[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5348-5349]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01534]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0012; Airspace Docket No. 19-AWP-86]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Owyhee, NV

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Owyhee Airport,
Owyhee, NV. The establishment of airspace facilitates the airport's
transition from visual flight rules to instrument flight rules (IFR)
operations. The airspace, to the extent possible, contains a new IFR
area navigation (RNAV) approach and IFR departure procedures at the
airport. The first proposed area extends upward from 700 feet above the
surface. The second proposed area extends upward from 1,200 feet above
the surface. This action would ensure the safety and management of IFR
operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone: 1(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA
Docket No. FAA-2020-0012; Airspace Docket No. 19-AWP-86, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr_locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S. 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would establish Class E airspace to support a new RNAV procedure
and IFR departures at Owyhee Airport, Owyhee, NV.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2020-0012;
Airspace Docket No. 19-AWP-86''. The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov//air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours, except federal holidays, at the Northwest Mountain
Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S
216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective
September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at the Owyhee Airport,
Owyhee, NV. The establishment of airspace facilitates the airport's
transition from VFR to IFR operations. Specifically, to the extent
possible, it will contain IFR departures until reaching 1,200 feet
above the surface and IFR arrivals descending below 1,500 feet above
the surface.
    The first proposed airspace area extends upward from 700 feet above
the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the airport, and within 2 miles
each side of the 241[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the
6.5-mile radius to 9.4 miles southwest of the Owyhee Airport.
    The second proposed airspace area extends upward from 1,200 feet
above the surface within a 15-mile radius of the Owyhee Airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA

Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AWP NV E5 Owyhee, NV [New]

Owyhee Airport, NV
    (Lat. 41[deg]57'13'' N, long. 116[deg]10'55'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the airport, and within 2.0 miles each
side of the 241[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the
6.5-mile radius to 9.4 miles southwest of the airport; and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a
15-mile radius of the Owyhee Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on January 23, 2020.
Shawn M. Kozica,
Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center
[FR Doc. 2020-01534 Filed 1-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

July 1, 2009

SUBJECT:	Acetochlor – Acute and Chronic Dietary and Drinking Water
Exposure and Risk Assessments.

PC Code:  121601	DP Barcode: 360868

Decision No.:  400596	Registration No.: 524-496 and 524-LOR

Petition No.:  PP#8F7443, PP8E7448	Regulatory Action:  Section 3

Risk Assessment Type:  Dietary	Case No.:  NA

TXR No.:  NA	CAS No: 34256-82-1

MRID No.:  NA	40 CFR:  180.470

FROM:	Becky Daiss, Biologist

Risk Assessment Branch IV

Health Effects Division (7509P)

THROUGH:	Thurston Morton, Chemist

Dietary Exposure Science Advisory Council (DESAC),

Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO:		James Thomkins, Risk Manager

		Herbicide Branch

		Registration Division (7505P)

This document provides an acute and chronic dietary and drinking water
risk analyses of exposures resulting from use of acetochlor on food
crops for weed control.  This assessment supports a Section 3 requests
for use of acetochlor on cotton and soybean.  Executive Summary

Acute and chronic dietary risk assessments were conducted for acetochlor
using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM-FCID, Version 2.03),
which uses food consumption data from the USDA’s Continuing Surveys of
Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) from 1994-1996 and 1998.  The
analyses were performed to support Section 3 requests for use of
acetochlor on cotton and soybean.

Acute Dietary Exposure Analysis Results and Characterization

A screening level acute dietary exposure analysis was performed for the
general population and all population subgroups.  The acute dietary
analysis assumed tolerance level residues and 100% crop treated for all
commodities.  Experimentally derived processing factors were used for
cereal grain commodities.  Default processing factors were used for all
other commodities.  The acute analysis incorporated the 1 in 10 year
peak surface drinking water estimate from application of acetochlor to
sorghum.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The resulting 95th percentile acute
exposure estimate for infants < 1 year old (the most highly exposed
subgroup) is not of concern to HED (11% acute population adjusted dose
(aPAD)).  The exposure estimate for the U.S. population was 3% of the
aPAD. .

Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis Results and Characterization

A partially refined chronic dietary exposure analysis was performed for
the general U.S. population and various population subgroups.
Anticipated residues from field trial data and 100% crop treated
assumptions for all commodities.    Experimentally derived processing
factors were used for cereal grain commodities.  Default processing
factors were used for all other commodities.  The chronic analysis
incorporated the 10 year average surface drinking water estimate from
application of acetochlor to sorghum.  Chronic dietary risk estimates
are not of concern for general population or other population subgroups.
 The subgroup with the highest risk estimate was infants < 1 year old
with an exposure estimate of 6% of the cPAD.  The general U.S.
population estimated exposure was 2% of the cPAD.

Cancer Dietary Exposure Analysis Results and Characterization

HED has determined that linear quantification of carcinogenic potential
is not required for the mouse tumors.  There are acceptable mode of
action data for the rat tumors (nasal olfactory epithelial tumors and
thyroid follicular cell tumors) which are adequate to support a
non-linear MOE approach for assessment of cancer risk.  The rat nasal
tumors, with a POD of 10 mg/kg/day are the most sensitive effect for
cancer risk.  Quantification of cancer risk is not required since the
chronic RfD of 0.02 mg/kg/day will be protective of both non-cancer and
cancer effects, including rat nasal tumors, thyroid tumors, and mouse
tumors.  As noted above, chronic dietary risks do not exceed HED’s
level of concern.

I.	Introduction

Dietary risk assessment incorporates both exposure and toxicity of a
given pesticide.  For acute and chronic assessments, the risk is
expressed as a percentage of a maximum acceptable dose (i.e., the dose
which HED has concluded will result in no unreasonable adverse health
effects).  This dose is referred to as the population adjusted dose
(PAD).  The PAD is equivalent to the Reference Dose (RfD) divided by the
FQPA Safety Factor.

For acute and non-cancer chronic exposures, HED is concerned when
estimated dietary risk exceeds 100% of the PAD.  References that discuss
the acute and chronic risk assessments in more detail are available on
the EPA/pesticides web site:  “Available Information on Assessing
Exposure from Pesticides, A User’s Guide,” 6/21/2000, web link:
HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/July/Day-12/6061.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA_PEST/2000/July/Day_12/6061.pdf  ; or see
SOP 99.6 (8/20/99).

II.	Residue Information

Residues of Concern

The residues of concern in plants includes parent and any metabolites
containing the ethyl methyl aniline (EMA) or hydroxyethyl methyl aniline
(HEMA) moiety, expressed in acetochlor equivalents.  The residues of
concern in rotational crops are acetochlor, its EMA and HEMA type
metabolites as well as its hydroxymethyl ethyl aniline (HMEA) type
metabolites.  HED has concluded that the tolerance expression for
rotational crops should include only acetochlor and its EMA and HEMA
type metabolites; however the acetochlor HMEA type metabolites should be
included in the risk assessment (M. Flood, MARC Memorandum, 9/30/93).
Table 1 provides a summary of the MARC decisions regarding residues of
concern for acetochlor.

Table 1:  Summary of MARC Decisions for Acetochlor

Matrix	Residues of Concern

	For Risk Assessment 	For Tolerance Expression

Plants	Parent and metabolites containing the EMA

or HEMA or HMEA moiety	Parent and metabolites containing the EMA or HEMA
moiety

Rotational Crops 	Parent and metabolites containing the EMA

or HEMA or HMEA moiety	Parent and metabolites containing the EMA or HEMA
moiety

Drinking Water	Parent Only	NA

Established/Recommended Tolerances

Tolerances for acetochlor are currently established under 40 CFR
§180.470(a) and (d)  Tolerances for acetochlor are expressed in terms
of acetochlor and its metabolites containing the EMA
(2-ethyl-6-methylaniline) and HEMA (2-(1-hydroxyethyl)-6-methylaniline)
moieties.   Tolerances for field corn, pop corn, sweet corn, and sorghum
commodities range from 0.05 ppm to 3.0 ppm.  Tolerances for rotational
crops, nongrass animal feeds, sugar beet root and tops, cereal grain
commodities, peas and beans, potato, soybean commodities, sunflower
seed, and wheat commodities range from 0.1 ppm to 1.0 ppm.  No
tolerances have been established for livestock commodities.  Recommended
tolerances for the proposed new uses are as follows.

Cotton, undelinted seed	0.6 ppm

Cotton, gin byproducts	4.0 ppm

Soybean, seed	1.0 ppm

Soybean, meal	1.2 ppm

The submitted field trial data for all rotational commodities did not
sample for the HMEA metabolite.  However, no quantifiable residues of
acetochlor or HEMA were found in any of the cereal grain, sugar beet, or
potato commodities.  Based on the available rotational crop metabolism
studies conducted on lettuce, radish, and wheat, the EMA producing
metabolites were present at the highest concentrations, followed by the
HEMA- and HMEA-type metabolites. Therefore, if acetochlor or HEMA were
non-quantifiable in any samples, it is reasonable to assume that HMEA
would be less than LOQ and use of established tolerances for rotational
crops is appropriate.

Residues Used in the Acute Analysis

For the acute dietary analysis, tolerance level residues were used for
all crops.  100% crop treated was assumed for all commodities in the
assessment.  Experimentally derived processing factors were applied to
processed cereal grain commodities.

Residues Used in the Chronic Analysis

For the chronic dietary analysis, tolerance level residues were used for
soybean and cotton commodities.  Average field trial residue values were
used for all other crops.  100% crop treated was assumed for all
commodities in the assessment.  Experimentally derived processing
factors were applied to processed cereal grain commodities.

Residues used in the acute and chronic dietary analyses are provided in
Table 2.

Table 2.  Data and Residue Estimates Used in Acetochlor Dietary and
Drinking Water Analyses

RAC	Blending Status1	Data

Source	LOD	%CT	PF	Residues (ppm)

Acute (Tol)	Chronic (AR)

Beet, Sugar	B	Tolerance & Field Trial Data 45322103

24 samples	0.04	100	None	0.05	0.02

Cereal grain, except corn, sorghum and rice, group 15 (barley,
buckwheat, millet, oat, rye, triticale, wheat)	B	Tolerance & Field Trial
Data 45322108

17 samples	0.035	100	Flour  0.5X  Groats  0.4X	0.05	0.02

Corn, field and pop, grain	B	Tolerance & Field Trial Data 41592014
42713114; 15 40365601

2 samples	0.03	100	Flour, meal, starch and oil 0.6X	0.05	0.02

Corn, sweet, K-CWHR	NB/PB	Tolerance & Field Trial Data 44107105

32 samples	0.04	100	None	0.05	0.02

Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C	B	Tolerance &
Field Trial Data 45322104 45322105

28 samples	0.04	100	None	0.05	0.02

Potato	NB/PB/B	Tolerance & Field Trial Data 45322107

10 samples	0.04	100	Dried 6.5X	0.05	0.02

Soybean, seed	B	Tolerance	N/A	100	Flour 0.75X Oil 0.2X	1.0	Tol 1.0

Sorghum	B	Tolerance	N/A	100	None	0.05	Tol 0.05

Sunflower seed	PB/B	Tolerance & Field Trial Data 45322106

16 samples	0.04	100	None	0.05	0.02

Water	N/A	Modeling Data	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.01821	0.00143

1 Classification of blended (B), partially blended (PB), not blended
(NB).

III.	Water Data

Drinking water residues were incorporated directly into the acute and
chronic dietary analyses (“water, direct, all sources” and “water,
indirect, all sources”) and were provided by the Environmental Fate
and Effects Division (EFED) (D359995, M. Barrett, 6/x/2009).  EFED
generated the surface water using the PRZM (Pesticide Root Zone Model;
version 3.12 Beta compiled May 24, 2001) and EXAMS (Exposure Analysis
Modeling System; version 2.98.04, compiled November 12, 2002).   SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1  The drinking water assessment provides modeling-based
Tier 2 drinking water exposure estimates for the proposed uses of
acetochlor on soybeans and cotton along with the existing uses on corn
(including sweet corn, popcorn, field corn, and corn for silage) and
sorghum.  Estimates for the use of acetochlor on sorghum were used in
the screening level dietary assessment because this use produces the
EDWCs of the registered uses.  Surface water EDWCs for acetochlor are
provided in Table 3.  Using Tier 2 estimation methods, parent acetochlor
concentrations in drinking water are estimated to be up to 74.9 ug/L
(ppb) for instantaneous  exposure, 72.2 ppb for 96-hour exposure, and
4.84 ppb for annual exposure.

Table 3.  Modeled EDWCs for Use of Acetochlor on Sorghum (ug/L)
Underlined values Recommended by EFED for Dietary Exposure Assessment.

Exposure Scenario	Peak Day	Peak 96 Hr Avg	365 Day Avg	Lifetime (30 yr
Avg)

KS Sorghum (2.5 lb ai/ A)	49.9 to 74.9 	47.4 to 72.2	4.14 to 4.84	0.29
to 1.12

Corn – scenarios from IL, MS, NC, OH, and PA (3 lb ai/A rate)	14.3 to
44.5	13.7 to 41.9	2.08 to 6.56	0.72 to 2.96

Cotton – scenarios from CA, MS, and NC	3.56 to 20.0	3.42 to 18.65	0.55
to 2.16	0.29 to 1.12

MS Soybean 	28.0	26.4	4.68	2.18

EEM-FCID™ Program and Consumption Information

Acetochlor acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted
using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food
Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID™, Version 2.03), which
incorporates consumption data from USDA’s Continuing Surveys of Food
Intakes by Individuals (CSFII), 1994-1996 and 1998.  The 1994-96, 98
data are based on the reported consumption of more than 20,000
individuals over two non-consecutive survey days.  Foods “as
consumed” (e.g., apple pie) are linked to EPA-defined food commodities
(e.g. apples, peeled fruit - cooked; fresh or N/S; baked; or wheat flour
- cooked; fresh or N/S, baked) using publicly available recipe
translation files developed jointly by USDA/ARS and EPA.  For chronic
exposure assessment, consumption data are averaged for the entire U.S.
population and within population subgroups, but for acute exposure
assessment are retained as individual consumption events.  Based on
analysis of the 1994-96, 98 CSFII consumption data, which took into
account dietary patterns and survey respondents, HED concluded that it
is most appropriate to report risk for the following population
subgroups: the general U.S. population, all infants (<1 year old),
children 1-2, children 3-5, children 6-12, youth 13-19, adults 20-49,
females 13-49, and adults 50+ years old.

For chronic dietary exposure assessment, an estimate of the residue
level in each food or food-form (e.g., orange or orange juice) on the
food commodity residue list is multiplied by the average daily
consumption estimate for that food/food form.  The resulting residue
consumption estimate for each food/food form is summed with the residue
consumption estimates for all other food/food forms on the commodity
residue list to arrive at the total average estimated exposure.
Exposure is expressed in mg/kg body weight/day and as a percent of the
cPAD.  This procedure is performed for each population subgroup.

For acute exposure assessments, individual one-day food consumption data
are used on an individual-by-individual basis.  The reported consumption
amounts of each food item can be multiplied by a residue point estimate
and summed to obtain a total daily pesticide exposure for a
deterministic exposure assessment, or “matched” in multiple random
pairings with residue values and then summed in a probabilistic
assessment.  The resulting distribution of exposures is expressed as a
percentage of the aPAD on both a user (i.e., those who reported eating
relevant commodities/food forms) and a per-capita (i.e., those who
reported eating the relevant commodities as well as those who did not)
basis.  In accordance with HED policy, per capita exposure and risk are
reported for all tiers of analysis.  However, for tiers 1 and 2,
significant differences in user vs. per capita exposure and risk are
identified and noted in the risk assessment.

V.	Toxicological Information

HED evaluated the toxicology data base for acetochlor and selected the
following doses and endpoints for acute and chronic dietary and drinking
water risk assessments.

Table 4. Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Acetochlor
for Use in Dietary and Non-Occupational Human Health Risk Assessments

Exposure/Scenario	Point of Departure	Uncertainty/FQPA Safety Factors
RfD, PAD, LOC for Risk Assessment	Study and Toxicological Effects

Acute Dietary

(All populations)	NOAEL = 150 mg/kg/day	UFA= 10x

UFH=10x

UFDB = 10x

FQPA SF= 1x	Acute RfD = 0.15 mg/kg/day

aPAD = 0.15 mg/kg/day	Acute oral neurotoxicity screening in rats

LOAEL = 500mg/kg/day based on decreased motor activity in females.

Chronic Dietary

(All Populations)	NOAEL = 2.0 mg/kg/day	UFA= 10x

UFH=10x

FQPA SF= 1x	Chronic RfD = 0.02

mg/kg/day

cPAD = 0.02 mg/kg/day	Chronic oral toxicity in beagle dogs

LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day based on increased salivation and histopathology in
the testes, kidney and liver.

Cancer (all routes)	Classification: “Suggestive Evidence of
Carcinogenic Potential".  Quantification of cancer risk is not required
since the cRfD of 0.02 mg/kg/day will be protective of both non-cancer
and cancer effects

Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is
derived from observed dose-response data and  used to mark the beginning
of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally
relevant human exposures.  NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level.

NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level.

LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level.

UF = uncertainty factor.

UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies).

UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human
population (intraspecies).

FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor.

PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic).

RfD = reference dose.

VI.	Results/Discussion

As stated above, for acute and chronic assessments, HED is concerned
when dietary risk exceeds 100% of the PAD.  The DEEM-FCID™ analyses
estimate the dietary exposure of the U.S. population and various
population subgroups.  The results reported in Tables 5 and 6 are for
the general U.S. Population, all infants (<1 year old), children 1-2,
children 3-5, children 6-12, youth 13-19, females 13-49, adults 20-49,
and adults 50+ years.

Results of Acute Dietary Exposure Analysis

The results of the acute dietary exposure analysis at the 99.9th
percentile of exposure are reported in Table 5.

Table 5:  Summary of Acute Dietary Exposure and Risk for Acetochlor

Population Subgroup	aPAD (mg/kg/day)	Acute (95th Percentile)

Exposure (mg/kg/day)	% aPAD

General U.S. Population	0.15	0.0045	3

All Infants (< 1 year old)

0.0159	11

Children 1-2 years old

0.0075	5

Children 3-5 years old

0.0066	4

Children 6-12 years old

0.0046	3

Youth 13-19 years old

0.0036	2

Adults 20-49 years old

0.0040	3

Adults 50+ years old

0.0035	2

Females 13-49 years old

0.0040	3

Results of Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis

The results of the chronic dietary exposure analysis are reported in
Table 6.

Table 6:  Summary of Chronic Dietary Exposure and Risk for Acetochlor

Population Subgroup	cPAD (mg/kg/day)	Chronic

Exposure (mg/kg/day)	% cPAD

General U.S. Population	0.02	0.0004	2

All Infants (< 1 year old)

0.0012	6

Children 1-2 years old

0.0009	4

Children 3-5 years old

0.0008	4

Children 6-12 years old

0.0005	3

Youth 13-19 years old

0.0004	2

Adults 20-49 years old

0.0004	2

Adults 50+ years old

0.0004	2

Females 13-49 years old

0.0004	2

VI.	Characterization of Inputs/Outputs

The acute dietary analysis is an unrefined screening level analysis.  In
addition, the 100% crop treated estimate used for all crops in the
assessment will considerably overestimate the actual percent  crop
treated.

The chronic dietary analysis is somewhat refined.  Average field trial
residues used in the analysis are expected to exceed the residues
actually consumed.  In addition, the 100% crop treated estimate used for
all crops in the assessment will considerably overestimate the actual
percent  crop treated.

VII.	Conclusions

Acute and chronic dietary exposure analyses were performed for the
general U.S. population and various population subgroups.  The risk
estimates for the general U.S. population and all population subgroups
are below HED’s level of concern.  HED is confident that acute and
chronic dietary exposures to acetochlor are not underestimated.

VIII.  Cumulative Risk

	As part of the provisions of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA,
1996), EPA must consider the cumulative effects on human health that may
result from exposure to different chemicals that cause toxic effects by
the same mode of action. The chloroacetanilides have been evaluated by
the Agency and the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) as a related
group of chemicals for this purpose.  Acetoclor is included in a
Cumulative Assessment Group (CAG) of Chloroacetanilide pesticides.
Structurally related chloroacetanilides include acetochlor, alachlor,
butachlor, propachlor and metolachlor.  For purposes of a cumulative
risk assessment, it was determined that the common mechanism of toxicity
group consists of alachlor, acetochlor and butachlor.  Butachlor is
excluded from the group for risk assessment purposes at present there
are no registered uses or tolerances for this chemical in the US.  The
group was selected based on common endpoints of (1) nasal turbinate
tumors in rats, and a known mechanism of toxicity for development of
these tumors and (2) induction of hepatic UDP-Glucuronosyl Transferase
(UDPGT), which results in increased incidence of thyroid follicular cell
tumors secondary to disruption of pituitary-thyroid homeostasis.
Thyroid effects were not included in the final cumulative assessment of
the chloroacetanilide herbicides because they were determined to occur
at excessively toxic dose levels, and therefore were not considered
relevant to human risk assessment.  Nasal tumors represent the most
sensitive endpoint for both compounds.

	An updated cumulative risk assessment of the Chloroacetanilide (CAG)
pesticides acetoclor and alechlor conducted in April, 2007 provides an
assessment of existing and new uses of those chemicals to date (Y.
Donovan, D336214, 4/30/07).  Based on the most recent chloroacetanilide
CAG cumulative risk assessment, cumulative risk is not of concern.  A
revised quantitative cumulative assessment was not conducted for the
current assessment of proposed new uses for acetochlor because
acetochlor is a very minor contributor to the cumulative when compared
to alachlor and the proposed new use would not affect the cumulative
risk results.

VIII.	List of Attachments

1.  Acute DEEM-FCID Residue Input File.

2.  Results of Acute DEEM-FCID Dietary Exposure Analysis.

3.  Chronic DEEM-FCID Residue Input File.

4.  Results of Chronic DEEM-FCID Dietary Exposure Analysis.

Attachment 1 Acute DEEM-FCID Residue Input File

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ver. 2.02

DEEM-FCID Acute analysis for ACETOCHLOR

Residue file name: C:\Documents and Settings\rdaiss\My
Documents\Acetochlor\acet acute 100CT f_w-6-3-09.R98

Analysis Date 06-04-2009             Residue file dated:
06-03-2009/14:54:40/8

Reference dose: aRfD = 0.15 mg/kg bw/day  NOEL = 150 mg/kg bw/day

Comment: Run with new commodities at tolerance & 100% CT

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

  EPA    Crop                                   Def Res     Adj.Factors
 Comment

  Code    Grp  Food Name                         (ppm)       #1    #2

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

15000250 15   Barley, pearled barley             0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT          15000251 15   Barley, pearled
barley-babyfood    0.050000   1.000  1.000 rot crop tol; 100%CT
15000260 15   Barley, flour                      0.050000   0.500  1.000
rot crop tol; 100% CT; PF

15000261 15   Barley, flour-babyfood             0.050000   0.500  1.000
rot crop tol; 100% CT; PF

15000270 15   Barley, bran                       0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT

06030300 6C   Bean, black, seed                  0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT          06030320 6C   Bean, broad, seed
      0.050000   1.000  1.000 rot crop tol; 100%CT

06030340 6C   Bean, cowpea, seed                 0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT

06030350 6C   Bean,  great northern, seed        0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT

06030360 6C   Bean, kidney, seed                 0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT              06030380 6C   Bean, lima, seed
          0.050000   1.000  1.000 rot crop tol; 100%CT
06030390 6C   Bean, mung, seed                   0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT              06030400 6C   Bean, navy, seed
          0.050000   1.000  1.000 rot crop tol; 100%CT

06030410 6C   Bean, pink, seed                   0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT              06030420 6C   Bean, pinto, seed
          0.050000   1.000  1.000 rot crop tol; 100%CT

01010520 1A   Beet, sugar                        0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT              01010521 1A   Beet, sugar-babyfood
          0.050000   1.000  1.000 rot crop tol; 100%CT
01010530 1A   Beet, sugar, molasses              0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT              15000650 15   Buckwheat
          0.050000   1.000  1.000 rot crop tol; 100%CT
15000660 15   Buckwheat, flour                   0.050000   0.500  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT; PF          06030980 6C   Chickpea, seed
          0.050000   1.000  1.000 rot crop tol; 100%CT

06030981 6C   Chickpea, seed-babyfood            0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT

06030990 6C   Chickpea, flour                    0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT

15001200 15   Corn, field, flour                 0.050000   0.600  1.000
existing use; 100% CT

15001201 15   Corn, field, flour-babyfood        0.050000   0.600  1.000
existing use; 100% CT

15001210 15   Corn, field, meal                  0.050000   0.600  1.000
existing use; 100% CT

15001211 15   Corn, field, meal-babyfood         0.050000   0.600  1.000
existing use; 100% CT

15001220 15   Corn, field, bran                  0.050000   1.000  1.000
existing use; 100% CT

15001230 15   Corn, field, starch                0.050000   0.600  1.000
existing use; 100% CT

15001231 15   Corn, field, starch-babyfood       0.050000   0.600  1.000
existing use; 100% CT

15001240 15   Corn, field, syrup                 0.050000   1.000  1.000
existing use; 100% CT

15001241 15   Corn, field, syrup-babyfood        0.050000   1.000  1.000
existing use; 100% CT

15001250 15   Corn, field, oil                   0.050000   0.600  1.000
existing use; 100% CT

15001251 15   Corn, field, oil-babyfood          0.050000   0.600  1.000
existing use; 100% CT

15001260 15   Corn, pop                          0.050000   1.000  1.000
existing use; 100% CT

15001270 15   Corn, sweet                        0.050000   1.000  1.000
existing use; 100% CT

15001271 15   Corn, sweet-babyfood               0.050000   1.000  1.000
existing use; 100% CT

95001280 O    Cottonseed, oil                    0.600000   1.000  1.000
new tolerance; 100% CT

95001281 O    Cottonseed, oil-babyfood           0.600000   1.000  1.000
new tolerance; 100% CT

06031820 6C   Guar, seed                         0.050000   1.000  1.000
existing use; 100% CT

06031821 6C   Guar, seed-babyfood                0.050000   1.000  1.000
existing use; 100% CT

06032030 6C   Lentil, seed                       0.050000   1.000  1.000
existing use; 100% CT

15002260 15   Millet, grain                      0.050000   1.000  1.000
existing use; 100% CT

15002310 15   Oat, bran                          0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT

15002320 15   Oat, flour                         0.050000   0.500  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT

15002321 15   Oat, flour-babyfood                0.050000   0.500  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT

15002330 15   Oat, groats/rolled oats            0.050000   0.400  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT              15002331 15   Oat, groats/rolled
oats-babyfood   0.050000   0.400  1.000 rot crop tol; 100%CT

06032560 6C   Pea, dry                           0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT

06032561 6C   Pea, dry-babyfood                  0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT

06032580 6C   Pea, pigeon, seed                  0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT

01032960 1C   Potato, chips                      0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT

01032970 1C   Potato, dry (granules/ flakes)     0.050000   6.500  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT; PF

01032971 1C   Potato, dry (granules/ flakes)-b   0.050000   6.500  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT; PF         01032980 1C   Potato, flour
         0.050000   1.000  1.000 rot crop tol; 100%CT

01032981 1C   Potato, flour-babyfood             0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT

01032990 1C   Potato, tuber, w/peel              0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT

01032991 1C   Potato, tuber, w/peel-babyfood     0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT

01033000 1C   Potato, tuber, w/o peel            0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT

01033001 1C   Potato, tuber, w/o peel-babyfood   0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT

15003280 15   Rye, grain                         0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT

15003290 15   Rye, flour                         0.050000   0.500  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT

15003440 15   Sorghum, grain                     0.050000   1.000  1.000
existing use; 100% CT

15003450 15   Sorghum, syrup                     0.050000   1.000  1.000
existing use; 100% CT

06003470 6    Soybean, seed                      1.000000   1.000  1.000
new tolerance; 100% CT

06003480 6    Soybean, flour                     1.000000   0.750  1.000
new tolerance; 100%CT; PF

06003481 6    Soybean, flour-babyfood            1.000000   0.750  1.000
new tolerance; 100%CT; PF         06003490 6    Soybean, soy milk
          1.000000   1.000  1.000 new tolerance; 100%CT
06003491 6    Soybean, soy milk-babyfood or in   1.000000   1.000  1.000
new tolerance; 100%CT

06003500 6    Soybean, oil                       1.000000   0.200  1.000
new tolerance; 100%CT; PF

06003501 6    Soybean, oil-babyfood              1.000000   0.200  1.000
new tolerance; 100%CT; PF

20003640 20   Sunflower, seed                    0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT             20003650 20   Sunflower, oil
         0.050000   1.000  1.000 rot crop tol; 100%CT

20003651 20   Sunflower, oil-babyfood            0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT             15003810 15   Triticale, flour
         0.050000   0.500  1.000 rot crop tol; 100%CT; PF

15003811 15   Triticale, flour-babyfood          0.050000   0.500  1.000
rot crop tol; 100%CT; PF

86010000 O    Water, direct, all sources         0.075000   1.000  1.000
modeled peak

86020000 O    Water, indirect, all sources       0.075000   1.000  1.000
modeled peak

15004010 15   Wheat, grain                       0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop; 100 % CT

15004011 15   Wheat, grain-babyfood              0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop; 100 % CT

15004020 15   Wheat, flour                       0.050000   0.500  1.000
rot crop; 100 % CT; PF

15004021 15   Wheat, flour-babyfood              0.050000   0.500  1.000
rot crop; 100 % CT; PF

15004030 15   Wheat, germ                        0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop; 100 % CT

15004040 15   Wheat, bran                        0.050000   1.000  1.000
rot crop; 100 % CT

Attachment 2  Results of Acute DEEM-FCID Dietary Exposure Analysis

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ver. 2.02

DEEM-FCID ACUTE Analysis for ACETOCHLOR
(1994-98 data)

Residue file: acet acute 100CT f_w-6-24-09.R98    Adjustment factor #2
NOT used.

Analysis Date: 06-24-2009/14:52:43    Residue file dated:
06-24-2009/14:50:18/8

NOEL (Acute) = 150.000000 mg/kg body-wt/day

Daily totals for food and foodform consumption used.

Run Comment: "Run with new commodities at tolerance & 100% CT"

========================================================================
=======

Summary calculations (per capita):

      95th Percentile             99th Percentile             99.9th
Percentile

 Exposure  % aRfD     MOE    Exposure  % aRfD     MOE    Exposure  %
aRfD     MOE

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

U.S. Population:

  0.004465    2.98   33591    0.008201    5.47   18289    0.016186
10.79    9266

All infants:

  0.015910   10.61    9427    0.022620   15.08    6631    0.038370
25.58    3909

Children 1-2 yrs:

  0.007494    5.00   20016    0.012541    8.36   11960    0.045524
30.35    3294

Children 3-5 yrs:

  0.006582    4.39   22789    0.010266    6.84   14611    0.035651
23.77    4207

Children 6-12 yrs:

  0.004581    3.05   32740    0.007532    5.02   19913    0.010122
6.75   14818

Youth 13-19 yrs:

  0.003594    2.40   41730    0.005810    3.87   25816    0.009887
6.59   15170

Adults 20-49 yrs:

  0.004037    2.69   37154    0.006701    4.47   22385    0.011796
7.86   12716

Adults 50+ yrs:

  0.003530    2.35   42488    0.005159    3.44   29077    0.008468
5.65   17714

Females 13-49 yrs:

  0.004016    2.68   37354    0.006616    4.41   22672    0.010883
7.26   13782

Attachment 3  Chronic DEEM-FCID Residue Input File.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ver. 2.00

DEEM-FCID Chronic analysis for ACETOCHLOR
1994-98 data

Residue file: C:\Documents and Settings\rdaiss\My
Documents\Acetochlor\acet chronic f_w-6-4-09.R98

                                                               Adjust.
#2 used

Analysis Date 06-04-2009             Residue file dated:
06-04-2009/06:46:38/8

Reference dose (RfD) = 0.02 mg/kg bw/day

Comment:Run with new commodities at tolerance & 100% CT

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

Food Crop                                       Residue
Adj.Factors      Comment

EPA Code  Grp  Food Name                          (ppm)

                                                             #1
#2

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

15000250 15   Barley, pearled barley             0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

15000251 15   Barley, pearled barley-babyfood    0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

15000260 15   Barley, flour                      0.020000   0.500
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT; PF

15000261 15   Barley, flour-babyfood             0.020000   0.500
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT; PF

15000270 15   Barley, bran                       0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

06030300 6C   Bean, black, seed                  0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

06030320 6C   Bean, broad, seed                  0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

06030340 6C   Bean, cowpea, seed                 0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

06030350 6C   Bean,  great northern, seed        0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

06030360 6C   Bean, kidney, seed                 0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

06030380 6C   Bean, lima, seed                   0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

06030390 6C   Bean, mung, seed                   0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

06030400 6C   Bean, navy, seed                   0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

06030410 6C   Bean, pink, seed                   0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

06030420 6C   Bean, pinto, seed                  0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

01010520 1A   Beet, sugar                        0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

01010521 1A   Beet, sugar-babyfood               0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

01010530 1A   Beet, sugar, molasses              0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

15000650 15   Buckwheat                          0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

15000660 15   Buckwheat, flour                   0.020000   0.500
1.000   rot cropuse;1/2 LOQ;100%CT; PF

06030980 6C   Chickpea, seed                     0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

06030981 6C   Chickpea, seed-babyfood            0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

06030990 6C   Chickpea, flour                    0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

15001200 15   Corn, field, flour                 0.020000   0.600
1.000   existing use1/2 LOQ; 100% CT

15001201 15   Corn, field, flour-babyfood        0.020000   0.600
1.000   existing use1/2 LOQ; 100% CT

15001210 15   Corn, field, meal                  0.020000   0.600
1.000   existing use1/2 LOQ; 100% CT

15001211 15   Corn, field, meal-babyfood         0.020000   0.600
1.000   existing use1/2 LOQ; 100% CT

15001220 15   Corn, field, bran                  0.020000   1.000
1.000   existing use1/2 LOQ; 100% CT

15001230 15   Corn, field, starch                0.020000   0.600
1.000   existing use1/2 LOQ; 100% CT

15001231 15   Corn, field, starch-babyfood       0.020000   0.600
1.000   existing use1/2 LOQ; 100% CT

15001240 15   Corn, field, syrup                 0.020000   1.000
1.000   existing use1/2 LOQ; 100% CT

15001241 15   Corn, field, syrup-babyfood        0.020000   1.000
1.000   existing use1/2 LOQ; 100% CT

15001250 15   Corn, field, oil                   0.020000   0.600
1.000   existing use1/2 LOQ; 100% CT

15001251 15   Corn, field, oil-babyfood          0.020000   0.600
1.000   existing use1/2 LOQ; 100% CT

15001260 15   Corn, pop                          0.020000   1.000
1.000   existing use1/2 LOQ; 100% CT

15001270 15   Corn, sweet                        0.020000   1.000
1.000   existing use1/2 LOQ; 100% CT

15001271 15   Corn, sweet-babyfood               0.020000   1.000
1.000   existing use1/2 LOQ; 100% CT

95001280 O    Cottonseed, oil                    0.600000   1.000
1.000   existing use1/2 LOQ; 100% CT

95001281 O    Cottonseed, oil-babyfood           0.600000   1.000
1.000   existing use1/2 LOQ; 100% CT

06031820 6C   Guar, seed                         0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

06031821 6C   Guar, seed-babyfood                0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

06032030 6C   Lentil, seed                       0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

15002260 15   Millet, grain                      0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

15002310 15   Oat, bran                          0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

15002320 15   Oat, flour                         0.020000   0.500
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

15002321 15   Oat, flour-babyfood                0.020000   0.500
1.000   rot cropuse;1/2 LOQ;100%CT; PF

15002330 15   Oat, groats/rolled oats            0.020000   0.400
1.000   rot cropuse;1/2 LOQ;100%CT; PF

15002331 15   Oat, groats/rolled oats-babyfood   0.020000   0.400
1.000   rot cropuse;1/2 LOQ;100%CT; PF

06032560 6C   Pea, dry                           0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

06032561 6C   Pea, dry-babyfood                  0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

06032580 6C   Pea, pigeon, seed                  0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

01032960 1C   Potato, chips                      0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

01032970 1C   Potato, dry (granules/ flakes)     0.020000   6.500
1.000   rot cropuse;1/2 LOQ;100%CT; PF

01032971 1C   Potato, dry (granules/ flakes)-b   0.020000   6.500
1.000   rot cropuse;1/2 LOQ;100%CT; PF

01032980 1C   Potato, flour                      0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

01032981 1C   Potato, flour-babyfood             0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

01032990 1C   Potato, tuber, w/peel              0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

01032991 1C   Potato, tuber, w/peel-babyfood     0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

01033000 1C   Potato, tuber, w/o peel            0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

01033001 1C   Potato, tuber, w/o peel-babyfood   0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

15003280 15   Rye, grain                         0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

15003290 15   Rye, flour                         0.020000   0.500
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

15003440 15   Sorghum, grain                     0.050000   1.000
1.000   tol; 100% CT

15003450 15   Sorghum, syrup                     0.050000   1.000
1.000   tol; 100% CT

06003470 6    Soybean, seed                      1.000000   1.000
1.000   tol; 100% CT

06003480 6    Soybean, flour                     1.000000   0.750
1.000   tol; 100% CT

06003481 6    Soybean, flour-babyfood            1.000000   0.750
1.000   tol; 100% CT

06003490 6    Soybean, soy milk                  1.000000   1.000
1.000   tol; 100% CT

06003491 6    Soybean, soy milk-babyfood or in   1.000000   1.000
1.000   tol; 100% CT

06003500 6    Soybean, oil                       1.000000   0.200
1.000   tol; 100% CT

06003501 6    Soybean, oil-babyfood              1.000000   0.200
1.000   tol; 100% CT

20003640 20   Sunflower, seed                    0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

20003650 20   Sunflower, oil                     0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

20003651 20   Sunflower, oil-babyfood            0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use;1/2 L0Q; 100%CT

15003810 15   Triticale, flour                   0.020000   0.500
1.000   rot cropuse;1/2 LOQ;100%CT; PF

15003811 15   Triticale, flour-babyfood          0.020000   0.500
1.000   rot cropuse;1/2 LOQ;100%CT; PF

86010000 O    Water, direct, all sources         0.009500   1.000
1.000   modelled EDWCs

86020000 O    Water, indirect, all sources       0.009500   1.000
1.000   modelled EDWCs

15004010 15   Wheat, grain                       0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use; 100% CT

15004011 15   Wheat, grain-babyfood              0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use; 100% CT

15004020 15   Wheat, flour                       0.020000   0.500
1.000   rot cropuse;1/2 LOQ;100%CT; PF

15004021 15   Wheat, flour-babyfood              0.020000   0.500
1.000   rot cropuse;1/2 LOQ;100%CT; PF

15004030 15   Wheat, germ                        0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use; 100% CT

15004040 15   Wheat, bran                        0.020000   1.000
1.000   rot crop use; 100% CT

Attachment 4  Results of Chronic DEEM-FCID Dietary Exposure Analysis.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ver. 2.00

DEEM-FCID Chronic analysis for ACETOCHLOR                       (1994-98
data)

Residue file name: F:\Acetochlor\acet chronic f_w-6-24-09.R98

                                                 Adjustment factor #2
NOT used.

Analysis Date 06-24-2009/14:56:40     Residue file dated:
06-24-2009/14:51:05/8

Reference dose (RfD, Chronic) = .02 mg/kg bw/day

COMMENT 1: Run with new commodities at tolerance & 100% CT

========================================================================
=======

                    Total exposure by population subgroup

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

                                                    Total Exposure

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

          Population                         mg/kg             Percent
of

           Subgroup                       body wt/day             Rfd

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

U.S. Population (total)                     0.000417
2.1%

U.S. Population (spring season)             0.000413
2.1%

U.S. Population (summer season)             0.000433
2.2%

U.S. Population (autumn season)             0.000413
2.1%

U.S. Population (winter season)             0.000408
2.0%

Northeast region                            0.000379
1.9%

Midwest region                              0.000421
2.1%

Southern region                             0.000398
2.0%

Western region                              0.000476
2.4%

Hispanics                                   0.000447
2.2%

Non-hispanic whites                         0.000402
2.0%

Non-hispanic blacks                         0.000408
2.0%

Non-hisp/non-white/non-black                0.000612
3.1%

All infants (< 1 year)                      0.001169
5.8%

Nursing infants                             0.000403
2.0%

Non-nursing infants                         0.001460
7.3%

Children 1-6  yrs                           0.000775
3.9%

Children 7-12 yrs                           0.000497
2.5%

Females 13-19 (not preg or nursing)         0.000325
1.6%

Females 20+ (not preg or nursing)           0.000346
1.7%

Females 13-50 yrs                           0.000370
1.8%

Females 13+ (preg/not nursing)              0.000382
1.9%

Females 13+ (nursing)                       0.000489
2.4%

Males 13-19 yrs                             0.000381
1.9%

Males 20+ yrs                               0.000357
1.8%

Seniors 55+                                 0.000322
1.6%

Children 1-2 yrs                            0.000847
4.2%

Children 3-5 yrs                            0.000774
3.9%

Children 6-12 yrs                           0.000518
2.6%

hK

2

R

S

T

U

å

é

!

*

J

N

O

R

T

l

m

o

u

‰

œ

¡

·

¹

Í

×

Ø

å

ö

¯

¶

·

À

Ã

Í

Î

Ñ

ã

å

é

h

将

&

@

#

ó

&

@

愀Ĥ摧抖é

#

ó

Youth 13-19 yrs                             0.000354
1.8%

Adults 20-49 yrs                            0.000367
1.8%

Adults 50+ yrs                              0.000326
1.6%

Females 13-49 yrs                           0.000353
1.8%

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

Acetochlor (PC Code 121601)	Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessment
                          DP #:  360868

Page  PAGE  1  of  NUMPAGES  16


SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NSPS for Sewage Sludge Treatment Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart O)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NSPS for Sewage Sludge Treatment Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart O)(Renewal)

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Sewage Treatment Plant incinerators (40 CFR part 60, subpart O) were promulgated on February 28, 1974 (39 FR 9312) and amended on October 6, 1975, November 10, 1977, October 6, 1988, and October 17, 2000.  These standards apply to each incinerator which combusts wastes containing more than 10 percent sewage sludge (dry basis) produced by municipal sewage treatment plants or each incinerator which charges more than 1000 kg (2205 lb.) per day municipal sewage sludge (dry basis), and any facility that commenced construction or modification after June 11, 1973.  Particulate matter (PM) is the pollutant regulated under this subpart.  The standard sets an emission limitation for PM.  This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart O.

Owners or operators of the facilities regulated under this subpart must make several

one-time-only reports and maintain records.  This includes various notifications and records from monitoring devices and facility operations.  In general, these notifications, reports and records are required of all sources subject to NSPS.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part will maintain a file of these records, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records.  The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.  All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority.  In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional office.

Approximately 54 sources are currently subject to the standard, and it is estimated that there will be no new growth in the industry over the next three years.  However, one additional source per year will become subject to the standard over the next three years due to the modification or reconstruction of an existing affected facility.  The average annual cost to industry over the next three years of this Information Collection Request (ICR) is estimated to

be $392,804 in labor, and $1,990,000 in annualized capital/startup costs and operating & maintenance (O&M).

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the current Information Collection Request (ICR) without any “Terms of Clearance.”

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

The EPA is charged under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, to establish standards of performance for new stationary sources that reflect:

. . . application of the best technological system of continuous emissions reduction which (taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emissions reduction, or any non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. Section 111(a)(l).

The Agency refers to this charge as selecting the best demonstrated technology (BDT).

Section 111 also requires that the Administrator review and, if appropriate, revise such standards every four years.

In the Administrator's judgment, particulate matter emissions from sewage sludge treatment plant incinerators cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.  Therefore, the NSPS were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 60, subpart O.

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The control of emissions of particulate matter from sewage sludge treatment plant incinerators requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment.  Emissions of particulate matter from sewage sludge treatment plant incinerators are the result of operation of the affected facilities.  The subject standards are achieved by the reduction of particulate matter emissions using control technology and leak detection and repair procedures.  The notifications required in the applicable regulations are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the regulations.  The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated and leaks are being detected and repaired and the regulations are being met.

Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's records of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standards, and serve as a record of the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved.  The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.  The information generated by the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in this ICR is used by the Agency to ensure that facilities being affected by the NSPS continue to operate the control equipment in compliance with the regulation. Adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting are necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable regulations, as required by the Clean Air Act.  The information collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements is also used for targeting inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be used as evidence in court.

3.  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part 60,

subpart O.

3(a)  Nonduplication

If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office.  Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency.  If a state or local agency has adopted their own similar standards to implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the state or a local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standards.  Therefore, no duplication exists.

3(b)  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register on October 5, 2006 (71 FR 58853).  No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3(c)  Consultations

For this ICR renewal, we referenced the burden estimates from the most recent ICR renewal and accessed the data available on the AIRA Facility Subsystem (AFS) database as maintained by the Office of Compliance.  We reviewed information available from the United States Census Bureau, and other websites covering sewage sludge treatment plants.  We consulted with the EPAs Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Information Transfer, the Program Integration Division and Waste Water Treatment Plant representatives.

It is our policy to carefully review any comments received since the last ICR renewal including those submitted in response to the first Federal Register notice and respond appropriately; in this case, no comments were received.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards.  Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and emission limitations are met.  If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and noncompliance would decrease.

3(e)  General Guidelines

None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR 1320.5.

3(f)  Confidentiality

Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, part 2, subpart B - Confidentiality of Business Information (CBI) (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902,

September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251,

September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3(g)  Sensitive Questions

None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)  Respondents/SIC Codes

The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are sewage sludge treatment plants.  The United States Standard Industrial Classification (SIC ) code for the respondents affected by the standards is 4952, which corresponds to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS ) 221320 for Sewage Sludge Treatment Plants.

4(b)  Information Requested

(i)  Data Items

All data in this ICR that is recorded and/or reported is required by New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Sewage Sludge Treatment Plants

(40 CFR part 60, subpart O).

A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports

Standard Citation by Section

Notification and application of construction or modification.

60.7(a)

Notification of anticipated date of initial startup.

60.7(a)

Notification of actual startup.

60.7(a)

Notification of physical or operational change which may increase the emission rate.

60.7(a)

Notification of initial performance tests.

60.8(d)

Demonstration of continuous monitoring system.

60.7(a)

Date upon which demonstration of continuous monitoring system performance commences.

60.7(a)

Reports

Standard Citation by Section

Initial performance test.

60.8(a)

Owner or operator of any multiple hearth, fluidized bed, or electric sludge incinerator shall submit a semiannual report which contains the following: scrubber pressure drop measurements, oxygen content, temperatures, rate of sludge charged, moisture and volatile solids of daily grab sample of sludge charged to the incinerator, and a record of control device operation measurements for other than a wet scrubber.

60.155(a), 60.155(b), and 60.155(c)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping

Startups, shutdowns, malfunctions, periods where the continuous monitoring system is inoperative.

60.7(b)

Maintain a file of all measurements including, performance test measurements, and all other information required by this subpart recorded in a permanent file suitable for inspection.

60.7(e)

Recording of daily charging rates and hours of operations

60.153(a)(1)

Install, calibrate, maintain and operate weighing device for determination of the mass of any municipal solid waste charged to

the incinerator.

60.153(a)(3)

Install, calibrate, maintain and operate a monitoring device that continuously measures and records the pressure drop of gas flow through the wet scrubbing device.

60.153(b)(1)

Install, calibrate, maintain and operate a monitoring device that continuously measures and records the oxygen content of the incinerator exhaust gas.

60.153(b)(2)

Install, calibrate, maintain and operate temperature measuring devices. The temperature monitoring devices shall be operated continuously and data recorded during all periods of operation of the incinerator.

60.153(b)(3)

Install, calibrate, maintain and operate a device for measuring the fuel flow to the incinerator.  The fuel flow measuring device shall be operated continuously and data recorded during all periods of operation of the incinerator.

60.153(b)(4)

Collect and analyze a grab sample of the sludge fed to the incinerator once per day.

60.153(b)(5)

Test methods and procedures for performance tests.

60.154

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate continuous monitoring system.

60.13

Owner or operator of any multiple hearth, fluidized bed, or electric sludge incinerator subject to the provisions of this subpart, shall retain the following information and make it available for inspection: the measured pressure drop of the gas flow through the wet scrubbing device, a record of the measured oxygen content of the incinerator exhaust gas, record of the rate of sludge charged to the incinerator, the measured temperatures of the incinerator, the fuel flow to the incinerator, and the total solids and volatile solids content of the sludge charges to the incinerator.

60.153(c)(1), 60.153(c)(2), and 60.153(c)(3)

The owner or operator of any sludge incinerator other than a multiple hearth, fluidized bed, or electric incinerator or any sludge incinerator equipped with a control device other than a wet scrubber shall submit for approval a plan for monitoring and recording incinerator and control device operation parameters.

60.153(e)

Maintain records for two years.

60.7(f)

Electronic Reporting

Currently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides parameter data in an automated way, e.g., daily sampling and analysis of sludge feed.  Although personnel at the source still need to evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping.  In addition, some regulatory agencies are setting up electronic reporting systems to allow sources to report electronically which is reducing the reporting burden.  However, electronic reporting systems are still not widely used by the regulatory agencies.  It is estimated that approximately 10 percent of the respondents use electronic reporting.

(ii)  Respondent Activities

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a Continuous Monitoring System (CMS) for opacity, or for pressure drop and liquid supply pressure for wet scrubber.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Method 5 and 9 test, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Adjust existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

Currently, sources are using automated monitoring equipment that provides parameter data.  Although personnel at the source still need to evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping.

5.  The Information Collected:  Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

5(a)  Agency Activities

EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

Agency Activities

Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the AIRS Facility Subsystem (AFS).

5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated.  Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a sources initial capability to comply with the emission standard and note the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved.  Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs.  The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for

compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into the AFS which is operated and maintained by the EPA's Office of Compliance.  AFS is the EPAs database for the collection, maintenance and retrieval of compliance data for approximately 125,000 industrial and government-owned facilities.  EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters. EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or operator for

two years.

5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

A majority of the affected facilities are large entities (e.g., large businesses).  However, the impact on small entities (i.e., small businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the regulation.  Due to technical considerations involving the process operations and the types of control equipment employed, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and large entities.  The Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small entities.  To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced.

5(d)  Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NSPS for Sewage Sludge Treatment Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart O).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for the subpart included in this ICR.  The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burdens under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified.  Responses to this information collection are mandatory.

The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 6,209 (Total Labor Hours from Table 1).  These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NSPS program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

This ICR uses the following labor rates:

Managerial	$93.09    ($44.33 + 110%)

Technical	$64.13    ($30.54 + 110%)

Clerical	$39.65    ($18.88 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,

June 2003, “Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group.”  The rates are from column 1, “Total compensation.”  The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

(ii)  Estimating Capital/Startup and Operating and Maintenance Costs

The types of industry cost associated with the information collection activities in the subject standard are both labor costs which are addressed elsewhere in this ICR and the costs associated with continuous monitoring.  The capital/startup costs are one-time cost when a facility becomes subject to the regulation.  The annual operation and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitors and other costs such as photocopying and postage.

(iii)  Capital/Startup vs. Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Capital/Startup vs. Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

(A)

Continuous Monitoring Device

(B)

Capital/Startup Cost for One Respondent

(C)

Number of New Respondents

(D)

Total Capital/Startup Cost,

(B X C)

(E)

Annual O&M Costs for One Respondent

(F)

Number of Respondents with O&M

(G)

Total O&M,

(E X F)

Particulate Matter

$100,000

1

$100,000

$35,000

54

$1,890,000

The total capital/startup costs for this ICR are $100,000.  This is the total of column D in the above table.  The total operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for this ICR are $1,890,000.  This is the total of column G.

The total respondent costs have been calculated as the addition of the capital/startup costs, and the annual operation and maintenance costs.  The average annual cost for capital/startup and operation and maintenance cost to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $1,990,000. All costs are considered recordkeeping costs.

6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported information.  EPA’s overall compliance and enforcement program includes activities such as the examination of records maintained by the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of emissions, and the publication and distribution of collected information.

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $41,217.  This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

Managerial	$54.02   (GS-13, Step 5, $33.76 x 1.6)

Technical	$40.08   (GS-12, Step 1, $25.05 x 1.6)

Clerical	$21.70   (GS-6, Step 3, $13.56 x 1.6)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2004 General Schedule” which excludes locality rates of pay.  Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden, NSPS for Sewage Sludge Treatment Plants (40 CFR part 60).

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

Based on our research for this ICR, approximately 54 existing sources are currently subject to the standard.  It is estimated that no expected additional sources per year will become subject to the standard in the next three years.

Number of respondents is calculated using the following table which addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents

Respondents That Submit Reports

Respondents That Do Not Submit Any Reports

Year

(A)

Number of New Respondents 1

(B)

Number of Existing Respondents

(C)

Number of Existing Respondents that keep records but do not submit reports

(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents

(E)

Number of Respondents

(E=A+B+C-D)

1

1

54

0

1

54

2

1

54

0

1

54

3

1

54

0

1

54

Average

1

54

0

1

54

1 New respondents include sources with constructed, reconstructed and modified affected facilities.

To avoid double-counting respondents, column D is subtracted.  As shown above, the average Number of Respondents over the three-year period of this ICR is 54.

The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the following table:

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Information Collection Activity

(B)

Number of Respondents

(C)

Number of Responses

(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit Reports

(E)

Total Annual Responses

E=(BxC)+D

Notification of construction/ reconstruction

1

1

N/A

1

Notification of physical and operational changes

1

1

N/A

1

Notification of demonstration of CMS

1

1

N/A

1

Notification of actual startup

1

1

N/A

1

Notification of initial performance test

1

1

N/A

1

Semiannual report of excess emissions

54

2

N/A

108

Total

113 (rounded)

The number of Total Annual Responses is 113.  The total annual labor costs are $392,804.  Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1, Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NSPS for Sewage Sludge Treatment Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart O).  Note that the total annual capital and O&M costs to the regulated entity are $1,990,000. These costs are detailed in Section 6(b)(iii), Capital/Startup vs. Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs.

6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables

The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for both the Agency and the respondents are attached.  The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 55 (rounded) hours per response.

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

There was a small 5.4 hour decrease in estimated burden due to the correction of a mathematical error on the estimated number of technical hours.  There was a slight increase in labor burden to correct a mathematical error on the burden line item for “3.E. Notification of demonstration of CMS.”

6(g)  Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 55 hours per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.  The OMB Control Numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

	To comment on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0711. An electronic version of the public docket is available at http://www.regulations.gov, which may be used to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document.  The documents are also available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1752.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0711 and OMB Control Number 2060-0035 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting

this information.

Table 1.  Annual Respondent Burden and Cost:

NSPS for Sewage Sludge Treatment Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart O)

	Burden item

	(A)

Technical Person-

hours per

occurrence

(B)

No.  of

occurrences

per respondent

per year

(C)

Technical Person-

hours per

respondent

per year

(C=AxB)

(D)

Respondents

per year

(E)

Technical

person-

hours per

year

(E=CxD)

(F)

Management

person-hours per

year

(Ex0.05)

(G)

Clerical

person-

hours per year

(Ex0.1)

(H)

Total Cost

Per Year  a

1.  Applications

N/A

2.  Survey and Studies

N/A

3.  Reporting Requirements

A. Read instructions

1

1

1

1bc

1

0.05

0.1

$72.75

B. Required activities

Initial performance test

72

1

72

1bc

72

3.6

7.2

$5,237.96

Demonstration of monitoring system

Included in performance test

Repeat performance test

72

1

72

0.2d

14.4

0.72

1.44

$1,047.59

C. Create information

Included in 3B

D. Gather existing information

N/A

E. Write Report

Notification of construction/ reconstruction

2

1

2

1bc

2

0.1

0.2

$145.50

Notification of physical and operational changes

2

1

2

1e

2

0.1

0.2

$145.50

Notification of demonstration of CMS

40

1

40

1bc

40

2

4

$2909.98

Notification of actual startup

2

1

2

1bc

2

0.1

0.2

$145.50

Notification of initial performance test

2

1

2

1bc

2

0.1

0.2

$145.50

Performance test report

Included in 3B

Semiannual reports of excess emissions

40f

2

80

54g

4,320

216

432

$314,277.84

Subtotal Reporting Labor Burden and Cost

5,123.71

$324,129.12

4.  Recordkeeping Requirements

A.  Read instructions

Included in 4E

B.  Plan activities

Included in 4E

C.  Implement activities

Included in 4E

D.  Develop record system

N/A

E.  Time to enter information

a. Record of daily production rate and hours of operation

8h

1

8

54g

432

21.6

43.2

$31,427.78

b. Records of startup, shutdown and malfunction

8

1

8

54g

432

21.6

43.2

$31,427.78

c. Records of performance test data

80i

1

80

1bc

80

4

8

$5,819.96

Subtotal Recordkeeping Labor Burden and Cost

1085.60

$68,675.84

TOTAL LABOR  BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

6,209

$392,804

Assumptions:

a  This ICR uses the following labor rates: $93.09 per hour for Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $64.13 per hour for Technical labor, and $39.65 per hour for Clerical labor.  These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 2003, Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group.

b  Assume that there will be one new, modified or reconstructed facility constructed for the next three years.

c  Assume that this is a one-time-only cost.

d  Assume that 20 percent would have to repeat the performance testing due to failure.

e  Assume that one facility will have a physical or operational change.

f  Assume that it will take forty hours to write semiannual reports.

g  Assume that there are fifty-four sources subject to this rule.

h  Assume that it will take eight hours per year to record daily gathering of monitoring data (which have been automatically recorded).

i  Assume that it will take eighty hours per year to record performance test data.

Table 2.  Average Annual EPA Burden:

NSPS for Sewage Sludge Treatment Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart O)

	Burden Item

(A)

Technical Person

Hours Per

Occurrence

(B)

Number  of

Occurrences

Per Year

(C)

Technical

Person

Hours Per Plant Per

Year

(C=AxB)

(D)

Plants Per  Year

(E)

Technical Hours

Per Year

(E=CxD)

	(F)

Management   Hours Per Year

(F=0.05xE)

(G)

Clerical

Hours Per

Year

(G=0.1xE)

(H)

Total a

Costs,

Per Year

Initial Performance Test

24

1

24

1bc

24

1.2

2.4

$1,078.82

Repeat initial performance test

1.  Retesting preparation

24

0.2d

4.8

1bc

4.8

0.24

0.48

$215.76

Report Review

Notification of construction/ reconstruction

2

1

2

1bc

2

0.1

0.2

$89.90

Notification of Physical and operational changes

2

1

2

1e

2

0.1

0.2

$89.90

Notification of actual startup

0.5

1

0.5

1bc

0.5

0.025

0.05

$22.48

Initial test

0.5

1

0.5

1bc

0.5

0.025

0.05

$22.48

Repeat performance test

8

1

8

1bc

8

0.4

0.8

$359.61

Semiannual reports

8f

2

16

54g

864

   43.2

86.4

$38,837.66

Subtotal

905.8

45.29

90.58

$40,716.61

Travel Expenses

 (1 person x 1 plant/yr x 2 day/plant x $50 per diem) + ($400/round trip x1round trips/yr) =                                        $500

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN and COST (rounded)

1,042

$41,217

Assumptions:

a   This cost is based on the following hourly labor rates times a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses: $54.02 for Managerial (GS-13, Step 5, $33.76 x 1.6), $40.08 for Technical (GS-12, Step 1, $25.05 x 1.6) and $21.70 for Clerical (GS-6, Step 3, $13.56 x 1.6).  These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2003 General Schedule,” which excludes locality rates of pay.

b  Assume that there will be one new, modified or reconstructed facility constructed over the next three years.

c  Assume that this is a one-time-only cost.

d  Assume that 20 percent would have to repeat the performance testing due to failure.

e  Assume that one facility will have a physical or operational change.

f  Assume that it will take eight hours to review semiannual reports.

g  Assume that there are fifty-four sources subject to this rule.

 PAGE

 PAGE   16

 PAGE   10


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 207 (Friday, October 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63860-63861]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24976]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0817; Airspace Docket No. 13-AWP-14]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class D Airspace; Kwajalein Island, Marshall
Islands, RMI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Kwajalein Island Class D airspace
description by amending the geographic coordinates for Bucholz Army
Airfield (AAF), Kwajalein Island, Marshall Islands, RMI. The Bucholz
AAF geographic coordinates information was updated in the Kwajalein
Island Class E airspace descriptions in 2011, but was inadvertently
overlooked in the Kwajalein Island Class D airspace description. This
action ensures the safety of aircraft operating in the Kwajalein Island
airspace area. This is an administrative action and does not affect the
operating requirements of the airspace.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, December 12, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy and ATC
Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    In 2010, the FAA published a final rule, technical amendment in the
Federal Register (75 FR 61993, October 7, 2010) that removed reference
to the decommissioned Kwajalein Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN)
navigation aid from the Kwajalein Island Class E airspace area legal
descriptions. Subsequent to that rule being published, it was
determined that the Bucholz AAF geographic coordinates were in error.
As a result, the FAA published a final rule, correction in the Federal
Register (76 FR 2572, January 14, 2011) to correcting the Bucholz AAF
geographic coordinates information in the Kwajalein Island Class E
airspace descriptions and to match the FAA's aeronautical database.
Unfortunately, consideration for correcting the Bucholz AAF geographic
coordinates in the Kwajalein Island Class D airspace description was
overlooked at that time and is now being corrected.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
71 by amending the geographic coordinates for Bucholz AAF in the
Kwajalein Island, Marshall Islands, RMI, Class D airspace legal
description to reflect current FAA aeronautical database information.
The geographic coordinates for Bucholz AAF, are changed from (lat.
08[deg]43'00'' N., long. 167[deg]44'00'' E) to (lat. 08[deg]43'12'' N.,
long. 167[deg]43'54'' E.) This action more accurately depicts the
center of the Kwajalein Island Class D airspace area with no other
changes to the dimensions or altitudes of the Class D airspace area.
Therefore, notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are
unnecessary.
    Class D airspace areas are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order
7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace area
listed in this action will be published subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so
minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is

charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace
necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it
amends Class D airspace at Kwajalein Island, Marshall Islands, RMI.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p.389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9X,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 7, 2013, and
effective September 15, 2013, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000--Class D Airspace

* * * * *

AWP RM D Kwajalein Island, Marshall Islands, RMI

Kwajalein Island, Bucholz AAF, RMI
    (Lat. 08[deg]43'12'' N., long. 167[deg]43'54'' E.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,500 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of the Bucholz AAF. This
Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and
times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective
date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the
Pacific Chart Supplement.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, September 24, 2013.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2013-24976 Filed 10-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 209)]
[Notices]
[Page 63301]
[DOCID:fr30oc06-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-24-000]

Young Gas Storage Company, Ltd.; Notice of Tariff Filing

October 18, 2006.
    Take notice that on October 17, 2006, Young Gas Storage Company,
Ltd. (Young) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Original Volume No. 1, Fourth Revised Sheet No. 9 and Seventh Revised
Sheet No. 96, to become effective November 17, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-18124 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P