disposal of dredged material without causing any
impacts to the wave environment at, or near, the Sites. Site monitoring
and adaptive management are components of the proposed SMMP.
    (4) Types and Quantities of Wastes Proposed to be Disposed of, and
Proposed Methods of Release, including Methods of Packing the Waste, if
any (40 CFR 228.6(a)(4)).
    Dredged material found suitable for ocean disposal pursuant to the
regulatory criteria for dredged material or characterized by chemical
and biological testing and found suitable for disposal into ocean
waters will be the only material allowed to be disposed of at the
Sites. No material defined as ``waste'' under the MPRSA will be allowed
to be disposed of at the Sites. The dredged material to be disposed of
at the Sites will be predominantly marine sand, far removed from known
sources of contamination. Generally, disposal is expected to occur from
a hopper dredge, in which case, material will be released just below
the surface and the disposal vessel will be required to be under power
and to slowly transit the disposal location during disposal. This
method of release is expected to spread material at the Sites to
minimize mounding and to minimize impacts to the benthic community and
to species at the Sites at the time of a disposal event.
    (5) Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring (40 CFR
228.6(a)(5)).
    EPA expects monitoring and surveillance at the Sites to be feasible
and readily performed from small surface research vessels. The Sites
are accessible for bathymetric and side-scan sonar surveys. At a
minimum, annual bathymetric surveys will be conducted at each of the
Sites to confirm that no unacceptable mounding is taking place within
the Sites or in their immediate vicinity.
    (6) Dispersal, Horizontal Transport and Vertical Mixing
Characteristics of the Area, Including Prevailing Current Direction and
Velocity, if any (40 CFR 228.6(a)(6)).
    Dispersal, horizontal transport and vertical mixing characteristics
of the area at and in the vicinity of the Sites indicate that the
marine sands and fluvial gravels from the Siuslaw River distribute away
from the river mouth rapidly. The beaches do not show significant
accretion or loss. The bottom current records suggest a bias in
transport to the north. Fine grained material tends to remain in
suspension and to experience rapid offshore transport compared to other
sediment sizes. Sediment transport of sand-sized or coarser material
tends to move directly as bedload, but is occasionally suspended by
wave action near the seafloor. The proposed Sites are not expected to
change these characteristics.
    (7) Existence and Effects of Current and Previous Discharges and
Dumping in the Area (including Cumulative Effects) (40 CFR
228.6(a)(7)).
    Portions of the two proposed Sites have been historically used for
disposal activity. Disposal of dredged material is not expected to
result in unacceptable environmental degradation at the Sites or in the
vicinity of the Sites, however mounding will be closely monitored in
those previously used portions and preferential use of the shallower
portions of the North Site is expected. The proposed SMMP includes
monitoring and adaptive management measures to address potential
mounding issues.
    (8) Interference with Shipping, Fishing, Recreation, Mineral
Extraction, Desalination, Fish and Shellfish Culture, Areas of Special
Scientific Importance and Other Legitimate Uses of the Ocean (40 CFR
228.6(a)(8)).
    The proposed Sites are not expected to interfere with shipping,
fishing, recreation or other legitimate uses of the ocean. Disposals at
the Sites will be managed according to the SMMP to minimize
interference with other legitimate uses of the ocean through careful
timing and staggering of disposals in the Sites. Commercial and
recreational fishing and commercial navigation are the primary concerns
for which such timing will be needed. EPA is not aware of any plans for
mineral extraction offshore of the Siuslaw River at this time. EPA
would expect to revise the SMMP if necessary in the event wave energy
projects or other renewable or traditional energy projects were
proposed and potential conflicts seemed likely. Fish and shellfish
culture operations are not under consideration for the area. There are
no known areas of scientific importance in the vicinity of the Sites.
    (9) The Existing Water Quality and Ecology of the Sites as
Determined by Available Data or Trend Assessment of Baseline Surveys
(40 CFR 228.6(a)(9)).
    EPA has not identified any potential adverse water quality impacts
from the proposed ocean disposal of dredged material at the Sites based
on water and sediment quality analyses conducted in the study area of
the Sites and based on experience with past disposals near the mouth of
the Siuslaw River. Fisheries and benthic data show the ecology of the
area to be that of a mobile sand community typical of the Oregon Coast.
    (10) Potentiality for the Development or Recruitment of Nuisance
Species in the Disposal Site (40 CFR 228.6(a)(10)).
    Nuisance species, considered as any undesirable organism not
previously existing at a location, have not been

observed at, or in the vicinity of, the Sites. Material expected to be
disposed at the Sites will be uncontaminated marine sands similar to
the sediment present at the Sites. Some fine-grained material, finer
than natural background, may also be disposed. While this finer-grained
material could have the potential to attract nuisance species to the
Sites, no such recruitment is known to have taken place in the former
Interim Site A or in the 103-selected sites B and C. The proposed SMMP
includes biological monitoring requirements, which will act to identify
any nuisance species and allow EPA to direct special studies and/or
operational changes to address the issue if it arises.
    (11) Existence at or in Close Proximity to the Site of any
Significant Natural or Cultural Feature of Historical Importance (40
CFR 228.6(a)(11)).
    No significant cultural features have been identified at, or in the
vicinity of, the proposed Sites at this time. EPA is coordinating with
Oregon's State Historic Preservation Officer and with Tribes in the
vicinity of the Sites to identify any cultural features. EPA expects to
complete that coordination effort before making a final decision on the
proposed Sites. No shipwrecks have been observed or documented within
the proposed Sites or their immediate vicinity.

3. Environmental Statutory Review--National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA); Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA); Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA); Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA); Endangered Species Act
(ESA); National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

a. NEPA

    Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 to 4370f, requires Federal agencies to
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for major federal
actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
NEPA does not apply to EPA designations of ocean disposal sites under
the MPRSA because the courts have exempted EPA's actions under the
MPRSA from the procedural requirements of NEPA through the functional
equivalence doctrine. EPA has, by policy, determined that the
preparation of non-EIS NEPA documents for certain EPA regulatory
actions, including actions under the MPRSA, is appropriate. EPA's
``Notice of Policy and Procedures for Voluntary Preparation of NEPA
Documents,'' (Voluntary NEPA Policy), 63 FR 58045, (October 29, 1998),
sets out both the policy and procedures EPA uses when preparing such
environmental review documents. EPA's primary voluntary NEPA document
for designating the Sites is the draft Siuslaw River, Oregon Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Sites Evaluation Study and Environmental
Assessment, December 2009 (EA), jointly prepared by EPA and the Corps.
The draft EA and its Technical Appendices, which are part of the docket
for this action, provide the threshold environmental review for
designation of the two Sites. The information from the proposed EA is
used extensively, above, in the discussion of the ocean dumping
criteria.

b. MSA and MMPA

    EPA prepared an essential fish habitat (EFH) assessment pursuant to
Section 305(b), 16 U.S.C. 1855(b)(2), of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as
amended (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 to 1891d, and submitted that assessment
to the National Marine Fisheries Service in July, 2009. NMFS is
reviewing EPA's EFH assessment and an Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Biological Assessment and addendum thereto for purposes of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361 to
1389. EPA will not take final action on the proposed Sites until the
NMFS review is complete.

c. CZMA

    The Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451
to 1465, requires Federal agencies to determine whether their actions
will be consistent with the enforceable policies of approved state
programs. EPA prepared a consistency determination for the Oregon Ocean
and Coastal Management Program (OCMP), the approved state program in
Oregon, to meet the requirements of the CZMA and submitted that
determination to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD) for review on January 19, 2010. EPA will not take
final action on the proposed Sites until the DLCD review of EPA's
consistency determination is complete.

d. ESA

    The Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 to
1544, requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to ensure that any action authorized,
funded, or carried out by the Federal agency is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification
of any critical habitat. EPA prepared a Biological Assessment (BA) to
assess the potential effects of designating the two Siuslaw River Sites
on aquatic and wildlife species and submitted that BA to the NMFS and
USFWS in July, 2009. Subsequent to preparation of the BA, EPA prepared
an addendum to the BA, which was submitted in December, 2009. EPA found
that site designation does not have a direct impact on any of the
identified ESA species but also found that indirect impacts associated
with reasonably foreseeable future disposal activities had to be
considered. These indirect impacts included a short-term increase in
suspended solids and turbidity in the water column when dredged
material was disposed at the new Sites and an accumulation of material
on the ocean floor when material was disposed at the Sites. EPA
concluded that while its action may affect ESA-listed species, the
action would not be likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species or
critical habitat. EPA will not take final action on the proposed Sites
until consultation under the ESA is complete.

e. NHPA

    EPA initiated consultation with the State of Oregon's Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) on November 24, 2009, to address the
National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470 to
470a-2, which requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect
of their actions on districts, sites, buildings, structures, or
objects, included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National
Register. EPA determined that no historic properties were affected, or
would be affected, by designation of the Sites. EPA did not find any
historic properties within the geographic area of the Sites. This
determination was based on an extensive review of the National Register
of Historic Districts in Oregon, the Oregon National Register list and
an assessment of cultural resources near the Sites. EPA will not take
final action on the proposed Sites until the coordination with the SHPO
is complete.

4. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This rule proposes the designation of two ocean dredged material
disposal sites pursuant to Section 102 of the MPRSA. This proposed
action complies with applicable executive orders and statutory
provisions as follows:

a. Executive Order 12866

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and is therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order. We
welcome comments on the assessment of this EO.

b. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501, et seq., because this rule does not establish or modify any
information or recordkeeping requirements for the regulated community.

c. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires Federal
agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule
subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities,
small entity is defined as: (1) A small business defined by the Small
Business Administration's size regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district, or special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. EPA determined that this proposed action will
not have a significant economic impact on small entities because the
proposed rule will only have the effect of regulating the location of
sites to be used for the disposal of dredged material in ocean waters.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule, I certify
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed action contains no Federal mandates under the
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of
1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531 to 1538, for State, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector. This action imposes no new enforceable duty on any
State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore,
this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205
of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small government entities.
Those entities are already subject to existing permitting requirements
for the disposal of dredged material in ocean waters.

e. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed action does not have federalism implications. 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 various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and
State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this
proposed action from State and local officials.

f. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This proposed action does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175 because the designation of the two
ocean dredged material disposal Sites will not have a direct effect on
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. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action. Although Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this proposed action EPA consulted with tribal
officials in the development of this action, particularly as the action
relates to potential impacts to historic or cultural resources. EPA
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from
tribal officials.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885) as applying only
to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such
that the analysis required under Section 5-501 of the Executive Order
has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed action is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an
environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. The
proposed action concerns the designation of two ocean dredged material
disposal Sites and only has the effect of providing designated
locations to use for ocean disposal of dredged material pursuant to
Section 102(c) of the MPRSA. We welcome comments on this proposed
action related to this Executive Order.

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

    This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355) because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined under Executive Order
12866. We welcome comments on this proposed action related to this
Executive Order.

i. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272),
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed action
includes environmental monitoring and measurement as described in EPA's
proposed SMMP. EPA will not require the use of specific, prescribed
analytic methods for monitoring and managing the designated Sites. The
Agency plans to allow the use of any method, whether it constitutes a
voluntary consensus standard or not, that meets the monitoring and
measurement criteria discussed in the proposed SMMP. EPA welcomes
comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically,
invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary
consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in
this proposed action.

j. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) establishes federal executive
policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States. EPA determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. EPA has assessed the overall protectiveness of designating
the disposal Sites against the criteria established pursuant to the
MPRSA to ensure that any adverse impact to the environment will be
mitigated to the greatest extent practicable. We welcome comments on
this proposed action related to this Executive Order.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

    Environmental protection, Water pollution control.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of Section
102 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as
amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401, 1411, 1412.

    Dated: January 25, 2010.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend
chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Register as follows:

PART 228--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 228 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.

    2. Section 228.15 is amended by adding paragraph (n)(14) to read as
follows:

Sec.  228.15  Dumping sites designated on a final basis.

* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (14) Siuslaw River, OR--North and South Dredged Material Disposal
Sites.
    (i) North Siuslaw River Site.

(A) Location: 44[deg]01'31.03'' N, 124[deg]10'12.92'' W
    44[deg]01'49.39'' N, 124[deg]10'02.85'' W
    44[deg]01'31.97'' N, 124[deg]09'01.86'' W
    44[deg]01'13.45'' N, 124[deg]09'11.41'' W

    (B) Size: Approximately 1.5 kilometers long and 0.6 kilometers
wide.
    (C) Depth: Ranges from approximately 9 to 35 meters.
    (D) Primary Use: Dredged material.
    (E) Period of Use: Continuing Use.
    (F) Restrictions: (1) Disposal shall be limited to dredged material
determined to be suitable for ocean disposal according to 40 CFR 227.13
from the Siuslaw River navigation channel and adjacent areas;
    (2) Disposal shall be managed by the restrictions and requirements
contained in the currently-approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan
(SMMP);
    (3) Monitoring, as specified in the SMMP, is required.
    (ii) South Siuslaw River Site.

(A) Location: 44[deg]00'46.72'' N, 124[deg]10'26.55'' W
    44[deg]01'06.41'' N, 124[deg]10'24.45'' W
    44[deg]01'04.12'' N, 124[deg]09'43.52'' W
    44[deg]00'44.45'' N, 124[deg]09'45.63'' W

    (B) Size: Approximately 0.9 kilometers long and 0.6 kilometers
wide.
    (C) Depth: Ranges from approximately 24 to 38 meters.
    (D) Primary Use: Dredged material.
    (E) Period of Use: Continuing Use.
    (F) Restrictions: (1) Disposal shall be limited to dredged material
determined to be suitable for ocean disposal according to 40 CFR
227.13, from the Siuslaw River navigation channel and adjacent areas;
    (2) Disposal shall be managed by the restrictions and requirements
contained in the currently-approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan
(SMMP);
    (3) Monitoring, as specified in the SMMP, is required.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-2395 Filed 2-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Note:	This template was developed by EPA to provide guidance to EPA staff and managers who will be preparing the Tier 2 test Orders that will be issued under the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), as well as for the recipients of the Orders. This template is not a rule or regulation, nor does it create or confer legal rights or impose any legally binding requirements on EPA or any party.  In preparing a final Order, EPA may depart from the guidance presented in this template where circumstances warrant and without prior notice. Orders will be generated individually for each chemical and each Order recipient. EPA will insert the information in blue type and brackets when the Order is generated.
                              As of June 25, 2015
E-Mailed  -  Confirmation of Receipt Required
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary Information About this Order and the Order Recipient
Order/DCI #:	[Insert sequential number as assigned by the system.]
Chemical Common Name:	[Insert chemical name.]
Pesticide Chemical code#:	[Insert pesticide chemical code.]
CAS (Chemical Abstracts Service) #:	[Insert CAS #]
Company Name:	[Insert name.]
Company #(s):	[Insert number assigned to identify the company in the system.]
Company Address:	[Insert address where Order will be directed.]
Company Contact Person:	[Insert the name of the contact person.]
Date Issued:	[Insert the issuance date.]
Due Date for Initial Response:	[Insert date, calculated as 90 calendar days from issuance plus 10 calendar days for final processing and receipt (i.e., total 100 calendar days from issuance).]
Due Date for Consortia Documentation:	[Insert date, calculated as 150 calendar days from issuance plus 10 calendar days for final processing and mailing
(i.e., total 160 calendar days from issuance).]
Due Date for Progress Report:	[Insert date, calculated as 12 months from issuance.]
Required Tier 2 Studies and Due Dates (below):
☐
1. Japanese Quail Two-Generation Toxicity Test (890.2100)
[Insert date, calculated as 24 months from issuance or Not Required as applicable].
☐
2.    Medaka Extended One-Generation Reproduction Test (890.2200)
   [Insert date, calculated as 24 months from issuance or Not Required as applicable].
☐
3. Larval Amphibian Growth and Development Test (890.2300)
[Insert date, calculated as 24 months from issuance or Not Required as applicable].
☐
4. Reproduction and Fertility Effects (870.3800)
   [Insert date, calculated as 48 months from issuance or Not Required as applicable].
EPA Contact:	[Insert name of the Chemical Review Manager (first name last name).]
EPA Contact Phone Number:	[Insert Area Code, Phone No.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Contact E-Mail Address:	[Insert Chemical Review Manager E-Mail.]
Dear Sir or Madam:
This Order requires you and other manufacturers and importers of the chemical named above to submit certain data or otherwise respond as noted herein to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, the Agency). This chemical is identified as an "other ingredient" in a pesticide product(s) (also referred to as an inert ingredient). These data are required by section 408(p)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ("FFDCA"), which mandates that all pesticide chemicals, including inert ingredients, be tested under the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). [21 U.S.C. 346a (p)(3),(5)].

If you do not respond to this Order, or if you fail to otherwise comply with its requirements, you will be subject to fines in accordance with section 16 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) [15 U.S.C. 2601].
Introduction
This Order is issued pursuant to sections 408(p)(3) and (5) of the FFDCA [21 U.S.C. 346a(p)(3), (5)].  FFDCA section 201(q)(1) defines "pesticide chemical" as "any substance that is a pesticide within the meaning of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, including all active and inert ingredients of such pesticide" [21 U.S.C. 231(q)(1)].
To facilitate the formation of consortia to develop the data required by this Order, and to the extent that the information is not protected as confidential business information, we have provided each Order recipient with a list of the other recipients of an Order for this chemical.  (See Attachment A).  EPA intends to announce the issuance of this Order and the availability of a list of all Order recipients for this chemical in the Federal Register.  The list of Order recipients for this chemical will be publicly available on the Agency's Web site, along with the status of the Orders, including recipients' responses.  EPA intends to update this information with subsequent publication(s) and posting(s) as appropriate.  You are encouraged to join a consortium and can check on the status of responses from the other Order recipients for this chemical on the Web site.
If you have previously claimed your identity in relation to this chemical as CBI (confidential business information), you will, however, notice that your company is included on the list only as "Company X."  So that other Order recipients can identify and contact you to collaborate on responding to this Order, EPA recommends that you either declassify your identity information so that it can be made publicly available, or you identify an agent who will act on your behalf in all matters relating to this Order.  If you choose to designate an agent, EPA will make the name of the agent (instead of the company) public by including it on the list of recipients of FFDCA section 408(p) Orders under the EDSP.
The information collection requirements described in this document have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.  The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA is identified under EPA ICR No. 2249.01, and OMB Control No. 2070-####.  The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to range between 204 and 8,148 hours, depending on the respondent category and activities, with an estimated cost between 17,783 and 557, 218.
Section I.  The Authority for this Order
FFDCA section 408(p)(1) requires the EPA "to develop a screening program, using appropriate validated test systems and other scientifically relevant information to determine whether certain substances may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or such other effects as [EPA] may designate" [21 U.S.C. 346a(p)]. Section 408(p)(3) specifically requires that the EPA "shall provide for the testing of all pesticide chemicals." [21 U.S.C. 346a(p)(3)].
Section 201 of the FFDCA defines "pesticide chemical" as "any substance that is a pesticide within the meaning of [FIFRA], including all active and inert ingredients of such pesticide." [21 U.S.C. 231(q)(1).]
Section 408(p)(5) of the FFDCA provides that the Administrator shall issue an Order to a registrant of a substance for which testing is required under this subsection, or to a person who manufactures or imports a substance for which testing is required under this subsection, to conduct testing in accordance with the screening program, and submit information obtained from the testing to the Administrator, within a reasonable time period that the Administrator determines is sufficient for the generation of the information.
Section II.  Why You are Receiving this Order
You are receiving this Order because you have previously received and fulfilled a Tier 1 screening Order and for which, based on those data, the Agency determined Tier 2 testing is required as such, pursuant to section 408(p)(3) of the FFDCA, you are subject to this Order.
Section III.  Data Required by this Order
This Order identifies the Tier 2 testing required to be conducted for the chemical named on the first page of this Order. The purpose of the EDSP is to provide information that will allow the Agency to evaluate the risks associated with the use of a chemical and take appropriate steps to mitigate any risks of concern. The necessary information includes identifying any adverse effects that might result from the interaction of a substance with the endocrine system and establishing a dose-response curve. Specifically, the purpose of Tier 2 testing, which consists of a group of individual in vivo tests designed to include males and females with an intact hypothalamic- pituitary-gonadal axis, multiple pathways of exposure and life-stages, and various taxa, to further identify and characterize chemical-induced interactions with estrogen, androgen and thyroid hormones for risk assessment. Tier 2 testing is designed to identify any adverse endocrine-related effects caused by the substance, and establish a quantitative relationship between the dose and that endocrine effect for risk assessment to inform regulatory decisions. The fact that a substance is identified for Tier 2 testing does not mean that when the substance is used, it will cause adverse effects in humans or ecological systems.
III.A.  Data Required  -  The Tier 2 Tests
The following is a list of Tier 2 tests of which some or all maybe required for submission to the Agency in response to this Order (see page 1of this Order for the specific tests you are required to conduct):
1. OCSPP Guideline 890.2100, Japanese Quail Two-Generation Toxicity Test
This test guideline is designed to provide concentration-response information concerning the adverse effects of a test substance delivered via dietary exposures on avian reproductive and thyroid function, including gonadal function, mating behavior, secondary sex characteristics, reproductive output, fertility, hatchability, biochemical responses, histopathology of several tissues, and growth and development relevant to all life stages of the first and second generations.
2. OCSPP Guideline 890.2200, Larval Amphibian Growth and Development Test
This test guideline is designed to provide concentration-response information concerning the adverse effects from aqueous exposures of a test substance in amphibians on larval development and metamorphosis, and juvenile growth and development, including thyroid, gonad and liver.
3. OCSPP Guideline 890.2300, Medaka Extended One-Generation Reproduction Test
This test guideline is designed to provide concentration-response information concerning the adverse effects from aqueous exposures of a test substance in fish on the integrity and performance of male and female reproductive systems, including fecundity, fertility, secondary sex characteristics, biochemical liver responses, histopathology of several tissues and growth and development that are relevant to all life stages, and subsequent generations.
4. OCSPP Guideline 870.3800, Reproduction and Fertility Effects
This test guideline is designed to provide dose-response information to assess the potential for adverse effects from oral exposure of a test substance in rodents on the integrity and performance of male and female reproductive systems, including gonadal function, the estrous cycle, mating behavior, conception, gestation, parturition, lactation, weaning, and growth and development that are relevant to adults and offspring of the first and second generations in utero and post-partum.
III.B.  Conducting the Tests  -  Tier 2 Testing Protocols
Pursuant to section 408(p)(1) of the FFDCA, testing conducted for the EDSP must be based on "validated test systems and other scientifically relevant information." [21 U.S.C. 346a (p)(1).] "Other scientifically relevant information" (OSRI) is information demonstrating whether substances has/does not have an effect on the functioning of the endocrine system. Other scientifically relevant information may either be functionally equivalent to information obtained e.g., for pesticide registration,  -- or may include data that provide information on a potential consequence or effect that could be due to effects on the estrogen, androgen or thyroid systems. See also the discussion in Section IV of this Order.
The Tier 2 tests identified in Section III.A of this Order must be conducted using the test guidelines that have been validated and made available for use by the Order recipients that are completing the testing to generate new data to respond to this Order.  All of the applicable testing guidelines have been validated and are available on the Agency's Web site at:  http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/home/guidelin.htm, or, http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/home/testmeth.htm.
If you choose to generate the data to respond to this Order, you may not deviate from an approved testing protocol unless you first consult with the Agency and obtain Agency approval of any deviation. If you wish to use a protocol that differs from those attached to this Order, you must submit a detailed description of the proposed protocol (including a precise description of any deviations from the protocol identified in this Order) and your reason(s) for wishing to use it. Because section 408(p)(1) of the FFDCA requires that the screening be conducted with validated tests, in Order for EPA to approve the use of your proposed protocol, you must demonstrate that the protocol has been scientifically validated or the deviation is such that the final study is nonetheless properly considered to have been scientifically validated. If the Agency rejects your protocol you will be notified in writing. Moreover, you should be aware that rejection of a proposed protocol will not be a basis for extending the deadline for submission of data.
If you choose to cite or submit existing data, including other OSRI, you must indicate whether the information provided follows an accepted scientific methodology or protocol, including but not limited to those presented in EPA's harmonized test guideline compendium, and provide a cogent and complete rationale for why you believe the information is sufficient to satisfy part or all of this Order. EPA's decisions about whether the information satisfies part or all of the Tier 2 Order will be based on the weight of evidence from all relevant information available to the Agency. See the instructions for submitting your response, which appear in Section IV of this Order.
You must also adhere to the good laboratory practice (GLP) standards described in 40 CFR part 160 and 40 CFR part 792, which require you to follow certain practices when conducting studies, and when you submit data to EPA you must provide a GLP compliance statement indicating a) that the data were generated using GLPs; b) describe in detail "all differences" between the GLPs and the practices used; or c) confirm that you did not sponsor or conduct the study and do not therefore know whether the study was conducted in accordance with the GLPs.
III.C.  Generating the Data  -  Applicable Timeframes
You are required to submit the data or otherwise satisfy the data requirements specified in this Order and submit the data to EPA on the dates indicated on first page of this Order. The Agency set this due date after considering the amount of time one might reasonably expect is needed to complete each test, including the planning activities before beginning the test, actual performance of the test, analyzing test results, and completing the final study report for that test (see Table 1). EPA also included several months for overall planning, and several months after the last test is completed to allow ample time for the Order recipients to prepare the final report for submission to EPA.
Table 1  -  Estimated Timeframes for Completing the Individual Tests and Reports
OCSPP Guideline #
OCSPP Guideline Test
Timeframes (months)
                                   890.2100
Japanese Quail Two-Generation Toxicity Test
                                      24
                                   890.2200
Medaka Extended One-Generation Reproduction Test
                                      24
                                   890.2300
Larval Amphibian Growth and Development Test
                                      24
                                   870.3800
Reproduction and Fertility Effects[1]
                                      48
[1]Test guidelines 1) OECD TG 416 (Two-Generation Reproduction Toxicity Study), or
2) OECD TG 443 (Extended One-Generation Reproductive Toxicity Study) are acceptable alternative tests.
There is no set sequence for completing these tests, and the due date for submitting the final report to EPA provides you with ample flexibility for Order recipients to join forces and complete this battery within the timeframe provided. Order recipients may also submit data before the due date.
Section IV.  Responding to the Order
You must respond to this Order within the timeframes established pursuant to Section IV.A. of this Order, and the specific applicable dates as identified on page 1 of this Order.  If you do not respond to this Order, or if you fail to otherwise comply with its requirements, you will be subject to fines in accordance with section 16 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) [15 U.S.C. 2601].
To comply with this Order, you are expected to engage in the following activities:
      (1)  Read this Order.
      (2)  Determine and plan activities necessary to respond to the order.
      (3)  Submit an Initial Response Form to EPA, identifying the response option you intend to use.  See Section IV.B. of this Order.
      (4)  If you decide to generate the data, Read and, if applicable, discuss the protocols.  See Section III.B. of this Order.
      (5)  Submit a Progress Report.  See Section VI. of this Order.
      (6)  Generate the data.
      (7)  Compile and review the data for submission.  See Section V. of this Order.
      (8)  Complete paperwork to assemble the submission package.  See Section V. of this Order.
      (9)  Submit Final Report/Data to EPA.  See Section V. of this Order.
      (10)  Maintain records.  See Section VII. of this Order.

IV.A.  Schedule for Responding to the Order
Your schedule for responding may vary based on the response options discussed in more detail in the next Section of this Order. Please note that in calculating the due date for the Initial Response, the Agency has included an additional 10 calendar days to account for processing the Order should electronic (email) delivery and confirmation of receipt of the Order fail, such that, the Agency must rely on paper issuance and delivery by the post office. Your basic schedule is summarized on the first page of this Order and is based on the timeframes identified in Table 2, below:
Table 2  -  Basis for Establishing the Due Dates in this Order
Timeframes for Due Dates
What is Due
Within 90 calendar days of the Order's issuance (plus 10 calendar days for processing)
Individual recipient's initial response
Within 150 calendar days of the Order's issuance (plus 10 calendar days for processing)
Consortia documentation and consortia's Initial Response
Within 12 months from Order's issuance
A progress report describing the status of an Order Recipient's compliance with the Order
Within 24 to 48 months from Order's issuance date depending on the studies required (see page 1of this Order for the specific tests you are required to conduct)
Final study report and submission of the data to EPA

In general, the Agency will not consider any requests for extending the deadlines for the Initial Response or progress report. However, the Agency will consider extending the final report due date when circumstances warrant it. If you cannot submit your final study report to the Agency in the time frame required by this Order, and intend to seek additional time, you must submit a time extension request to the Agency before the applicable deadline using the procedures described in Section V. of this Order. Your request must occur before the applicable deadline and include: (1) a detailed description of the expected difficulty; and (2) a proposed submission schedule including alternative dates for meeting the requirements of this Order on a step-by-step basis. In your description, you must explain any technical or laboratory difficulties and provide related documentation from the laboratory performing the testing. While EPA is considering your request, the original deadline will remain in effect. The Agency will respond to your request in writing. If EPA does not grant your request, the original deadline stands. Generally, extensions should be requested only in cases of extraordinary testing difficulties beyond the expectation or control of the registrant. Extensions will not be considered if the request is not made in a timely fashion or in accordance with the instructions provided in this Order. Under no circumstances will a time extension request be considered on or after the study due date. The status of all Orders including time extensions are available on our website at www.epa.gov/endo.
IV.B.  Options for Responding to the Order
You have several options for responding to this Order. To report your commitment to act in response to this Order, you must submit an Initial Response to EPA within 90 days of the issuance of this Order. See Section V. of this Order for submission procedures. You have several potential response actions from which to choose, each response option involves specific procedures that you must follow if you choose that response option:
Option 1:  Generate Data
If you choose to individually generate new data for each test specified in this Order, you must comply with the procedures prescribed in this Order. All data generated and submitted must comply with the Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) set out in FIFRA in 40 CFR part 160. The tests must be conducted according to guidelines identified in Section III.B. of this Order. In submitting the data, you must follow the new procedures described in Section V. of this Order.
Option 2:  Submit or Cite Existing Data
If you choose to submit or cite an existing study in response to this Order (including data previously submitted to the Agency and/or OSRI), your Initial Response must include either the study data or a reference to the data for each test that is required, along with a rationale that explains how the study you cited or submitted satisfies part or all of this Order. Existing studies are studies that predate issuance of this Order. In Order to be accepted in satisfaction of the requirements imposed in this Order, the Agency expects that any such hazard-related data would be of high quality and achieves the objective of Tier 2 testing to provide reasonable assurance that a chemical does or does not result in adverse endocrine related effects. EPA's decisions about whether the data cited or submitted satisfies part or all of the Tier 2 Test Order will be based on an evaluation of all relevant information available to the Agency.
The submitted or cited study must have been conducted in accordance with accepted scientific methodology or protocol, including but not limited to those presented in EPA's harmonized test guideline compendium. Deviations from the protocols validated for the Tier 2 tests, must be identified, along with an explanation for the deviations, including an explanation as to why, notwithstanding the deviations, the protocol used should still be considered as providing an accepted scientific methodology or protocol, and any other information you think the Agency should consider in deciding whether to accept the data in satisfaction of this Order.
If EPA has previously reviewed a protocol for a study you are submitting or citing, you must identify any action taken by the Agency on the protocol and must indicate the manner in which all Agency comments, concerns or issues were addressed in the final protocol and study.
If you choose to cite a study that has been previously submitted to EPA, that study must have been previously classified by EPA as acceptable (i.e., the study was not rejected by the Agency for any reason related to completeness or quality) or it must be a study which has not yet been reviewed by the Agency. With respect to any studies for which you wish to select this option you must provide EPA with a copy of the title page along with the identification number of the study you are citing (Master Record Identification [MRID] number), and, if the study has been reviewed by the Agency, you must provide the Agency's classification of the study. Do not resubmit a study that has previously been submitted to EPA for another purpose.
EPA will review any existing study submitted or cited in response to this Order to determine whether the study is acceptable and whether the study satisfies the requirements of this Order. The Agency will notify you in writing of its determination. If the Agency determines that the study is acceptable, the EDSP Tier 2 Testing, Initial Response Form for Individual Order Recipients is the only response you are required to complete to satisfy this Order and EPA will notify you in writing that the Order is satisfied. If, however, EPA determines that the study is not acceptable, you must still satisfy the requirements of this Order. You should be aware that if the Agency determines that the study is not acceptable, the Agency will require you to comply with this Order, normally without an extension of the required due date for submission of the data. The Agency may determine at any time that a study is not valid and needs to be repeated.
If you are citing a study of which you are not the original data submitter, you may need to submit an offer to pay compensation to the original data submitter. Consequently, you should simultaneously include an offer to pay [in accordance with 40 CFR 152.93] [which includes an offer to resolve any dispute over the recipients' shares of the test costs by submitting the dispute to a neutral third party with authority to bind the parties (e.g., through binding arbitration or through a state or federal court action)], unless you have received confirmation from EPA that no such compensation is necessary.
Option 3:  Form a Consortium/Task Force or Offer to Join a Consortium/Task Force
If you choose to form a task force or consortium to share in the cost of producing the required data, all participants of the task force or consortium must submit their own EDSP Tier 2 Testing, Initial Response Form for Individual Order Recipients providing the name of the party who will be submitting the data on your behalf.
The designated lead for the task force or consortium must complete the EDSP Tier 2 Testing, Initial Response Form for Consortium/Task Force (Attachment C) to provide the primary contact for the task force or consortium, the list of participants, and an indication of the task force or consortium's planned response for each test, along with documentation of its formation (such as a copy of the joint agreement or a written statement by all the parties that an agreement exists). The joint agreement to produce the data need not specify all of the terms of the final arrangement between the parties or the mechanism to resolve the terms. The designated lead for the task force or consortium must follow the submission instructions in Section V.D. of this Order to submit the EDSP Tier 2 Testing, Initial Response Form for Consortium/Task Force and accompanying information to the EPA by the due date for the consortium response that is indicated on the first page of this Order.
Once the task force or consortium submits the data and the EPA has completed its initial review to accept the data in satisfaction of this Order, the EPA will provide written notification to the contact for the task force or consortium that this Order has been satisfied, which in turn will close out the Orders for each of the participants in the consortium/task force.
If you are unable to join a task force or consortium, you must provide the EPA with documentary evidence that you made a reasonable offer to join or share in the testing costs. Such evidence may be: (1) your letter offering to join in an agreement, or (2) your letter that contains a legally binding offer to join in an agreement and provide a reasonable share of the test costs, and that includes a reasonable process for resolving any disputes of the appropriate share of the test costs.
If the task force or consortium fails to submit the data or meet the requirements of the Order in a timely and adequate manner, you will normally be subject to penalties of up to $37,500 per day, unless you commit to submit, and do submit, the required data by the dates specified in this Order. In such cases, the Agency will generally not grant time extensions for the submission of data. Thus, if you agree to jointly submit the data, each Order recipient is still subject to penalties of up to $37,500 per day, unless some party with whom you are in agreement makes a commitment to generate the data and submits the data in accordance with the deadlines and all other requirements set forth in this Order.
The Agency has provided a list of the other manufacturers and/or importers, to the extent permitted by confidentiality requirements that have received an EDSP Order for this chemical. (Attachment A).  This list is intended to help order recipients identify other companies with whom they could form agreements to develop data jointly, or otherwise collaborate on a response to satisfy the requirements in this Order.Option 4:  Claim Not Subject to the Order
You may claim that you are not subject to this Order if you do not manufacture or import the chemical and/or you are not a pesticide registrant of the chemical identified on the first page of this Order or you believe the Order was otherwise sent to you in error. An explanation of the basis for the claim, along with appropriate information to substantiate that claim, must accompany your Initial Response so that the EPA can evaluate the claim. The Agency intends to make a determination and respond to your request in writing within 90 days of receipt. If the EPA cannot verify your claim, the original requirements and deadlines in this Order remain. If your claim is verified, EPA will consider the Order satisfied and will close out the Order.
Option 5:  Discontinue the Manufacture or Import of the Chemical
If you have already, or otherwise are in the process of discontinuing the manufacture or import of this chemical, you may satisfy the Order by submitting documentation to this effect with your Initial Response.  If EPA cannot verify your claim, the original requirements and deadlines in this Order remain.  If your claim is verified, EPA will consider your response to be satisfaction of the Order and will close out the Order.
Option 6:  Stop Sales into the Pesticide Market
You may commit not to sell the chemical for use in the pesticide market.  As part of your Initial Response, you must document your commitment that on or before a date six months after the issuance of the test Order, all sale and distribution of the pesticide inert ingredient that is the subject of this Order to any person who you know, or reasonably should know, intends to use the substance in the formulation of a pesticide product.  In addition, you must certify that you will include in all contracts for sale or distribution of the material, a provision that contractually prohibits the purchaser of your chemical from using the substance in the formulation of a pesticide product.  As part of your Initial Response, you must provide a copy of the contract provision and your commitment to include this contractual provision in any contracts entered into on or after a date six months after the issuance of this Order.   If you choose this option, the Initial Response Form, with supporting information, is the only response you are required to complete under this Order.
If you do not fulfill the commitments made in your Initial Response, you will be subject to enforcement action for failing to comply with the FFDCA section 408(p) Order, in accordance with section 408(p)(5)(D).  Having failed to perform the actions necessary for this response option, you will be obliged to immediately comply with the Order -- i.e., to provide the data, within the time frame that had originally been required by the Order.  In addition, you may be subject to potential penalties, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1001, for willfully making any false or misleading statements to the Federal government.
The Agency intends to make a determination on your claim and respond to you in writing within 90 days of receipt.  If EPA cannot verify your claim, the original requirements and deadlines in this Order remain.  If your claim is verified, EPA will consider your response to be satisfaction of the Order and will close out this Order.
IV.C.  Procedures for Challenging this Order
If you wish to challenge the validity of any of the provisions of this Order, including the requirement to conduct any test or use the specific test protocols required by this Order, you must submit to the Agency a detailed explanation of the basis for your challenge that provides sufficient information for the Agency to evaluate the issue. The Agency intends to respond to your request in writing within 90 days of receipt. While the EPA is considering your submission, the original deadline remains.
IV.D.  Procedures for Cost Sharing
Cost sharing is the process by which two or more recipients of an EDSP Order contribute to the generation of data (or the compensation for existing data). Contributions may be in cash or in kind and apportionment of costs is subject to negotiation between the participants. The EPA encourages all recipients of an Order for a particular substance to jointly submit data and share data generation costs. All other parties who are also subject to this Order are listed in Enclosure A, unless that information is protected as CBI, and will be made publicly available on the Agency's Web site.
The EPA has not established specific coordination procedures by which you must collectively generate data. You may therefore determine the procedures that are best suited to your individual circumstances, and the most acceptable approach to identifying and sharing test costs.
If you are aware of another manufacturer of the chemical listed on the first page of this Order who is not listed on Enclosure A, and you provide the EPA with this information, and the EPA intends to send that manufacturer or importer an Order for this chemical within 90 days of your notification.
IV.E.  Procedures for Data Protection
If (a) a tolerance/tolerance exemption has been established for your chemical, (b) an application for a tolerance/tolerance exemption is pending; or (c) you have partnered with pesticide registrants (either technical or end-use), or otherwise joined a consortium with a pesticide registrant, the EPA considers such data to be subject to the requirements of FIFRA section 10. All other confidential business information submitted in response to a 408(p) Order (i.e., data not in support of a registration or tolerance/tolerance exemption) is subject to the Trade Secrets Act [18 U.S.C. 1905].
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires agencies to make information available to the public upon request, except for information that is "specifically made confidential by other statutes" or data that are "trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and is privileged or confidential" [5 U.S.C. 552]. Any information that you wish to have the EPA protect as CBI should be clearly identified as such. Note that substantive criteria must be met to support a claim for CBI, as specified in 40 CFR 2.208.
Section V.  Procedures for Submitting Data to the Agency
You must submit all correspondence related to this Order to EPA (including your initial response, the initial response from the consortium, progress reports, the final report, etc.) in accordance with the instructions provided on our website:  http://www.epa.gov/endo.
V.A.  Format for Submissions
The EPA will develop standard data evaluation formats, referred to as Study Profile Templates (SPTs), and Data Entry Spreadsheet Templates (DESTs) and Standard Evaluation Procedures (SEPs) to assist registrants in their submissions. These templates describe the layout and scope of information that should be contained within a study profile and can serve as guides for preparation of study documents. Use of the templates improves the likelihood of a successful submission, since the information necessary for an efficient Agency review is outlined and the submissions of these templates should be in a format that can be manipulated (i.e., Microsoft Word and Excel, or similar formats). Additional details about these templates are available at:  http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/studyprofile_templates/.
In addition, Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 2011-3, entitled, Standard Format for Data Submitted Under FIFRA and Certain Provisions of FFDCA, describes the EPA's preferred method for organizing and formatting submittals of data supporting a pesticide registration.
V.B.  Transmittal Documents
In Order for the EPA to effectively track the compliance of each Order recipient, each submission in satisfaction of an Order issued under FFDCA section 408(p) must be accompanied by a transmittal document that includes the following information:
   * Identity of the submitter.
   * The date on which the submission package was prepared for transmittal to the EPA.
   * The Order number identified on the first page of this Order.
   * A list of the individual documents included in the submission.
V.C.  Submitting Individual Study or Test Result Documents
Unless otherwise specified by the Agency, each submission must be in the form of individual documents or studies. Do not resubmit any documents that you previously submitted to the EPA. Instead, in your EDSP Tier 2 Testing, Initial Response Form for Individual Order Recipients that you submit, please provide a citation or reference to the previously submitted documents with sufficient information to allow the Agency to identify the previously submitted document.
Each study or document submitted to the EPA must include the following:
   i. A title page including the following information:
      * The Order number identified on the first page of this Order.
      * The title of the study, including identification of the substance(s) tested and the test name or data requirement addressed.
      * The author(s) of the study.
      * The date the study was completed.
      * If the study was performed in a laboratory, the name and address of the laboratory, project numbers or other identifying codes.
      * If the study is a commentary on or supplement to another previously submitted study, full identification of the other study with which it should be associated in review.
      * If the study is a reprint of a published document, all relevant facts of publication, such as the journal title, volume, issue, inclusive page numbers, and date of publication.
   ii. Upon submission to the EPA, each document must be accompanied by a signed and dated document containing the appropriate statement(s) regarding any data confidentiality claims as described in PR-Notice 11-3.
   iii. A statement of compliance or non-compliance with respect to GLP standards as required in 40 CFR part 160, as applicable.
   iv. A complete and accurate English translation must be included for any information that is not in English.
V.D Transmittal Instructions
For instructions on submitting your information electronically or on paper, please see our instructions at:  http://www.epa.gov/endo/pubs/toresources/index.htm#submit.
Section VI.  Submit a Progress Report
Unless the EPA has notified you in writing that the requirements of this Order have been satisfied, you must submit a progress report to the EPA 12 months after the issuance of this Order (the specific due date for you is identified on the first page of this Order). Your progress report should provide a brief description of the status of your planned activities for each test, and, if applicable, a description of any problems encountered or expected difficulties in meeting the schedule for complying with the Order. See Section V for submission instructions.
Section VII.  Recordkeeping Requirements
You must retain copies of the generation of the data and other information documenting your compliance with this Order.  This includes all test reports submitted to the Agency in support of a registration or in support of a tolerance petition, all underlying raw data, and interpretations and evaluations thereof (see 40 CFR part 169).  These records shall be retained as long as the inert ingredient is contained in a pesticide product with a valid registration and the producer is in business, and be made available to EPA or its agent for inspection.
Section VIII.  Consequences of Failure to Comply with this Order
Failure to comply with any of the requirements in this Order renders you liable for the penalties and sanctions of up to $37,000 per violation.  Each day that the violation continues constitutes a separate violation.  Any person who knowingly or willfully violates this Order shall (either in addition to or in lieu of) be subject to a fine of not more than $37,000 per day of violation, or to imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. [21 U.S.C. §346a(p)(5)(D), citing 15 U.S.C. §2615]
Before such penalties are assessed, you will be entitled to an administrative hearing held on the record in accordance with section 554 of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).  15 U.S.C. §2615(a)(1)-(2)(A).  Before issuing a final penalty order, EPA must provide notice of its intention to assess the penalty, including a draft of the final penalty order, and provide you with the opportunity to request a hearing within 15 days of the date the notice has been received.  15 U.S.C. §2615(a)(2)(A).  See also, 40 C.F.R. §§ 22.13-22.14.
If a hearing is requested, the only matters for resolution at the hearing shall be the following:  (1) whether you have failed to comply with an Order issued under FFDCA section 408(p)(5)(A), (2) the circumstances of  the violation; (3) the extent and gravity of the violation(s); (4) your ability to pay; (5) the effect on your ability to continue to do business; (6) any history of prior violations; and (7) the degree of culpability [15 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2)(B)].  In this hearing, you may not raise any challenge to the validity of this Order, or any test required by this Order.
Section IX.  Additional Information
Additional information and details about the EDSP may be found on the Agency's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/endo.
If you have any questions about the requirements and procedures established in this Order, please contact the Chemical Review Manager listed on the first page of this document.
Section X.  Conclusion
Under the authority in FFDCA section 408(p) [21 U.S.C. 346a(p)],  the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hereby issues this Order to take effect on the date of my signature.
Signature:	________________________________________	__________________
[Insert Name], Director	Date
Pesticide Re-evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs Program
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Attachments
Attachment A  -  List of EDSP Tier 2 Testing Order recipients for this chemical
Attachment B  -  EDSP Tier 2 Testing, Initial Response Form for Individual Order Recipients,
                          EPA Form No. ####-##
Attachment C  -  EDSP Tier 2 Testing, Initial Response Form for Consortia/Task Forces,
                          EPA Form No. ####-##-C


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25894-25895]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10294]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2006-0028]

MET Laboratories, Inc.; Application for Expansion of Recognition

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the application of MET
Laboratories, Inc., for expansion of its recognition as a Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) under 29 CFR 1910.7, and presents
the Agency's preliminary finding to grant the application.

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before May 21, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of the following methods:
    1. Electronically: Submit comments and attachments electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Follow the instructions online for making electronic submissions.
    2. Facsimile: If submissions, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, commenters may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202) 693-1648.
    3. Regular or express mail, hand delivery, or messenger (courier)
service: Submit comments, requests, and any attachments to the OSHA
Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2006-0028, Technical Data Center, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-2625,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY number: (877) 889-
5627). Note that security procedures may result in significant delays
in receiving comments and other written materials by regular mail.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security
procedures concerning delivery of materials by express delivery, hand
delivery, or messenger service. The hours of operation for the OSHA
Docket Office are 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t.
    4. Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
the OSHA docket number (OSHA-2006-0028). OSHA places comments and other
materials, including any personal information, in the public docket
without revision, and these materials may be available online at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the Agency cautions commenters about
submitting statements they do not want made available to the public, or
submitting comments that contain personal information (either about
themselves or others) such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, and
medical data.
    5. Docket: To read or download submissions or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g.,
copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download
through the Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material,
are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in locating docket
submissions.
    6. Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before May 21, 2014 to the Office of Technical
Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of Technical Support
and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210, or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW., Room N-3647, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. David W. Johnson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210; phone:
(202) 693-2110 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of the Application for Expansion

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is providing
notice that MET Laboratories, Inc. (MET), is applying for expansion of
its current recognition as an NRTL. MET requests the addition of one
test standard to its NRTL scope of recognition.

    OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified in Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations,
Section 1910.7 (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that
the organization can perform independent safety testing and
certification of the specific products covered within its scope of
recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes the type of
products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable
test standard; and the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical
capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification
activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is
not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition
enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA
standards that require product testing and certification.
    The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial
recognition, and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition,
following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix
requires that the Agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides its preliminary finding. In the second notice,
the Agency provides its final decision on the application. These
notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of
that scope. OSHA maintains an informational Web page for each NRTL,
including MET, which details the NRTL's scope of recognition. These
pages are available from the OSHA Web site at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    MET currently has one facility (site) recognized by OSHA for
product testing and certification, with its headquarters located at:
MET Laboratories, Inc., 914 West Patapsco Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland
21230. A complete list of MET's scope of recognition is available at
http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/met.html.

II. General Background on the Application and Request

    MET submitted an application, dated November 13, 2011 (Exhibit 1),
to expand its recognition to include one additional test standard. OSHA
staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and
reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site
reviews in relation to this application.
    Table 1 below lists appropriate test standards found in MET's
application for expansion for testing and certification of products
under the NRTL Program.

 Table 1--Proposed Appropriate Test Standard for Inclusion in MET's NRTL
                          Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 2202...................................  Electric Vehicle (EV)
                                             Charging System Equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Preliminary Findings on the Application

    MET submitted an acceptable application for expansion of its scope
of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file and pertinent
documentation indicate that MET can meet the requirements prescribed by
29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition to include the addition of
this one test standard for NRTL testing and certification. This
preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary
approval of MET's application and request.
    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether MET meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as an
NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and
exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request
in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit
the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA
will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a
longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not
adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the publicly
available information in MET's application, including pertinent
documents (e.g., exhibits) and all submitted comments, contact the
Docket Office, Room N-2625, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address; these
materials also are available online at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. OSHA-2006-0028.
    OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a
timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these
comments, will recommend to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational
Safety and Health whether to grant MET's application for expansion of
its scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final
decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the
Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in
Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public notice of this
final decision in the Federal Register.

IV. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on April 30, 2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2014-10294 Filed 5-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P