As mentioned above, though some limited chemical specific water monitoring data are available, they are not nationally representative and not at the tap data. Therefore, EECs were calculated by EFED to estimate the potential contribution to the chronic exposure from drinking water, and the EECs were compared to the chronic DWLOCs.

5.4.2 Chronic DWLOC Calculations To calculate the DWLOC for chronic ( noncancer) exposure relative to a chronic toxicity endpoint, the dietary food exposure ( from DEEM   ) was subtracted from the PAD to obtain the exposure to 46 diuron and its 3,4 DCA containing metabolites in drinking water that would not be of concern.

A chronic DWLOC ( DWLOCchronic) was calculated using the following formulae:

DWLOCchronic ( µ g/ L) = chronic water exposure ( mg/ kg/ d) x body weight ( kg) consumption ( L/ d) x 10 3 mg/ µ g chronic water exposure ( mg/ kg/ d) = [ cPAD  ( chronic food + residential( ADD)( mg/ kg/ d))]

Where ADD = average daily dose Residential exposures were not factored into the DWLOCchronic since no long term residential exposures ( handler or postapplication) are expected.

Taking into account the uses proposed in this action, the Agency cannot conclude with reasonable certainty that residues of diuron plus its metabolites hydrolyzable to 3,4 DCA, resulting from applications of diuron, in drinking water would not likely result in a chronic dietary risk to infants, children, and adults above the Agency's level of concern. The Agency based this determination on a comparison of estimated concentrations of diuron and its metabolites in surface waters to backcalculated " levels of comparison" for diuron plus its metabolites in drinking water.

Modeled Tier 2 ( PRZM/ EXAMS) estimates of concentrations of diuron plus its metabolites ( DCPMU, DCPU, 3,4 DCA) in surface water were above the chronic DWLOCs for all population subgroups and are of concern ( Table 13). The EECs calculated by EFED were based on the highest labeled rate of application for citrus. Modeled Tier 1 SCI GROW estimates of ground water concentrations of diuron plus its metabolites ( DCPMU, DCPU, 3,4 DCA) were below the chronic DWLOCs and are not of concern.

Table 13 Summary of Chronic DWLOC Calculations Population Subgroups cPAD mg/ kg/ d Food Exposure mg/ kg/ d Maximum Water Exposure mg/ kg/ d PRZM/ EXAMS ( ppb) surface water ( total EECs) SCI GROW ( ppb) ground water ( total EECs) DWLOCchronic ( ppb)

U. S. Population 0.003 0.000088 0.0029 104 9.1 102 Females 13 50 yrs 0.003 0.000069 0.0029 104 9.1 88 Infants < 1 yr 0.003 0.000077 0.0029 104 9.1 29 47 Children 1 6 yrs 0.003 0.00020 0.0028 104 9.1 28 5.5 Cancer Risk 5.5.1 Aggregate Cancer Risk Assessment Though estimated exposure to food alone results in a cancer risk ( 1.68 x 10 6) for the U. S. general population, it is not of concern. The estimates of exposures from food are based on a refined analysis (% CT and some processing data), but used data from field trails conducted at the maximum application rates and cannot be further refined without additional data ( processing data, monitoring data that includes the parent and its metabolites that are hydrolyzable to 3,4 DCA). Residential exposures to applicators ( adults) applying paint with a paintbrush or airless sprayer result in potential cancer risks that are of concern ( range 1.9 x 10 6 to 6.8 x 10 6). This is a conservative assessment based on Residential SOPs and includes an estimate of dermal exposure and an upper bound dermal absorption factor. Residential exposures to homeowners loading ready to use liquids do not result in potential cancer risks that are of concern.

5.5.2 Cancer DWLOC Calculations For the cancer ( Q1*) exposure calculations, the Agency uses a multi year mean water concentration values. The DWLOCcancer is the concentration in drinking water as a part of the aggregate chronic exposure that results in a negligible cancer risk ( 10 6). Residential exposures to adult handlers would be factored into the DWLOCcancer however, since the potential cancer risks from exposures during residential activities, alone, are of concern, no DWLOCs were calculated and allowable exposures to water are essentially " 0."

5.5.3 Additional Cancer Risks The MARC recommended that a separate dietary cancer assessment be conducted for MCPDMU, a potential residue of concern in water, but not found in plant or animal residue studies. The MARC raised concerns for N'( 3 chlorophenyl) N, N dimethyl urea ( MCPDMU) based on an analogous compound, N'( 4 chlorophenyl) N, N dimethyl urea ( monuron). With the exception of the position of the chlorine, the structures are identical. There are cancer concerns for monuron but the target organs are different than those affected by diuron. Monuron produces kidney and liver tumors in male rats ( NTP technical Report 266, 1988). The most potent unit risk, Q1 * of those calculated for monuron is that for male rat liver neoplastic nodule and/ or carcinoma combined tumor rates at 1.52 x 10 2 ( mg/ kg/ day) 1, in human equivalents ( MONURON: Quantitative Risk Assessment ( Q1 *) Based On F344/ N Rat Dietary Study With 3/ 4' s Interspecies Scaling Factor. PC Code 035501. Lori L. Brunsman. July 5, 2001). 48 Since there is potential for MCPDMU to occur in water, the Agency considered possible exposures to MCPDMU from ingestion of catfish, as well as from drinking water. The AR of MCPDMU in catfish was calculated using the following inputs:

2 ppm tolerance for catfish x 0.251 x 0.352 = anticipated residue Where: 1 The fraction of applied radioactive diuron converted to MCPDMU in an aerobic aquatic metabolism study ( see EFED chapter). The data were obtained from a sample taken 30 days after initiation of the study and was the highest residue value found. The study indicated an approximately linear correlation of MCPDMU vs time and the 30 day sample was the longest interval provided. 2 % CT for catfish.

Using the Q1* for monuron, the calculated cancer risk to the U. S. general population from potential exposure to MCPDMU in catfish alone is 1.02 x 10 7 and is not of concern.

A DWLOCcancer for MCPDMU was calculated to determine whether potential exposures to MCPDMU only ( Drinking Water Assessment for diuron and its degradates. Ibrahim Abdel Saheb. March 11, 2001) in drinking water from surface or ground water sources is of concern. As illustrated below, the EEC of MCPDMU from surface water ( PRZM/ EXAMS) exceeds the DWLOCcancer and is of concern.

Summary of Cancer DWLOC Calculations for MCPDMU Population Subgroup Negligible Risk Q1* ( mg/ kg/ d) 1 Chronic Food Exposure PRZM/ EXAMS ( ppb) SCIGROW ( ppb) DWLOCcancer ( ppb)

U. S. Population 0.000001 0.0152 0.000007 26 1.4 2.0 There are several issues to consider when characterizing the magnitude of the potential cancer risk from exposure to MCPDMU, and the appropriateness of the analogy to monuron ( Personal communication. Alberto Protzel. October 4, 2001):

° There is no proven mechanism for the carcinogenic effect of monuron in rats, to allow for the satisfactory evaluation of the effect on carcinogenicity of going from the 4 chloro isomer in monuron to the 3 chloro isomer in the water metabolite.

° There are no toxicity data on the 3 chloro isomer to comfortably rule it out as a carcinogen.

In the absence of the data needed for a more comprehensive evaluation, the carcinogenic risk assessment was conducted using the Q1 * of monuron. It is possible to speculate that the actual risk for 49 the 3 chlorophenyl isomer might be lower ( how much lower cannot be established) than the calculations indicate based on the following observations:

° Both monuron and its metabolic product p chloroaniline ( a. k. a. 4 chloroaniline) have been shown to be carcinogens. Monuron produced tumors of the kidney and liver in male rats ( NTP technical Report 266, 1988). PCA produced tumors of the liver and spleen in male mice ( NTP Technical Report 351, 1989). In contrast, the pesticide chlorpropham ( isopropyl m chlorcarbanilate), which releases 3 chloroaniline ( excreted in urine as 1 2% of the dose and is a moiety associated with the 3 chloro water metabolite of diuron), is currently classified by the Agency as an E carcinogen. Although 3 chloroaniline produced a statistically significant increase in testicular interstitial cell adenomas in rats, well above historical controls, the significant increase occurred at 1000 mg/ kg/ day, a dose considered by the Agency to be excessive.

° Sabbioni and Neuman ( Carcinogenesis 11: 111 115,1990) studied the in vivo binding of arylamines to a cellular macromolecule ( hemoglobin). 3 Chloroaniline ( administered to rats pure or as chlorpropham) produced 1/ 10 or less the amount of hemoglobin adducts that was produced by 4 chloroaniline ( administered to rats pure or as monuron). This observation might suggest less avidity of 3 chloroaniline than 4 chloroaniline for cellular macromolecules.

6.0 CUMULATIVE The Agency does not currently have data available to determine with certainty whether diuron has a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances. For purposes of this human health risk assessment, the Agency has assumed that diuron does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with any other pesticides. Additional weight of the evidence supports this approach as is discussed below.

In May 1999, the Agency performed a Section 18 risk assessment for diuron use in catfish ponds ( ID# 99MS0001. SECTION 18 EXEMPTION FOR THE USE OF DIURON 80W IN CATFISH PONDS IN MISSISSIPPI. DP Barcode: D255462. Pamela Hurley, Richard Loranger, Steven Weiss. May 13, 1999). At that time, the estimated residues of propanil and linuron were added to those of diuron and the risk assessment was performed using the noncancer endpoints selected for diuron. All three chemicals contain within their structures, 3,4 DCA. However, linuron and diuron are ureas, while propanil is not. Though propanil readily metabolizes to 3,4 DCA, neither diuron nor linuron metabolize to 3,4   DCA in plant or animal metabolism studies.

Since 1999, the Agency has received and evaluated new information, performed a more comprehensive assessment of propanil and linuron, and re evaluated its approach to the assessment of diuron. The MARC does not recommend aggregating residues of 3,4 DCA for the propanil and diuron risk assessments [ Personal communication. Christine Olinger ( MARC Chair) to Sherrie Kinard. September 19, 2001]. 3,4 DCA is a significant residue of concern for propanil, but is not a residue of 50 concern per se for diuron. The analytical method for quantifying residues of concern from applications of diuron converts all residues to 3,4 DCA as a technical convenience. However, 3,4 DCA is not a significant residue in diuron plant and animal metabolism or hydrolysis studies. Therefore, the MARC recommended that all residues hydrolyzable to 3,4 DCA would be included in the tolerance expression for diuron, because no validated enforcement method is available for quantification for the actual residues of concern for diuron [ Diuron. Results of the Health Effects Division ( HED) Metabolism Assessment Review Committee ( MARC) Meeting Held on 03 JULY 2001. John Punzi. August 10, 2001]. Additionally, propanil and its metabolite 3,4 DCA were found to induce methemoglobinemia, the endpoint of concern for propanil. Diuron has not been shown to cause this effect. Diuron induces hemolytic anemia and compensatory hematopoiesis, which are mechanistically different from methemoglobinemia.

Linuron and diuron metabolism studies show that both chemicals metabolize to DCPU and DCPMU. However, for reasons that are yet unknown, these chemicals do not induce the same toxic effects in mammals. Submitted data indicate that diuron is primarily ( though not exclusively) metabolized by the hydroxylation of the urea group in either the methyl or the amino position and conjugated. Linuron, on the other hand, appears to be primarily ring hydroxylated and conjugated. The methoxy group is removed, followed by the methyl group, with ring hydroxylation. Unlike linuron, hydroxylation of the phenyl ring is not a major metabolite pathway of diuron and, both methyl groups are lost. Methemoglobinemia is the dominant toxic effect of concern for linuron. As mentioned above, diuron does not induce methemoglobinemia. Mechanistic and reproductive studies show that linuron, and to some extent propanil, is an androgen receptor antagonist and that linuron induces testicular abnormalities in rodents. Studies with diuron showed no indications of any endocrine effects and no developmental or reproductive effects. Though the mechanisms of action for the differing effects induced by the two ureas, diuron and linuron, are not entirely known, there is sufficient cause to believe that exposures from the two compounds should not be cumulated.

In addition, in 1999 the estimated dietary cancer risk for diuron did not include residues from linuron and propanil since it was recognized that the target organs for tumor induction for diuron are different from those for linuron and propanil, and data were available which indicated that the mechanism of action may be different for diuron. Currently available data support that decision.

In conclusion, the Agency has assumed that diuron does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with any other pesticides. For purposes of this human health risk assessment, a cumulative risk assessment is not warranted.

7.0 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE The Agency has determined that there are potential exposures to mixers, loaders, applicators and other handlers during the usual use patterns associated with diuron. Based on the use patterns, 31 51 major occupational exposure scenarios were identified for diuron. Calculations of noncancer risk based on inhalation exposure indicate that the inhalation margins of exposure ( MOEs) are more than 100 at the highest possible level of mitigation for all of the short term occupational exposure scenarios except applying sprays with a high pressure handwand. Sixteen of the 31 occupational scenarios were identified as having intermediate term durations of exposure. Of these, none have a non cancer risk of concern for intermediate term inhalation exposure at the highest possible level of mitigation. A noncancer postapplication risk assessment was not conducted, since no systemic toxicity by the dermal route is expected for the short or intermediate term durations. Postapplication cancer risks for private growers were calculated at both the typical application rate and the maximum application rate for each crop grouping. All cancer risks to private growers were less than 1 x 10 4 on the day of treatment. Postapplication cancer risks for commercial applicators were calculated at the typical application rate for each crop grouping. All potential cancer risks to commercial applicators were less than 1 x 10 4 on the day of treatment.

Occupational risk assessments were conducted for the use of diuron as a mildewcide in paint. Four occupational handler scenarios were identified for the use of diuron in paint and are expected to be of short and intermediate term exposure duration. The calculations of short and intermediate term inhalation risk from the use of diuron in paint indicate that MOEs are more than 100 at the assessed level of mitigation for all the exposure scenarios, except applying paints with an airless sprayer ( indoors). At the assessed level of mitigation, all four scenarios have potential cancer risks between 1 x 10 4 and 1 x 10 6. Occupational postapplication exposures to paint containing diuron may occur in industrial settings around open vats used in paint processing. Inhalation and dermal exposures may also occur while maintaining industrial equipment. No postapplication exposure data have been submitted to determine the extent of postapplication exposures in the industrial settings. Nonetheless, inhalation exposures are expected to be minimal because of the low vapor pressure of diuron ( 2 x 10 7 mm Hg at 30 E C) and aerosol formation is not expected. Dermal postapplication exposures are expected to be lower than when handling/ loading the formulated product. Therefore, postapplication exposures in the industrial settings are expected to be minimal and not of concern.

Occupational risk assessments were also conducted for the use of diuron as an algaecide in commercial fish ponds. Four short term occupational handler scenarios were identified for the use of diuron in commercial fish production and the inhalation MOEs from all four of the commercial fish production scenarios were greater than 100 at the baseline level of mitigation and are not of concern. With maximum mitigation measures ( engineering control level), all four scenarios have estimated cancer risks of less than 1 x 10 6 and are not of concern. Occupational postapplication exposure to diuron in treated fish production ponds is not likely to result in a risk of concern based on the extremely high dilution rate.

7.1 Agricultural and Non crop/ Utility Uses 7.1.1 Handler 52 The EPA has determined that there are potential exposures to mixers, loaders, applicators, and other handlers during usual use patterns associated with diuron. Based on the use patterns, 31 major occupational exposure scenarios were identified for diuron: ( 1a) mixing/ loading liquid formulations for aerial application; ( 1b) mixing/ loading liquid formulations for chemigation; ( 1c) mixing/ loading liquid formulations for groundboom application; ( 1d) mixing/ loading liquid formulations for rights of way sprayers; ( 1e) mixing/ loading liquid formulations for high pressure hand wand; ( 2a) mixing/ loading dry flowables for aerial application; ( 2b) mixing/ loading dry flowables for chemigation; ( 2c) mixing/ loading dry flowables for groundboom application; ( 2d) mixing/ loading dry flowables for rights of way spray application; ( 2e) mixing/ loading dry flowables for high pressure hand wand; ( 3a) mixing/ loading wettable powders for aerial application; ( 3b) mixing/ loading wettable powders for chemigation; ( 3c) mixing/ loading wettable powders for groundboom application; ( 3d) mixing/ loading wettable powders for rights of way spray application; ( 3e) mixing/ loading wettable powders for high pressure hand wand; ( 4) loading granulars for tractor drawn spreaders; ( 5) applying sprays for aerial application; ( 6) applying sprays for groundboom application; ( 7) applying sprays with a rights of way sprayer; ( 8) applying sprays with a high pressure hand wand; ( 9) applying granulars for a tractor drawn spreader; ( 10) applying granulars with a spoon; ( 11) applying granulars for hand application; ( 12) flagging aerial spray applications; ( 13) mixing/ loading/ applying liquids with a low pressure hand wand; ( 14) mixing/ loading/ applying liquids with a backpack sprayer; ( 15) mixing/ loading/ applying wettable powders with a low pressure hand wand; ( 16) loading/ applying granulars with a pump feed backpack spreader; ( 17) loading/ applying gravity feed backpack spreader; ( 18) loading/ applying granulars for a belly grinder application; and ( 19) loading/ applying granulars with a push type spreader. Since granulars are only used on non crop/ utility areas, aerial application of granulars and flaggers supporting aerial operations were not assessed.

Current diuron labels have PPE requirements ranging from no PPE listed to long sleeved shirt and long pants, waterproof gloves, shoes, socks, protective eye wear, chemical resistant headgear, and a dust/ mist filtering respirator. Mixer and loaders must also wear a chemical resistant apron.

Table 3 in the attached document, Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment and Recommendations for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document for Diuron. Renee Sandvig and Christina Jarvis. October 16, 2001, summarizes the caveats and parameters specific to the surrogate data used for each handler scenario and the corresponding exposure/ risk assessment. These caveats include the source of the data and an assessment of the overall quality of the data. The assessment of data quality is based solely on the number of observations and the available quality control data. The quality control data are based on a grading criteria established by the PHED Task Force. The PHED Task Force is comprised of representatives from the U. S. EPA, Health Canada, the California Department of Pesticide regulation, and member companies of the American Crop Protection Association. The sources of the surrogate include:

! Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database ( PHED). 53 ! Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force ( ORETF). The task force recently submitted proprietary data to the Agency on hose end sprayers, push type granular spreaders, and handgun sprayers ( MRID # 44972201). The ORETF data were used in this assessment in place of PHED data for the " loading/ applying granulars using a push type spreader" scenario.

! Worker Exposure Study During Application In Banana Plantation With Temik 10G ( MRID # 451672 01). The Agency has used data from the aldicarb ( Temik) study to assess exposures and risks to handlers applying granulars with a pump feed backpack sprayer.

! Worker Exposure Study During Application of Regent 20GR In Banana Plantation ( MRID # 452507 02). The Agency has used data from the fipronil ( Regent 20 GR) study to assess exposures and risks to handlers loading and applying granulars with a gravity feed backpack sprayer. In addition, the Agency has also used data from the fipronil study to assess exposures and risks to occupational handlers loading and applying granulars using a scoop and bucket.

Calculations for the handler risk assessment were completed for a range of maximum application rates for specific crops recommended by the available diuron labels and the LUIS report. These rates were assessed in order to bracket risk levels associated with the various use patterns.

<IP_ADDRESS> Noncancer Exposure and Risk Estimates Noncancer handler exposure assessments were completed using a baseline exposure scenario and, if required, increasing levels of risk mitigation ( PPE and engineering controls) in an attempt to achieve an appropriate margin of exposure. The baseline scenario generally represents a handler wearing long pants, a long sleeved shirt, no respirator, and no chemical resistant gloves ( there are exceptions pertaining to the use of gloves, and these are noted). Noncancer dermal risks from the use of diuron were not calculated. No systemic toxicity following repeated dermal dosing at 1200 mg/ kg/ day was seen in the rabbit dermal toxicity study; therefore, a quantitative noncancer dermal risk assessment ( short and intermediate term) is not required. However, calculations of daily dermal exposure and daily dermal dose were included for purposes of the cancer risk assessment.

Handler exposures to diuron are expected to be mainly of short term duration ( one day to one month). Intermediate term exposure ( one month to several months) for handlers is possible for large field crops, including corn, wheat, oats and cotton, because of their long planting seasons. Rights ofway sprayer scenarios for utility and industrial areas are assumed to be of intermediate term duration, because utility workers could possibly treat rights of way areas ( roadsides, railroads, etc) all summer long. The short term inhalation MOEs were calculated using the NOAEL of 10 mg/ kg/ day, from the developmental toxicity study in rabbits. The intermediate term MOEs were calculated using the NOAEL of 1.0 mg/ kg/ day, from the chronic toxicity study in rats. An LOC or target MOE of 100 has been identified as the target risk level for short and intermediate term occupational exposure scenarios. Tables14 and 15 show a summary of the short and intermediate term exposures and MOEs. 54 Of the 31 identified occupational handler exposure scenarios, all short and intermediate term exposure scenarios resulted in MOEs greater than 100 with PPE and Engineering Control mitigation for all scenarios for which engineering controls are feasible. The only scenario for which the estimated risks ( MOEs) were calculated to be less than 100, and therefore of concern to the Agency, is Applying Sprays for High Pressure Handwand Application at the maximum application rate of 0.96 lb ai per gallon, at both minimum and maximum levels of PPE protection ( MOEs range from 46 to 92). Engineering Controls are not feasible for this scenario.

<IP_ADDRESS> Cancer Exposure and Risk Estimates The cancer handler exposure scenarios are identical to those assessed in the noncancer handler assessment. To assess cancer risk, a total daily dose, a lifetime daily dose and a total cancer risk are calculated. The total daily dose is calculated to include both dermal and inhalation exposure ( dermal dose includes dermal absorption since an oral cancer endpoint was used) and used a Q1*= 1.91 x 10 2 ( mg/ kg/ day) 1 in human equivalents.

The assessment assumed that the average lifetime is 70 years, exposure duration is 35 years, and that the exposures per year are: 10 days per year for the private grower and 30 days per year for a commercial applicator. Maximum application rates were used in the private grower assessment. Typical application rates were used in both the private grower and commercial applicator assessments. It was assumed that as the frequency of exposure increased, the probability of being exposed to a maximum application rate would decrease. Therefore, maximum application rates were not assessed for the commercial applicator. Table 16 summarizes the cancer risks associated with the handling of diuron for the baseline, maximum PPE and engineering control level of mitigation. In general, the Agency is concerned when occupational cancer risk estimates exceed 1 x 10 4. The Agency will seek ways to mitigate the risks, to the extent that it is practical and economically feasible, to lower the risks to 1 x 10 6 or less.

Five of the assessed scenarios have cancer risks greater than 1 x 10 4 at the highest feasible level of mitigation ( private farmer/ commercial applicator, typical/ max rate) and are of concern ( See Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment and Recommendations for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document for Diuron. Renee Sandvig and Christina Jarvis. October 16, 2001). Twenty six of the scenarios have cancer risks between 1 x 10 4 and 1 x 10 6 at the highest feasible level of mitigation ( private farmer/ commercial applicator, typical/ max rate).

7.1.2 Postapplication Exposures EPA has determined that there are potential postapplication exposures to individuals entering treated fields. The current diuron labels have a restricted entry interval ( REI) requirement of 12 hours with the following early entry PPE required: coveralls over long sleeved shirt and long pants, waterproof gloves, chemical resistant footwear plus socks, protective eye wear and chemical resistant headgear for 55 overhead exposures.

Many of the applications of diuron are soil directed or pre plant, since the application of diuron to most of the registered crops would result in plant damage. Only the crops whose foliage can be sprayed without damage were assessed for postapplication exposure to foliage. The crops that can be sprayed without foliage damage are oats, wheat, birdsfoot treefoil, clover, grass grown for seed, alfalfa, asparagus, pineapple, and sugarcane.

Significant exposure to diuron may result from contact with treated soil when planting seedlings, moving irrigation lines, or other soil related activities since diuron is applied directly to the soil. At this time, no transfer coefficients exist for activities resulting in contact with treated soil. There are also no data on the soil residue dissipation of diuron. A worker exposure study and a diuron soil residue dissipation study would be needed to assess this risk. Transfer coefficients do not exist for the mechanical harvesting of alfalfa and asparagus and these activities are considered of special concern according to the Agriculture Transfer Coefficient Exposure SAC policy 3.1. Significant worker exposure is possible from mechanical harvesting of these crops.

Since diuron can be applied as a defoliant soon before harvest, exposure to cotton harvesters is of special concern for this chemical. Data recently submitted to the Agency show that there is exposure during the mechanical harvesting of cotton. Exposure can result from the following occupational job functions: picker operator, module builder, tramper, and raker. A picker operator is the individual that drives the harvesting machine, usually with an enclosed cab. A module builder operator is the individual that operates the controls of the module builder into which the picker loads the cotton. The module builder is used to receive the cotton and then compact it into modules or bales. A tramper is the individual who stands on top of the module builder and helps direct the cotton out of the picker and into the module builder. The tramper than jumps into the module builder and redistributes the cotton within the module builder. A raker is the individual who rakes up the spilled cotton and puts it back into the module builder. The models presently used to assess occupational postapplication exposure cannot be used since the foliage has dropped off of the cotton plants by the time of harvest. There are no standard default transfer coefficients for these activities at this time. Data on these exposure potentials are requested. Diuron labels with the cotton defoliant use should specify that cotton can only be harvested mechanically.

Chemical specific postapplication exposure and/ or environmental fate data have not yet been submitted by the registrant in support of reregistration of diuron. In lieu of these data, a surrogate postapplication assessment was conducted to determine potential human risks incurred from applying diuron to the foliage of the crops that can be sprayed without damage to the leaves. The surrogate assessment in Table 17 is based on both the typical and maximum application rates that a private farmer/ grower may reasonably be expected to be exposed to for a short duration ( 10 days). The surrogate assessment in Table 18 is based on the typical application rates that a commercial applicator may be reasonably expected to be exposed to for a more extended duration ( 30 days). The maximum 56 application rates are not included in the postapplication assessment for the commercial applicator, as it is unlikely that a commercial applicator would be exposed at the maximum application rate for 30 days a year, i. e. it was assumed that as the frequency of the exposure increased, the probability of being exposed to a maximum application rate would decrease.

<IP_ADDRESS> Noncancer Postapplication Exposure and Risk Estimates A noncancer postapplication risk assessment was not conducted, since no systemic toxicity by the dermal route is expected for the short or intermediate term durations. 57 <IP_ADDRESS> Postapplication Exposure and Risk Estimates for Cancer In general, the Agency is concerned when postapplication occupational cancer risk estimates exceed 1 x10 4. This diuron postapplication cancer assessment assumes that a worker would contact day zero residues ( residues on the day of application) for ten or thirty days a year, every year for 35 years. Since it is unlikely that a postapplication worker would contact the highest possible residue value for that length of time, this assessment is considered very conservative.

<IP_ADDRESS>.1 Private Growers ( 10 Days Exposure Per Year)

Postapplication cancer risks for private growers were calculated at both the typical application rate and the maximum application rate for each crop grouping. All cancer risks to private growers were less than 1 x 10 4 on the day of treatment ( Table 17).

<IP_ADDRESS>.2 Commercial Farm Workers ( 30 Days Exposure Per Year)

Postapplication cancer risks for commercial farm workers were calculated at the typical application rate for each crop grouping. All potential cancer risks to commercial farm workers were less than 1 x 10 4 on the day of treatment ( Table 18).

Historically, setting REIs on cancer endpoints has been difficult because of the need for lifetime use assumptions. To estimate the LADD ( Life time Average Daily Dose), the typical application rate, the number of days worked per year, and the number of years one would be exposed during a working lifetime are needed. Each one of these variables is dependent upon many factors. For example, the number of days worked per year must correspond to the days worked when the pesticide of concern has been applied. Additionally, the residue dissipation over the work interval should be estimated. Without an estimate for residue dissipation one needs to assume ( conservatively) that the worker travels from one treated field to another so that the highest residue value is always contacted. In the case of diuron, a screening estimate was developed because lifetime use data are not available.

7.2 Mildewcide in Paints, Solvents, Adhesives, and Coatings 7.2.1 Occupational Handler Exposures/ Risks Diuron is used as a mildewcide in paints, solvents, adhesives, stains, polymer latices, plaster, stuccos, sealants, caulking, fillers, and coatings. For these uses, four labels exist: EPA Reg. Nos. 67071 15, 67071 2, 67071 17, and 5383 101. These products are formulated as a flowable concentrate, a tablet, an emulsifiable concentrate, and a paste form, respectively. Traditionally, OPP's Antimicrobial Division assesses antimicrobial uses of pesticides. However, in the case of diuron, the antimicrobial uses were assessed by HED. These pesticide products are incorporated into paint at 0.20 to 2.5 % during the initial phase of the manufacturing process. HED has identified and assessed the 58 primary handlers as those individuals who mix and load diuron formulation at the manufacturing facility for use as a mildewcide in adhesives, caulks, sealants, and paints ( see discussion of primary vs. secondary handlers in section 4.4.1 Home Uses). The secondary handlers are commercial applicators who apply adhesives, caulks, sealants, and paints.

No handler exposure data have been submitted to determine the extent of these exposures. The Agency assessed the risks to the primary handlers using the dermal and inhalation exposure data for loading liquids and tablet formulations from the proprietary Chemical Manufacturers Association ( CMA) antimicrobial exposure study ( MRID 42587501). No unit exposure data exist to assess the mixing and loading of the paste formulation into paint. It is assumed that this exposure would be similar to mixing and loading liquids into paint products. Two primary handler exposure scenarios have been identified and include: 1) Mixing/ Loading liquids and 2) Loading tablets.

In addition to the primary handlers, secondary handlers are assessed using an airless sprayer and a paint brush. Unit exposure data used to assess the exposure resulting from applying paint containing diuron with an airless sprayer and a paintbrush were taken from a previous chlorothalonil assessment ( again, see discussion in section 4.4.1 Home Uses). The clothing and PPE scenarios for each type of exposure reflect the clothing and PPE worn in the study from which the unit exposure values were derived. Although there is potential exposure during the application of the other treated materials ( e. g., caulks and sealants), they are not included because no data are available to assess the uses. There is also potential for exposure from applying paint with a roller. It is HED's professional judgement that the airless sprayer and paintbrush scenarios represent the high end exposures for diuron antimicrobial secondary uses. Two secondary handler exposure scenarios have been identified and include: 3) Applying paints with an airless sprayer, and 4) Applying paints with a paint brush.

These four exposure scenarios were used to assess the handler risks to diuron's antimicrobial uses. The noncancer and cancer risk equations and assumptions stated previously in this assessment were also used to calculate exposure from diuron's antimicrobial uses. The industrial and commercial painter exposure scenarios are believed to have a short ( one to 30 days) and intermediate term ( one month to 180 days) exposure duration. It is assumed that diuron would only be mixed into paint every other week, five days a week. This type of intermittent exposure frequency is not considered a chronic exposure scenario ( greater then 180 days) because diuron is not believed to be used continuously for at least 180 days and the rat metabolism study ( MRID 440196 01) indicates that urinary and fecal excretion of diuron is nearly complete within 24 hours in the low dose groups ( 10 mg/ kg/ day) and within 48 hours in high dose groups ( 400 mg/ kg/ day). For the cancer risk assessment, workers handling diuron in the industrial setting ( mixing diuron into paints) are assumed to be exposed to diuron in paints 125 days per year ( 50 weeks worked/ year x 0.5 " every other week" x 5 days/ week) and commercial painters applying diuron treated paint are assumed to be exposed 50 days per year ( only in paints needing mildewcide and not all paint is treated with diuron). 59 <IP_ADDRESS> Noncancer Risks The short term inhalation NOAEL of 10 mg/ kg/ day and the intermediate term inhalation NOAEL of 1.0 mg/ kg/ day were used for all noncancer exposures and have a target MOE of 100. The calculations of short term inhalation risk indicate that inhalation MOEs are more than 100 at the assessed level of mitigation for the all the exposure scenarios and therefore, not of concern. The calculations of intermediate term inhalation risk indicate that inhalation MOEs are more than 100 at the assessed level of mitigation for the all the exposure scenarios except the following ( Table 19):

! Applying paints with an airless sprayer indoors.

<IP_ADDRESS> Cancer Risks In general, the Agency is concerned when occupational cancer risk estimates exceed 1 x 10 4. The Agency will seek ways to mitigate the risks, to the extent that it is practical and economically feasible, to lower the risks to 1 x 10 6 or less.

The following scenarios have cancer risks between 1 x 10 4 and 1 x 10 6 at the assessed level of mitigation ( Table 20):

! ( 1) Mixing/ loading of liquids into paint products;

! ( 2) Loading of tablets into paint products;

! ( 3) Applying paints with an airless sprayer; and ! ( 4) Applying paints with a paint brush.

All scenarios were assessed at the maximum rate of application. Average application rate for the paint use is unknown and is requested to refine this risk.

7.2.2 Postapplication Exposures to Paint Containing Diuron Postapplication exposures may occur in industrial settings around open vats used in paint processing. Inhalation and dermal exposures may also occur while maintaining industrial equipment. No postapplication exposure data have been submitted to determine the extent of postapplication exposures in the industrial settings. Nonetheless, inhalation exposures are expected to be minimal because of the low vapor pressure of diuron ( 2 x 10 7 mmHg at 30 E C) and aerosol formation is not expected. Dermal postapplication exposures are expected to be lower than when handling/ loading the formulated product. Therefore, postapplication exposures in the industrial settings are expected to be minimal and not of concern. 60 7.3 Algaecide in Commercial Fish Production 7.3.1 Handlers Diuron is also used as an algaecide in the commercial production of ornamental fish, bait fish, and catfish. For these uses, there are two state labels ( FL99000200 and AR99000800), a section 18, and several other Griffin labels pending approval. Based on the use patterns of diuron as an algaecide, four occupational exposure scenarios were identified: ( 1a) Mixing/ loading dry flowables for catfish production; ( 1b) Mixing/ loading dry flowables for ornamental fish production; ( 2a) Mixing/ loading wettable powders for catfish production; and ( 2b) Mixing/ loading wettable powders for ornamental fish production. All handler exposures are expected to be short term in duration. An occupational assessment on the use of diuron in commercial catfish production has already been conducted by the Agency ( ID # 99MS0001. Section 18 Exemption for the Use of Diuron 80W in Catfish Ponds in Mississippi. Pam Hurley, Rick Loranger, and Steven Weiss. May 13, 1999). All assumptions used to calculate exposure are based on this assessment. Since no other data exist at this time, the assumptions used for catfish production in this assessment are assumed to be applicable to ornamental fish production as well. The noncancer and cancer risk equations and assumptions stated previously in this assessment were also used to calculate exposure from commercial fish production. HED assumed an average pond size of 15 acres, 4 feet deep, with 20 ponds per farm ( no more than 25% would be expected to be treated per day). The assumptions on pond size and numbers of ponds per farm are based on telephone conversations between HED staff ( Pilot Interdisciplinary Risk Assessment Team) and contacts at Auburn and Mississippi State Universities in 1996.

<IP_ADDRESS> Noncancer Exposures/ Risks for Pond Uses The LOC or target MOE for short term inhalation exposures is 100. The inhalation MOEs from all four of the commercial fish production scenarios were greater than 100 at the baseline level, without mitigation, and are not considered a risk of concern ( Table 21).

<IP_ADDRESS> Cancer Exposures/ Risks In general, the Agency is concerned when occupational cancer risk estimates exceed 1 x 10 4. The Agency will seek ways to mitigate the risks, to the extent that it is practical and economically feasible, to lower the risks to 1 x 10 6 or less. All four exposure scenarios have cancer risks between 1 x 10 4 and 1 x 10 6 at the baseline level of mitigation. When additional PPE was added as a mitigation measure, exposures from mixing/ loading dry flowables for catfish ponds and mixing/ loading wettable powders resulted in potential cancer risks of less than 1 x 10 6 and not of concern. When additional PPE was added to the mixing/ loading dry flowables for ornamental fish ponds scenario, the potential cancer risk was calculated to be between 1 x 10 4 and 1 x 10 6. All four exposure scenarios have cancer risks of less than 1 x 10 6 with maximum feasible mitigation, including engineering controls ( Table 22). 61 7.3.2 Occupational Postapplication Exposures to Commercial Fish Ponds Occupational postapplication exposure to diuron in treated fish production ponds is not likely to result in a risk of concern based on the extremely high dilution rate ( maximum application rate is 0.00000838 lb ai/ gallon of pond water), low frequency of postapplication activities, and a low dermal absorption value ( 4%).

7.4 Incident Data The Agency searched several databases for reports of incidents occurring resulting from exposures to diuron. The databases searched were the Incident Data System ( IDS), American Association of Poison Control Centers ( AAPCC), California Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program, and National Pesticide Telecommunication Network ( NPTN). There were incidents reported involving both adults and children. Most were treated on an outpatient basis but a few required hospitalization and one death occurred. A direct connection between exposure to diuron as the cause and the reported death has not been made as of this writing. Some incident reports described symptoms such as eye irritation, rash, dizziness, respiratory irritation and headaches for both agricultural and nonagricultural exposures. Specific details may be found in Review of Diuron Poisoning Incident Data. Chemical: # 035505. Ruth Allen. October 11, 2001.

The incident data show that the number of poisoning incidents for diuron alone is relatively small in any one surveillance system. Also, the incidents are scattered in time and location, and many of the incidents involve diuron use in mixtures. Therefore, few conclusions can be drawn. However, the 1995 Louisiana elementary school incident in which diuron was associated with the illnesses of 23 children and 9 adults, remains unexplained. There are no known recreational or school building registered uses of diuron. The Agency has an independent initiative to reduce the use of pesticides in and around schools. If diuron is associated with other illnesses in schools, consideration should be given to label language modifications that would specifically prohibit use in and around schools.

8.0 DATA NEEDS/ LABEL REQUIREMENTS Product Chemistry 1. The product chemistry data base is not complete; new confidential statements of formula ( CSFs) are required which reflect preliminary analyses of current products together with discussions of formation of impurities.

2. UV/ Visible absorption data/ spectra are required ( 830.7050).

Residue Chemistry 62 Refer to Table B on page 52 of the Residue Chemistry Chapter for the Diuron Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) Document. John Punzi. July 29, 2001 for more details of the requirements, listed by guideline.

3. Label revisions are required for many crops in order to reflect the parameters of use patterns for which residue data are available. Many of the revisions concern retreatment intervals, Preharvest Intervals ( PHI's) and rotational crop restrictions.

4. Though adequate analytical methods exist for data collection and tolerance enforcement in plants, independent laboratory validation of the enforcement method is required for livestock methods prior to Agency validation.

5. Multiresidue methods for diuron and metabolites of toxic concern are required for plants and livestock.

6. Results from animal feeding studies suggest that tolerances are necessary for poultry or egg commodities and for meats and milk. Residue data are not available for several potential feed items. If the maximum dietary burden does not increase when recalculated from all potential feed items after acceptable field trial data are submitted, then the established tolerances for residues in fat, meat, and meat byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep can be lowered.

7. The reregistration requirements for magnitude of the residue in plants are not fulfilled for: alfalfa forage; globe artichoke; barley hay; cotton gin byproducts; field corn aspirated grain fractions; field corn forage and stover; filbert; grass forage, hay, seed screenings, and straw; lemon; pear; oat forage, hay; olive; field pea vines and hay; sorghum aspirated grain fractions, stover, and forage; wheat forage and hay. Additional crop field trial data are required for these commodities.

8. The reregistration requirements for processing data are not fulfilled for: field corn and olives.

9. The registrants have indicated that a Section 3 tolerance for diuron in/ on catfish is desired. Since the metabolism committee is concerned with a monochlorinated diuron metabolite identified in water, a metabolism study of diuron in fish is required. The registrants are directed to OPPTS 860.1400 for study guidelines and encouraged to submit a study protocol prior to initiating the study.

10. Field rotational crop trials have been conducted on representative crops at less that the maximum application rates, and with 1 year plant back intervals ( PBI). Some labels indicate a 2 year PBI. The Agency recommends that the registrants provide additional data to support the higher application rate and believes that the 2 yr PBI is not practical. The registrants should remove the 2 63 yr PBI from the registered uses and provide data to support the 3.2 lb ai/ A application rate and 1 yr PBI. Until adequate data are supplied, labels should be amended to restrict rotational crops to those crops which currently are registered as primary crops.

Toxicology 11. A 28 day inhalation study is required to address the concern for inhalation exposure potential based on the use pattern. The registrant can follow the 90 day inhalation study protocol but cease exposure at 28 days.

Occupational/ Residential Exposures 12. Data are needed to assess the following occupational handler scenarios: mixing/ loading/ applying wettable powders or dry flowables with a backpack sprayer, and mixing/ loading/ applying dry flowables with a low pressure handwand.

13. Average application rate for the paint use is unknown and is requested to refine the cancer risk from paint use.

14. No transfer coefficients exist for activities resulting in contact with treated soil. There are also no data on the soil residue dissipation of diuron. A worker exposure study and a diuron soil residue dissipation study would be needed to assess the risk from postapplication contact with treated soil.

15. Transfer coefficients do not exist for the mechanical harvesting of alfalfa and asparagus and these activities are considered of special concern according to the Agriculture Transfer Coefficient Exposure SAC policy 3.1.

ATTACHMENTS Carcinogenicity Peer Review of Diuron. Linda Taylor and Esther Rinde. May 8, 1997.

Diuron ( PC 035505): Assessment of Mode of Action on Bladder Carcinogenicity. Yung Yang. September 20, 2001.

DIURON: Cancer Classification and Mechanism of Action. Yung Yang. October 10, 2001.

Diuron  Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment ( PC Code 035505); DP Barcode D276683; Case 0046. John Punzi. September 10, 2001.

Diuron. List A Reregistration Case 0046. PC Code 035505. Product Chemistry Chapter for the 64 Reregistration Eligibility Decision [ RED] Document. DP Barcode D274489. Ken Dockter. June 26, 2001.

Diuron Metabolism Committee Briefing Memo. John Punzi. August 27, 2001.

DIURON  Report of the FQPA Safety Factor Committee. Brenda Tarplee. August 7, 2001.

DIURON: 2nd Report of the Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee. Yung Yang. August 28, 2001.

Diuron. Results of the Health Effects Division ( HED) Metabolism Assessment Review Committee ( MARC) Meeting Held on 03 JULY 2001. John Punzi. August 10, 2001.

Diuron  Revised Q1*, ( 3/ 4' s Interspecies Scaling Factor), 1985 Wistar Rat 2 Year Dietary Study. PC 035505. Bernice Fisher. September 23, 1998.

Diuron  Toxicology Disciplinary Chapter for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision. Yung Yang. 0ctober 2, 2001.

Drinking Water Assessment for Diuron and its Degradates. Ibrahim Abdel Saheb. March 11, 2001.

MONURON: Quantitative Risk Assessment ( Q1 *) Based On F344/ N Rat Dietary Study With 3/ 4' s Interspecies Scaling Factor. PC Code 035501. Lori L. Brunsman. July 5, 2001.

Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment and Recommendations for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document for Diuron. Renee Sandvig and Christina Jarvis. December 5, 2001.

Quantitative Usage Analysis for Diuron. Alan Halvorson. March 20, 2001.

Residue Chemistry Chapter for the Diuron Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document. John Punzi. July 29, 2001.

Review of Diuron Poisoning Incident Data. Chemical: # 035505. Ruth Allen. October 11, 2001.

Updated QUA. Alan Halvorson. April 27, 2001. 65 Table 14: Summary of Short Term Exposure Variables and MOEs for Agricultural and Non crop Uses Exposure Scenario ( Scenario #) Cropa Application ratesb Area Treatedc Inhalation Baseline MOEd, e Inhalation Min PPE MOEd, f Inhalation Max PPE MOEd, g Short term Inhalation Eng. Control MOEd, h Mixer/ Loader Mixing/ Loading Liquids for Aerial application ( 1a) Sugarcane 6 lb ai per acre 350 Acres per day 280

Alfalfa 3.2 lb ai per acre 1200 Acres per day 150

Mixing/ Loading Liquids for Chemigation application ( 1b) Sugarcane 6 lb ai per acre 350 Acres per day 280

Mixing/ Loading Liquids for Groundboom application ( 1c) Grapes 9.6 lb ai per acre 80 Acres per day 760

Alfalfa 3.2 lb ai per acre 200 Acres per day 910

Mixing/ Loading Liquids for Rights of Way Sprayer application ( 1d) Grapes 0.19 lb ai per gallon 1000 Gallons per day 3,000

Utility/ industrial areas 0.90 lb ai per gallon 650

Mixing/ Loading Liquids for High Pressure Handwand application ( 1e) Grapes 0.19 lb ai per gallon 1000 Gallons per day 3,000

Utility/ industrial areas 0.90 lb ai per gallon 650

Mixing/ Loading Dry Flowables for Aerial application ( 2a) Sugarcane 6.4 lb ai per acre 350 Acres per day 410

Alfalfa 3.2 lb ai per acre 1200 Acres per day 240

Mixing/ Loading Dry Flowables for Chemigation application ( 2b) Sugarcane 6.4 lb ai per acre 350 Acres per day 410

Mixing/ Loading Dry Flowables for Groundboom application ( 2c) Grapes 9.6 lb ai per acre 80 Acres per day 1,200    Exposure Scenario ( Scenario #) Cropa Application ratesb Area Treatedc Inhalation Baseline MOEd, e Inhalation Min PPE MOEd, f Inhalation Max PPE MOEd, g Short term Inhalation Eng. Control MOEd, h 66 Alfalfa 3.2 lb ai per acre 1200 Acres per day 1,400

Mixing/ Loading Dry Flowables for Rights of Way Sprayer application ( 2d) Grapes 0.19 lb ai per gallon 1000 Gallons per day 4,700

Utility/ Industrial Areas 0.96 lb ai per gallon 950

Mixing/ Loading Dry Flowables for High Pressure handwand application ( 2e) Grapes 0.19 lb ai per gallon 1000 Gallons per day 4,700

Utility/ Industrial Areas 0.96 lb ai per gallon 950

Mixing/ Loading Wettable Powders for Aerial application ( 3a) Sugarcane 6.4 lb ai per acre 350 Acres per day 7.3 36 73 1,300 Alfalfa 3.2 lb ai per acre 1200 Acres per day 4.2 21 42 760 Mixing/ Loading Wettable Powders for Chemigation application ( 3b) Sugarcane 6.4 lb ai per acre 350 Acres per day 7.3 36 73 1,300 Mixing/ Loading Wettable Powders for Groundboom application ( 3c) Grapes 9.6 lb ai per acre 80 Acres per day 21 110

Alfalfa 3.2 lb ai per acre 200 Acres per day 25 130

Mixing/ Loading Wettable Powders for Rights of Way Sprayer application ( 3d) Grapes 0.19 lb ai per gallon 1000 Gallons per day 85 420

Utility/ Industrial Areas 0.96 lb ai per gallon 17 85 170

Mixing/ Loading Wettable Powders for High Pressure handwand application ( 3e) Grapes 0.19 lb ai per gallon 1000 Gallons per day 85 420   Exposure Scenario ( Scenario #) Cropa Application ratesb Area Treatedc Inhalation Baseline MOEd, e Inhalation Min PPE MOEd, f Inhalation Max PPE MOEd, g Short term Inhalation Eng. Control MOEd, h 67 Utility/ Industrial Areas 0.96 lb ai per gallon 17 85 170

Loading Granulars for Tractor Drawn Spreaders application ( 4) Utility/ Industrial Areas 87.1 lb ai per acre 80 Acres per day 59 300

Applicator Applying Sprays for Aerial application ( 5) Sugarcane 6.4 lb ai per acre 350 Acres per day see eng. controls see eng. controls see eng. controls 4,600 Alfalfa 3.2 lb ai per acre 1200 Acres per day see eng. controls see eng. controls see eng. controls 2,700 Applying Sprays for Groundboom application ( 6) Grapes 9.6 lb ai per acre 80 Acres per day 1200

Alfalfa 3.2 lb ai per acre 200 Acres per day 1500

Applying Sprays for Rightsof Way Sprayer application ( 7) Grapes 0.19 lb ai per gallon 1000 Gallons per day 930   NF Utility/ Industrial Areas 0.96 lb ai per gallon 190   NF Applying Sprays for High Pressure handwand application ( 8) Grapes 0.19 lb ai per gallon 1000 Gallons per day 46 230  NF Utility/ Industrial Areas 0.96 lb ai per gallon 9.2 46 92 NF Applying Granulars for Tractor Drawn Spreaders application ( 9) Utility/ Industrial Areas 87.1 lb ai per acre 80 Acres per day 84 420  460 Applying Granulars with a spoon ( 10) Industrial Areas 87.1 lb ai per acre 100 sq ft per day 78,000   NF Applying Granulars for Hand application ( 11) Industrial Areas 87.1 lb ai per acre 100 sq ft per day 740   NF Flagger Exposure Scenario ( Scenario #) Cropa Application ratesb Area Treatedc Inhalation Baseline MOEd, e Inhalation Min PPE MOEd, f Inhalation Max PPE MOEd, g Short term Inhalation Eng. Control MOEd, h 68 Flagging for Sprays application ( 12) Sugarcane 6.4 lb ai per acre 350 Acres per day 890

Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Liquids for Low Pressure Handwand application ( 13) Industrial Areas 0.90 lb ai per gallon 40 Gallons per day 650   NF Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Liquids for Backpack sprayer application ( 14) Industrial Areas 0.90 lb ai per gallon 40 Gallons per day 650   NF Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Wettable Powders for Low Pressure Handwand application ( 15) Industrial Areas 0.96 lb ai per gallon 40 Gallons per day 17 83 170 NF Loading/ Applying Granulars with a pump feed granular spreader ( 16) Industrial Areas 87.1 lb ai per acre 5 Acres per day 380   NF Loading/ Applying Granulars with a gravity feed granular spreader ( 17) Industrial Areas 87.1 lb ai per acre 5 Acres per day 36 180  NF Loading/ Applying Granulars for Belly Grinder application ( 18) Industrial Areas 87.1 lb ai per acre 1 Acre per day 130   NF Loading/ Applying Granulars for Push type spreader ( ORETF) application ( 19) Industrial Areas 87.1 lb ai per acre 5 Acres per day 210   NF Footnotes: a Crops named are index crops which are chosen to represent all other crops at or near that application rate for that use. See the application rates listing in the use summary section of this document for further information on application rates used in this assessment. b Application Rates are based on the maximum application rates listed on the diuron labels. c Amount handled per day are from Science Advisory Council on Exposure's Policy # 9.1.9 d Short term MOE = Short term NOAEL ( mg/ kg/ day)/ Daily Inhalation Dose ( mg/ kg/ day). e Baseline: no respirator. f Minimum PPE: dust mist respirator. g Maximum PPE: organic vapor respirator. h Engineering controls: closed mixing/ loading, enclosed cab, truck or cockpit. See the appendix, Tables A, B, C and D for the inputs and dermal and inhalation dose calculations. 69  Scenario's calculated MOE exceeds the target MOE at the previous level of mitigation. ( MOE > 100), NF = Not feasible for this scenario ( no available engineering controls). Bolded MOE values show a risk of concern at the highest possible level of mitigation for the corresponding scenario. 70 Table 15: Summary of Intermediate Term Exposure Variables and MOEs for Agricultural and Non crop Uses Exposure Scenario ( Scenario #) Cropa Application ratesb Area Treatedc Inhalation Baseline MOEd, e Inhalation Min PPE MOEd, f Inhalation Max PPE MOEd, g Inhalation Eng. Control MOEd, h Mixer/ Loader Mixing/ Loading Liquids for Aerial application ( 1a) cotton 2.2 lb ai per acre 350 Acres per day 76 380

1200 Acres per day 22 110

Mixing/ Loading Liquids for Chemigation application ( 1b) cotton 2.2 lb ai per acre 350 Acres per day 76 380

Mixing/ Loading Liquids for Groundboom application ( 1c) cotton 2.2 lb ai per acre 80 Acres per day 330

200 Acres per day 130

Mixing/ Loading Liquids for Rights Of Way Sprayer ( 1d) utility/ industrial areas 0.9 lb ai per gallon 1000 gallons per day 65 320

Mixing/ Loading Dry Flowables for Aerial application ( 2a) cotton 2.2 lb ai per acre 350 Acres per day 120

1200 Acres per day 34 180

Mixing/ Loading Dry Flowables for Chemigation application ( 2b) cotton 2.2 lb ai per acre 350 Acres per day 120

Mixing/ Loading Dry Flowables for Groundboom application ( 2c) cotton 2.2 lb ai per acre 80 Acres per day 520

1200 Acres per day 210

Mixing/ Loading Dry Flowables for Rights Of Way Sprayer ( 2d) utility/ industrial areas 0.96 lb ai per gallon 1000 gallons per day 95 490

Mixing/ Loading Wettable Powders for Aerial application ( 3a) cotton 2.2 lb ai per acre 350 Acres per day 2.1 11 21 380 1200 Acres per day 0.62 3.1 6.2 110 Mixing/ Loading Wettable Powders for Chemigation application ( 3b) cotton 2.2 lb ai per acre 350 Acres per day 2.1 11 21 380 Exposure Scenario ( Scenario #) Cropa Application ratesb Area Treatedc Inhalation Baseline MOEd, e Inhalation Min PPE MOEd, f Inhalation Max PPE MOEd, g Inhalation Eng. Control MOEd, h 71 Mixing/ Loading Wettable Powders for Groundboom application ( 3c) cotton 2.2 lb ai per acre 80 Acres per day 9.2 46 92 1,700 200 Acres per day 3.7 18 37 660 Mixing/ Loading Wettable Powders for Rights Of Way Sprayer ( 3d) utility/ industrial areas 0.96 lb ai per gallon 1000 gallons per day 1.7 8.5 17 300 Applicator Applying Sprays for Aerial application ( 5) cotton 2.2 lb ai per acre 350 Acres per day see eng. controls see eng. controls see eng. controls 1,300 1200 Acres per day see eng. controls see eng. controls see eng. controls 390 Applying Sprays for Groundboom application ( 6) cotton 2.2 lb ai per acre 80 Acres per day 540

200 Acres per day 210

Applying Sprays for Rights Of Way ( 7) utility/ industrial areas 0.96 lb ai per gallon 1000 gallons per day 19 93 190

Flagger Flagging for Sprays application ( 12) cotton 2.2 lb ai per acre 350 Acres per Day 260

Footnotes: a Crops named are index crops which are chosen to represent all other crops at or near that application rate for that use. See the application rates listing in the use summary section of this document for further information on application rates used in this assessment. b Application Rates are based on the maximum application rates listed on the diuron labels. c Amount handled per day are from Science Advisory Council on Exposure's Policy # 9.1.9 d Short term MOE = Short term NOAEL ( mg/ kg/ day)/ Daily Inhalation Dose ( mg/ kg/ day). e Baseline: no respirator. f Minimum PPE: dust mist respirator. g Maximum PPE: organic vapor respirator. h Engineering controls: Closed mixing/ loading, enclosed cab, truck or cockpit. See the appendix, Tables E, F, G, and H for the inputs and dermal and inhalation dose calculations.  Scenario's calculated MOE exceeds the target MOE at the previous level of mitigation. ( MOE > 100), NF = Not feasible for this scenario ( no available engineering controls). Bolded MOE values show a risk of concern at the highest possible level of mitigation for the corresponding scenario. 72 Table 16: Cancer( Q*) Risk Summary for Agricultural and Non crop Uses Exposure Scenario ( Scenario #) Baselinea Maximum PPEb Engineering Controlc Private Farmer/ 10 days/ Maximu m Rate Cancer Riskd Private Farmer/ 10 days/ Typical Rate Cancer Riske Commercial applicator/ 30 days/ Typical Rate Cancer Riskf Private Farmer/ 10 days/ Maximu m Rate Cancer Riskd Private Farmer/ 10 days/ Typica l Rate Cancer Riske Commercial applicator/ 30 days/ Typical Rate Cancer Riskf Private Farmer/ 10 days/ Maximu m Rate Cancer Riskd Private Farmer/ 10 days/ Typical Rate Cancer Riske Commercial applicator/ 30 days/ Typical Rate Cancer Riskf Mixer/ Loader Mixing/ Loading Liquids for Aerial application ( 1a) 9.2 E 4 6.1 E 4 1.8 E 3 6.3 E 6 4.2 E 6 1.3 E 5 3.4 E 6 2.2 E 6 6.7 E 6 1.7 E 3 1.3 E 3 3.9 E 3 1.2 E 5 9.0 E 6 2.7 E 5 6.1 E 6 4.8 E 6 1.4 E 5 Mixing/ Loading Liquids for Chemigation application ( 1b) 9.2 E 4 6.1 E 4 1.8 E 3 6.3 E 6 4.2 E 6 1.3 E 5 3.4 E 6 2.2 E 6 6.7 E 6 Mixing/ Loading Liquids for Groundboom application ( 1c) 3.4 E 4 1.4 E 4 4.2 E 4 2.3 E 6 9.6 E 7 2.9 E 6 1.2 E 6 5.1 E 7 1.5 E 6 2.8 E 4 2.2 E 4 6.6 E 4 1.9 E 6 1.5 E 6 4.5 E 6 1.0 E 6 8.0 E 7 2.4 E 6 Mixing/ Loading Liquids for Rights of Way Sprayer application ( 1d) 8.4 E 5 2.8 E 5 8.4 E 5 5.7 E 7 1.9 E 7 5.7 E 7 3.1 E 7 1.0 E 7 3.1 E 7 3.9 E 4 3.9 E 4 1.2 E 3 2.7 E 6 2.7 E 6 8.1 E 6 1.4 E 6 1.4 E 6 4.3 E 6 Mixing/ Loading Liquids for High Pressure handwand application ( 1e) 8.4 E 5 2.8 E 5 8.4 E 5 5.7 E 7 1.9 E 7 5.7 E 7 3.1 E 7 1.0 E 7 3.1 E 7 3.9 E 4 3.9 E 4 1.2 E 3 2.7 E 6 2.7 E 6 8.1 E 6 1.4 E 6 1.4 E 6 4.3 E 6 Mixing/ Loading Dry Flowables for Aerial application ( 2a) 2.9 E 5 1.8 E 5 5.4 E 5 1.6 E 5 1.0 E 5 3.1 E 5 5.6 E 7 3.5 E 7 1.1 E 6 4.9 E 5 3.8 E 5 1.2 E 4 2.8 E 5 2.2 E 5 6.6 E 5 9.6 E 7 7.5 E 7 2.3 E 6 Mixing/ Loading Dry Flowables for Chemigation application ( 2b) 2.9 E 5 1.8 E 5 5.4 E 5 1.6 E 5 1.0 E 5 3.1 E 5 5.6 E 7 3.5 E 7 1.1 E 6 Mixing/ Loading Dry Flowables for Groundboom application ( 2c) 9.8 E 6 4.1 E 6 1.2 E 5 5.6 E 6 2.3 E 6 7.0 E 6 1.3 E 7 8.0 E 8 2.4 E 7 8.2 E 6 6.4 E 6 1.9 E 5 4.7 E 6 3.7 E 6 1.1 E 5 1.9 E 7 1.3 E 7 3.8 E 7 Exposure Scenario ( Scenario #) Baselinea Maximum PPEb Engineering Controlc Private Farmer/ 10 days/ Maximu m Rate Cancer Riskd Private Farmer/ 10 days/ Typical Rate Cancer Riske Commercial applicator/ 30 days/ Typical Rate Cancer Riskf Private Farmer/ 10 days/ Maximu m Rate Cancer Riskd Private Farmer/ 10 days/ Typica l Rate Cancer Riske Commercial applicator/ 30 days/ Typical Rate Cancer Riskf Private Farmer/ 10 days/ Maximu m Rate Cancer Riskd Private Farmer/ 10 days/ Typical Rate Cancer Riske Commercial applicator/ 30 days/ Typical Rate Cancer Riskf 73 Mixing/ Loading Dry Flowables for Rights of Way Sprayer application ( 2d) 2.5 E 6 8.2 E 7 2.5 E 6 1.4 E 6 4.7 E 7 1.4 E 6 4.8 E 8 1.6 E 8 4.8 E 8 1.2 E 5 1.2 E 5 3.7 E 5 7.0 E 6 7.0 E 6 2.1 E 5 2.4 E 7 2.4 E 7 7.2 E 7 Mixing/ Loading Dry Flowables for High Pressure handwand application ( 2e) 2.5 E 6 8.2 E 7 2.5 E 6 1.4 E 6 4.7 E 7 1.4 E 6 4.8 E 8 1.6 E 8 4.8 E 8 1.2 E 5 1.2 E 5 3.7 E 5 7.0 E 6 7.0 E 6 2.1 E 5 2.4 E 7 2.4 E 7 7.2 E 7 Mixing/ Loading Wettable Powders for Aerial application ( 3a) 1.6 E 3 10.0 E 4 3.0 E 3 8.0 E 5 5.0 E 5 1.5 E 4 5.3 E 6 3.3 E 6 9.9 E 6 2.7 E 3 2.1 E 3 6.4 E 3 1.4 E 4 1.1 E 4 3.2 E 4 9.1 E 6 7.1 E 6 2.1 E 5 Mixing/ Loading Wettable Powders for Chemigation application ( 3b) 1.6 E 3 10.0 E 4 3.0 E 3 8.0 E 5 5.0 E 5 1.5 E 4 5.3 E 6 3.3 E 6 9.9 E 6 Mixing/ Loading Wettable Powders for Groundboom application ( 3c) 5.5 E 4 2.3 E 4 6.9 E 4 2.7 E 5 1.1 E 5 3.4 E 5 1.8 E 6 7.6 E 7 2.3 E 6 4.6 E 4 3.6 E 4 1.1 E 3 2.3 E 5 1.8 E 5 5.3 E 5 1.5 E 6 1.2 E 6 3.5 E 6 Mixing/ Loading Wettable Powders for Rights of Way Sprayer application ( 3d) 1.4 E 4 4.6 E 5 1.4 E 4 6.8 E 6 2.3 E 6 6.8 E 6 4.5 E 7 1.5 E 7 4.5 E 7 6.9 E 4 6.9 E 4 2.1 E 3 3.4 E 5 3.4 E 5 1.0 E 4 2.3 E 6 2.3 E 6 6.8 E 6 Mixing/ Loading Wettable Powders for High Pressure handwand application ( 3e) 1.4 E 4 4.6 E 5 1.4 E 4 6.8 E 6 2.3 E 6 6.8 E 6 4.5 E 7 1.5 E 7 4.5 E 7 6.9 E 4 6.9 E 4 2.1 E 3 3.4 E 5 3.4 E 5 1.0 E 4 2.3 E 6 2.3 E 6 6.8 E 6 Loading Granulars for Tractor Drawn Spreaders application ( 4) 5.3 E 5 5.3 E 5 1.6 E 4 8.0 E 6 8.0 E 6 2.4 E 5 1.1 E 6 1.1 E 6 3.2 E 6 Applicator Exposure Scenario ( Scenario #) Baselinea Maximum PPEb Engineering Controlc Private Farmer/ 10 days/ Maximu m Rate Cancer Riskd Private Farmer/ 10 days/ Typical Rate Cancer Riske Commercial applicator/ 30 days/ Typical Rate Cancer Riskf Private Farmer/ 10 days/ Maximu m Rate Cancer Riskd Private Farmer/ 10 days/ Typica l Rate Cancer Riske Commercial applicator/ 30 days/ Typical Rate Cancer Riskf Private Farmer/ 10 days/ Maximu m Rate Cancer Riskd Private Farmer/ 10 days/ Typical Rate Cancer Riske Commercial applicator/ 30 days/ Typical Rate Cancer Riskf 74 Applying Sprays for Aerial application ( 5) See eng controls See eng controls See eng controls See eng controls See eng controls See eng controls 2.2 E 6 1.4 E 6 4.2 E 6 See eng controls See eng controls See eng controls See eng controls See eng controls See eng controls 3.9 E 6 3.0 E 6 9.0 E 6 Applying Sprays for Groundboom application ( 6) 3.7 E 6 1.6 E 6 4.7 E 6 1.5 E 6 6.2 E 7 1.8 E 6 7.0 E 7 2.9 E 7 8.7 E 7 3.1 E 6 2.4 E 6 7.3 E 6 1.2 E 6 9.6 E 7 2.9 E 6 5.8 E 7 4.5 E 7 1.4 E 6 Applying Sprays for Rights of Way Sprayer application ( 7) 4.0 E 5 1.3 E 5 4.0 E 5 8.6 E 6 2.9 E 6 8.6 E 6 NF NF NF 2.0 E 4 2.0 E 4 6.0 E 4 4.3 E 5 4.3 E 5 1.3 E 4 NF NF NF Applying Sprays for High Pressure handwand application ( 8) 1.1 E 4 3.6 E 5 1.1 E 4 1.6 E 5 5.3 E 6 1.6 E 5 NF NF NF 5.2 E 4 5.4 E 4 1.6 E 3 8.0 E 5 8.0 E 5 2.4 E 4 NF NF NF Applying Granulars for Tractor Drawn Spreaders application ( 9) 4.2 E 5 4.2 E 5 1.3 E 4 7.5 E 6 7.5 E 6 2.3 E 5 7.9 E 6 7.9 E 6 2.4 E 5 Applying Granulars with a Spoon ( 10) 9.3 E 8 9.3 E 8 2.8 E 7 6.6 E 8 6.6 E 8 2.0 E 7 NF NF NF Applying Granulars for Hand application ( 11) 2.5 E 5 2.5 E 5 7.4 E 5 1.2 E 5 1.2 E 5 3.7 E 5 NF NF NF Flagger Flagging for Spray application ( 12) 6.6 E 6 4.1 E 6 1.2 E 5 3.6 E 6 2.3 E 6 6.8 E 6 1.3 E 7 8.3 E 8 2.5 E 7 Mixer/ Loader/ App Mixing/ Loading/ Applyin g Liquids for Low Pressure Handwand application ( 13) 5.4 E 4 5.4 E 4 1.6 E 3 2.4 E 6 2.4 E 6 7.2 E 6 NF NF NF Exposure Scenario ( Scenario #) Baselinea Maximum PPEb Engineering Controlc Private Farmer/ 10 days/ Maximu m Rate Cancer Riskd Private Farmer/ 10 days/ Typical Rate Cancer Riske Commercial applicator/ 30 days/ Typical Rate Cancer Riskf Private Farmer/ 10 days/ Maximu m Rate Cancer Riskd Private Farmer/ 10 days/ Typica l Rate Cancer Riske Commercial applicator/ 30 days/ Typical Rate Cancer Riskf Private Farmer/ 10 days/ Maximu m Rate Cancer Riskd Private Farmer/ 10 days/ Typical Rate Cancer Riske Commercial applicator/ 30 days/ Typical Rate Cancer Riskf 75 Mixing/ Loading/ Applyin g Liquids for Backpack sprayer application ( 14) 1.8 E 5 1.8 E 5 5.3 E 5 9.0 E 6 9.0 E 6 2.7 E 5 NF NF NF Mixing/ Loading/ Applyin g Wettable Powders for Low Pressure Handwand application ( 15) 2.1 E 4 2.1 E 4 6.2 E 4 5.1 E 5 5.1 E 5 1.5 E 4 NF NF NF Loading/ Applying Granulars with a Pump Feed Backpack Spreader ( 16) 1.4 E 5 1.4 E 5 4.0 E 5 7.8 E 6 7.8 E 6 2.4 E 5 Loading/ Applying Granulars with a Gravity Feed Backpack Spreader ( 17) 1.1 E 4 1.1 E 4 3.3 E 4 5.4 E 5 5.4 E 5 1.6 E 4 Loading/ Applying Granulars for Belly Grinder application ( 18) 1.5 E 4 1.5 E 4 4.5 E 4 7.6 E 5 7.6 E 5 3.1 E 4 NF NF NF Loading/ Applying Granulars for Push type spreader ( ORETF) application ( 19) 3.5 E 5 3.5 E 5 1.1 E 4 5.5 E 6 5.5 E 6 1.7 E 5 NF NF NF Footnotes: a Baseline represents long pants, long sleeved shirt, no gloves ( except scenarios 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 17 which represent gloves), open mixing/ loading, open cab/ tractor, and no respirator. b Maximum PPE represents long sleeves, long pants, coveralls, chemical resistant gloves, open mixing/ loading, open cab tractor and an organic vapor respirator, except for scenarios 10, 16 and 17, which represent single layer of clothing, gloves and a dust mist respirator ( minimum PPE) which is the clothing scenarios from the proprietary studies ( EPA MRIDs 451672 01 and 452507 02). c Engineering controls: closed mixing/ loading, enclosed cab, truck or cockpit. Baseline level clothing. Chemical resistant gloves for the mixing/ loading of liquids. d Cancer risk assessed using the maximum label application rates and 10 days of exposure per year assumed for a private farmer. e Cancer risk assessed using the typical application rates given to EPA by Griffin, sources quoted are Doanes, NCFAP, USDA, and Griffin Information. Maximum application rates were used for the non crop/ industrial areas, because no information of the typical rates of these uses is available. 10 days of exposure per year assumed for a private farmer. f Cancer risk assessed using the typical application rates given to EPA by Griffin, sources quoted are Doanes, NCFAP, USDA, and Griffin Information. Maximum application rates were used for the non crop/ industrial areas, because no information of the typical rates of these uses is available. 30 days of exposure per year assumed for a commercial applicator. Cancer risk = LADD ( mg/ kg/ day) * Q1 ( 1.91 E 2 mg/ kg/ day1). See appendix Tables I , J , and K for the inputs and calculations of total daily dose, LADD and cancer risk. NF = Not feasible for this scenario ( no available engineering controls). 76 Bolded cancer risks values have risks less than 1.0 E 4 at the highest possible level of mitigation. 77 Table 17: Cancer Postapplication for Private Growers ( Shorter Term Duration/ 10 Days Exposure Per Year)

Transfer Coefficient Crop Groupinga Diuron Specific Crops b Highest Crop Group Application Rate ( lbs ai/ acre) c Transfer Coefficient d ( cm2/ hr) Activitye DATf DFRg ( F g/ cm2) LADDh Cancer Riski Field/ row crops, low/ medium Oats, Wheat, Birdsfoot Trefoil, Clover, Grass Grown For Seed, and Alfalfa. 2.5 ( typical) 100 ( low) Irrigation, scouting, thinning 0 5.61 3.5e 5 6.7e 7 1500 ( medium) Irrigation, scouting 0 5.61 5.3e 4 1.0e 5 3.25 ( maximum) 100 ( low) Irrigation, scouting, thinning 0 7.29 4.6e 5 8.7e 7 1500 ( medium) Irrigation, scouting 0 7.29 6.8e 4 1.3e 5 Sugarcane Sugarcane 2.4 ( typical) 1000 ( medium) Scouting immature plants 0 5.39 3.4e 4 6.4e 6 6.4 ( maximum) 1000 ( medium) Scouting immature plants 0 14.36 9.0e 4 1.7e 5 Vegetable, Stem./ Stalk Asparagus and Pineapple. 4 ( typical) 300 ( low) Irrigation, scouting, thinning 0 8.98 1.7e 4 3.2e 6 500 ( medium) Irrigation and scouting mature plants 0 8.98 2.8e 4 5.4e 6 1000 ( high) hand harvesting and pruning 0 8.98 5.6e 4 1.1e 5 6.4 ( maximum) 300 ( low) Irrigation, scouting, thinning 0 14.36 2.7e 4 5.2e 6 500 ( medium) Irrigation and scouting mature plants 0 14.36 4.5e 4 8.6e 6 1000 ( high) hand harvesting and pruning 0 14.36 9.0e 4 1.7e 5 Footnotes: a Crops were grouped according to the transfer coefficient crop groups listed in Science Advisory Council on Exposure Policy 3.1.14 b Crops within the transfer coefficient group that are registered for diuron. c Highest application rate for all of the diuron specific crops within the transfer coefficient crop group. d Transfer Coefficients from Science Advisory Council on Exposure Policy 3.1.14 e Activities from Science Advisory Council on Exposure Policy 3.1.14 Every activity listed may not occur for every crop in the group. f DAT is " days after treatment" ( 0 days = 12 hours after application). g DFR ( F g/ cm2) = application rate * correction factor * fraction of ai retained on foliage ( 20%) * ( 1 dissipation rate ( 10%)) time( hours). 78 h Lifetime average daily dose ( LADD) ( mg/ kg/ day) = Average Daily Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) * ( 10 days of exposure per year / 365 days/ year) * ( 35 years exposed / 70 years in a lifetime). i Cancer risk = LADD ( mg/ kg/ day) * Q1 ( 1.91 E 2 mg/ kg/ day1). 79 Table 18: Cancer Postapplication for Commercial Farm Workers ( Longer Term Duration/ 30 Days Exposure Per Year)

Transfer Coefficient Crop Groupinga Diuron Specific Crops b Highest Crop Group Application Rate ( lbs ai/ acre) c Transfer Coefficient d ( cm2/ hr) Activitye DATf DFRg ( F g/ cm2) LADDh Cancer Riski Field/ row crops, low/ medium Oats, Wheat, Birdsfoot Trefoil, Clover, Grass Grown For Seed, and Alfalfa. 2.5 ( typical) 100 ( low) Irrigation, scouting, thinning, weeding immature/ low foliage plants 0 5.61 1.1e 4 2.0e 6 1500 ( medium) Irrigation, scouting, weeding mature/ high foliage plants 0 5.61 1.6e 3 3.0e 5 Sugarcane Sugarcane 2.4 ( typical) 1000 ( medium) Scouting immature plants 0 5.39 1.0e 3 1.9e 5 Vegetable, Stem./ Stalk Asparagus and Pineapple. 4 ( typical) 300 ( low) Irrigation, scouting, thinning, weeding immature plants 0 8.98 5.1e 4 9.7e 6 500 ( medium) Irrigation and scouting mature plants 0 8.98 8.4e 4 1.6e 5 1000 ( high) hand harvesting and pruning 0 8.98 1.7e 3 3.2e 5 Footnotes: a Crops were grouped according to the transfer coefficient crop groups listed in Science Advisory Council on Exposure Policy 3.1.14. b Crops within the transfer coefficient group that are registered for diuron. c Highest application rate for all of the diuron specific crops within the transfer coefficient crop group. d Transfer Coefficients from Science Advisory Council on Exposure Policy 3.1.14 e Activities from Science Advisory Council on Exposure Policy 3.1.14 Every activity listed may not occur for every crop in the group. f DAT is " days after treatment" ( 0 days = 12 hours after application). g DFR ( F g/ cm2) = application rate * correction factor * fraction of ai retained on foliage ( 20%) * ( 1 dissipation rate ( 10%)) time( hours). h Lifetime average daily dose ( LADD) ( mg/ kg/ day) = Average Daily Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) * ( 30 days of exposure per year / 365 days/ year) * ( 35 years exposed / 70 years in a lifetime). i Cancer risk = LADD ( mg/ kg/ day) * Q1 ( 1.91 E 2 mg/ kg/ day1). 80 Table 19: Short and Intermediate term Antimicrobial Uses of Diuron and MOEs Exposure Scenario ( Scenario #) Clothing Attire Dermal Unit Exposure ( mg/ lb ai) a Inhalation Unit Exposure ( F g/ lb ai) b Max Appl. Ratec ( lb ai/ gal) Amount Treatedd Dermal Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) e Inhalation Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) f Short term Inhalation MOEg Int. term Inhalation MOEg Primary Handlers Mixing/ loading of Liquids into Paint Products ( 1) Open pour, long pants, long sleeved shirt, chemical resistant gloves, and a 5 fold PF dust/ mist type respirator 0.184 1.7 0.0532 100 gal 0.014 0.00013 77,000 7,700 1,000 gal 0.14 0.0013 7,700 770 Loading of Tablets into Paint Products ( 2) 0.412 11.8 0.0532 100 gallons 0.031 0.00090 11,000 1,100 1,000 gal 0.31 0.0090 1,100 110 Secondary Handlers Applying Paints with an Airless Sprayer ( 3) Indoor Long pants, long sleeved shirt, and a 5 fold PF dust/ mist type respirator 36.22 470 0.0532 50 gallons 1.4 0.018 560 56 Long pants, long sleeved shirt, gloves, and a 5 fold PF dust/ mist type respirator 12 470 0.46 0.018 560 56 Outdoor Long pants, long sleeved shirt, and a 5 fold PF dust/ mist type respirator 33.33 86.6 0.0532 50 gallons 1.3 0.0033 3,000 300 Long pants, long sleeved shirt, gloves, and a 5 fold PF dust/ mist type respirator 8.87 86.6 0.34 0.0033 3,000 300 Applying Paints with a Paint Brush ( 4) Long pants, long sleeved shirt, and a 5 fold PF dust/ mist type respirator 290 101 0.0532 5 gallons 1.1 0.00038 26,000 2,600 Footnotes: a, b Dermal and inhalation unit exposures are from CMA and Chlorothalonil studies. 11,12 c Application rates are based on diuron paint labels d Amount treated is based on assumptions from EPA's Antimicrobial Division and HED Expo SAC Policy # 9.1.9 e Dermal dose ( mg/ kg/ day) = [( unit exposure ( mg/ lb ai) * Appl. rate ( lb ai/ gallon) * gallons handled)/ Body weight ( 70 kg). f Inhalation dose ( mg/ kg/ day) = [ unit exposure ( F g/ lb ai) * 0.001 mg/ F g unit conversion * max appl rate ( lb ai/ gal) * gallons handled] / Body weight ( 70 kg). g MOE = NOAEL ( mg/ kg/ day) / Daily Dose [ Intermediate term inhalation NOAEL = 1.0 mg/ kg/ day]. Target MOE is 100 for occupational/ commercial. 81 Table 20: Diuron Cancer Assessment for Antimicrobial Uses Exposure Scenario ( Scenario #) Clothing Attire Dermal Unit Exposure ( mg/ lb ai) a Inhalation Unit Exposure ( F g/ lb ai) b Maximum Application Ratec ( lb ai/ gal) Amount Treatedd Total Absorbed Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) e LADD ( mg/ kg/ day) f Riskg Primary Handlers ( 125 day/ year)

Mixing/ loading of Liquids into Paint Products ( 1) Open pour, long pants, long sleeved shirt, chemical resistant gloves, and a 5 fold PF dust/ mist type respirator 0.184 1.7 0.0532 100 gal 6.9 E 4 1.2 E 4 2.3 E 6 1,000 gal 6.9 E 3 1.2 E 3 2.3 E 5 Loading of Tablets into Paint Products ( 2) 0.412 11.8 0.0532 100 gallons 2.1 E 3 3.7 E 4 7.0 E 6 1,000 gallons 2.1 E 2 3.7 E 3 7.0 E 5 Secondary Handlers ( 50 day/ year)

Applying Paints with an Airless Sprayer ( 3) Indoor Long pants, long sleeved shirt, and a 5 fold PF dust/ mist type respirator 36.22 470 0.0532 50 gallons 7.3 E 2 5.0 E 3 9.5 E 5 Long pants, long sleeved shirt, gloves, and a 5 fold PF dust/ mist type respirator 12 470 3.6 E 2 2.5 E 3 4.7 E 5 Outdoor Long pants, long sleeved shirt, and a 5 fold PF dust/ mist type respirator 33.33 86.6 0.0532 50 gallons 5.4 E 2 3.7 E 3 7.1 E 5 Long pants, long sleeved shirt, gloves, and a 5 fold PF dust/ mist type respirator 8.87 86.6 1.7 E 2 1.1 E 3 2.2 E 5 Applying Paints with a Paint Brush ( 4) Long pants, long sleeved shirt, and a 5 fold PF dust/ mist type respirator 290 101 0.0532 5 gallons 4.4 E 2 3.0 E 3 5.8 E 5 Footnotes: a, b Dermal and inhalation unit exposures are from CMA and Chlorothalonil studies. 11,12 c Application rates are based on diuron paint labels d Amount treated is based on assumptions from EPA's Antimicrobial Division and HED Expo SAC Policy # 9.1.9 e Total daily absorbed dose ( mg/ kg/ day) = [( dermal dose ( mg/ lb ai) * dermal absorption ( 4%)+ inhalation dose ( mg/ lb ai)]. See Table 6 for the corresponding dermal dose and inhalation dose. f LADD ( Lifetime average daily dose) mg/ kg/ day = Total daily absorbed dose ( mg/ kg/ day) * ( days worked per year/ 365 days per year) * ( 35 years worked/ 70 year lifetime). Days worked per year are estimates. g Risk = LADD ( mg/ kg/ day) * Q1 * = 1.91e 2 ( mg/ kg/ day) 1. 82 83 Table 21: Short Term Baseline Table for Algaecide Use in Commercial Fish Production Exposure Scenario ( Scenario #) Dermal Unit Exposure ( mg/ lb ai) a Inhalation Unit Exposure ( F g/ lb ai) b Use Application Rate c Dermal Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) d Inhalation Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) e Inhalation MOE f Mixer/ Loader Mixing/ Loading Dry Flowables ( 1a) 0.066 0.77 Catfish Production 7.5 lb ai per day 0.0071 0.000083 120,000 Mixing/ Loading Dry Flowables ( 1b) 0.066 0.77 Ornamental Fish Production 819 lb ai per day 0.77 0.0090 1,100 Mixing/ Loading Wettable Powders ( 2a) 3.7 43 Catfish Production 7.5 lb ai per day 0.40 0.0046 2,200 Mixing/ Loading Wettable Powders ( 2b) 3.7 43 Ornamental Fish Production 15.0 lb ai per day 0.79 0.0092 1,100 Footnotes: a Baseline dermal exposure represents long sleeves and long pants. b Baseline inhalation unit exposure represents no respirator. c Application Rates are based on the diuron commercial fish production labels and EPA estimates. d Daily Dermal Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) = ( Dermal Unit Exposure ( mg/ lb ai) x Application Rates ( lb ai/ A and lb ai/ sq. ft.) x Area Treated per day ( acres and square feet))/ body weight ( 70 kg). e Daily Inhalation dose ( mg/ kg/ day) = ( Inhalation Unit Exposure ( F g/ lb ai) x ( 1mg/ 1000 F g) Conversion Factor x Application Rate ( lb ai/ gallon) x Amount Treated per day ( gallons/ day))/ body weight ( 70 kg). f Short term Inhalation MOE = Inhalation NOAEL ( 10 mg/ kg/ day) / Daily Inhalation Dose ( mg/ kg/ day). 84 Table 22: Cancer( Q*) Risk Table for Algaecide Use in Commercial Fish Production Exposure Scenario ( Scenario #) Use Applicatio n Rate a Exposure s Per Yeara Baselin e Total Daily Doseb Baselin e Daily LADDc Baselin e Riskd Max PPE Total Daily Doseb Max PPE LADDc Max PPE Riskd Eng Cont Total Daily Doseb Eng Cont LADDc Eng Cont Riskd Mixer/ Loader Mixing/ Loading Dry Flowables ( 1a) Catfish Production 7.5 lb ai per day 9 0.00037 4.50E 6 8.60E 8 0.00021 2.59E 6 4.94E 8 0.000007 2 8.85E 8 1.70E 9 Mixing/ Loading Dry Flowables ( 1b) Ornamental Fish Production 819 lb ai per day 3 0.040 1.64E 4 3.13E 6 0.023 9.41E 5 1.80E 6 0.00078 9.66E 6 1.85E 7 Mixing/ Loading Wettable Powders ( 2a) Catfish Production 7.5 lb ai per day 9 0.020 2.52E 4 4.82E 6 0.0010 1.25E 5 2.40E 7 0.000068 8.35E 7 1.59E 8 Mixing/ Loading Wettable Powders ( 2b) Ornamental Fish Production 15.0 lb ai per day 9 0.041 5.05E 4 9.64E 6 0.0020 2.51E 5 4.79E 7 0.00014 1.67E 6 3.19E 8 Footnotes: a Based on diuron commercial fish production labels and EPA estimates. b Total Daily Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) = Daily Dermal Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) + Daily Inhalation Dose ( mg/ kg/ day). See Table 8 for daily dermal and inhalation doses. c Lifetime average daily dose ( LADD) ( mg/ kg/ day) = Average Daily Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) * ( number of days of exposure per year / 365 days/ year) * ( 35 years exposed / 70 years in a lifetime). d Cancer risk = LADD ( mg/ kg/ day) * Q1 ( 1.91E 2 mg/ kg/ day1).


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 6251]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01948]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER20-1977-003.
    Applicants: Versant Power.
    Description: Compliance filing: Revised Joint Offer of Settlement
Re: Maine Public District Charges (ER20-1977) to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 1/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230125-5052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/15/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-426-001.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2023-01-24 Amended Compliance
Filing--NAESB Standards Version 003.3 to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 1/24/23.
    Accession Number: 20230124-5138.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/14/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-427-001.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2023-01-24 Amended Waiver Filing--
NAESB Standards Version 003.3 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 1/24/23.
    Accession Number: 20230124-5139.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/14/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-652-000.
    Applicants: Happy Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to December 16, 2022, to Petition for
Acceptance of Initial Market-Based Rate Tariff, Waivers and Blanket
Authority Happy Solar 1, LLC tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 1/19/23.
    Accession Number: 20230119-5156.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/30/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-926-000.
    Applicants: LS Power Grid California, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: LS Power Grid California Order No.
864 Compliance Update to be effective 3/27/2023.
    Filed Date: 1/24/23.
    Accession Number: 20230124-5137.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/14/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-927-000.
    Applicants: Mitsui Bussan Commodities, Ltd.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Normal filing 2023 to be
effective 1/26/2023.
    Filed Date: 1/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230125-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/15/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-929-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2900R19 KMEA NITSA NOA to be
effective 1/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 1/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230125-5022.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/15/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-930-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2236R16 Golden Spread
Electric Cooperative, Inc. NITSA NOA to be effective 1/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 1/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230125-5049.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/15/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-931-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: American Electric Power Service
Corporation submits tariff filing per 35: AEP submits Informational
Filing about Att. 1 of ILDSA, SA No. 1336 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 1/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230125-5078.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/15/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-932-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEPTX-Southwest Texas EC-
Golden Spread EC (Shell Bailey) FDA to be effective 1/12/2023.
    Filed Date: 1/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230125-5079.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/15/23.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 25, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01948 Filed 1-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 56814-56815]
[DOCID:fr04oc07-117]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56555; File Nos. SR-Amex-2007-65; SR-BSE-2007-45; SR-
CBOE-2007-64; SR-ISE-2007-44; SR-NYSEArca-2007-65]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Boston Stock Exchange, Inc; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated and International Securities Exchange, LLC: Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Changes Relating to the Definition of a Complex
Trade; NYSE Arca, Inc.: Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and
Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to the Definition of a Complex Trade

September 27, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 27, 2007, September 13, 2007, June 12, 2007, June 1, 2007, and
July 6, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex''), the Boston
Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE''), the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE''), the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE''), and NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') (each, an ``Exchange''
and, collectively, the ``Exchanges''), respectively, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
changes as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have
been substantially prepared by the Exchanges. On July 11, 2007, NYSE
Arca filed Amendment No. 1 to its proposed rule change.\3\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule changes, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(l).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240. 19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 to SR-NYSEArca-2007-65 effected technical
corrections to the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organizations' Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Changes

    The Exchanges propose to amend the definition of ``complex trade''
set forth in their respective rules pertaining to the Intermarket
Options Linkage (``Linkage'') to include stock-option trades. The text
of the proposed rule changes is available at the Exchanges' Web
sites,\4\ the Exchanges' principal offices, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See http://www.amex.com, http://www.bostonstock.com, http://www.cboe.com, http://www.ise.com, and http://www.nyse.com.

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

II. Self-Regulatory Organizations' Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Changes

    In their filings with the Commission, each Exchange included
statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, their proposed
rule changes and discussed any comments they received on the proposed
rule changes. The text of these statements may be examined at the
places specified in Item IV below. The Exchanges have prepared
summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organizations' Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Changes

1. Purpose
    Under Section 8(c)(iii)(G) of the Plan for the Purpose of Creating
and Operating an Intermarket Option Linkage (``Linkage Plan''),\5\ the
Linkage

Plan participants (``Participants'') may amend the definition of the
term ``complex trade'' from time to time. The Participants have agreed
to update the definition of ``complex trade'' to extend the associated
trade-through liability exemption to cover certain stock-option trades.
Accordingly, each of the Exchanges has submitted a proposal that would
amend each of the Exchange's definition of ``complex trade,'' set forth
in the Exchange's respective rules pertaining to the Linkage, to
include the execution of a stock option order to buy or sell a stated
number of units of an underlying stock or a security convertible into
the underlying stock (``convertible security'') coupled with the
purchase or sale of option contract(s) on the opposite side of the
market representing either (A) The same number of units of the
underlying stock or convertible security, or (B) the number of units of
the underlying stock or convertible security necessary to create a
delta neutral position, but in no case in a ratio greater than 8 option
contracts per unit of trading of the underlying stock or convertible
security established for that series by the Options Clearing
Corporation.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ On July 28, 2000, the Commission approved a national market
system plan for the purpose of creating and operating the Linkage
proposed by Amex, CBOE, and ISE. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 43086 (July 28, 2000), 65 FR 48023 (August 4, 2000).
Subsequently, Phlx, Pacific Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a NYSE Arca, Inc.),
and BSE joined the Linkage Plan. See Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 43573 (November 16, 2000), 65 FR 70851 (November 28, 2000);
43574 (November 16, 2000), 65 FR 70850 (November 28, 2000); and
49198 (February 5, 2004), 69 FR 7029 (February 12, 2004).
    \6\ The Exchanges propose to amend their respective rules that
define ``complex trade'' for Linkage purposes, namely Amex Rule
940(b)(3), Boston Options Exchange Rule Chapter XII, Section 1(c),
CBOE Rule 6.80(4), ISE Rule 1900(3), and NYSEArca Rule 6.92(a)(4).
    The Phlx has filed a proposed rule change with the Commission to
amend its definitions of ``synthetic option'' and ``complex trade''
to conform such definitions with the related ``stock option'' and
``complex trade'' definitions of the Exchanges. See SR-Phlx-2007-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchanges believe the proposed rule changes are consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to
national securities exchanges and, in particular, the requirements of
Section 6(b) of the Act.\7\ Specifically, the Exchanges believe the
proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ which provides that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organizations' Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchanges believe that the proposed rule changes would impose
no burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organizations' Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Changes Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchanges have neither solicited nor received comments on these
proposals.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Numbers SR-Amex-2007-65; SR-BSE-2007-45; SR-CBOE-2007-64; SR-ISE-
2007-44; and SR-NYSEArca-2007-65 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Numbers SR-Amex-2007-65; SR-BSE-
2007-45; SR-CBOE-2007-64; SR-ISE-2007-44; and SR-NYSEArca-2007-65.
These file numbers should be included on the subject line if e-mail is
used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submissions, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule changes that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule changes between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filings also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchanges. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Numbers SR-Amex-2007-65; SR-BSE-2007-
45; SR-CBOE-2007-64; SR-ISE-2007-44; and SR-NYSEArca-2007-65 and should
be submitted on or before October 25, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-19558 Filed 10-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P