List of References from EPA Response to 2,4-D NRDC Petition (published 4/18/12)
Link/Type
   1) Petition of Natural Resources Defense Council to Revoke All Tolerances and Cancel All Registrations for the Pesticide 2,4-D (November 6, 2008).
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877-0002
   2) Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA, Memorandum from Elizabeth Resek to Jim Downing, "Transmittal of Meeting Minutes of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting Held on March 25-26, 2008 to review and consider the Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP) Proposed Tier 1 Screening Battery." (June 11, 2008).
http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2008/march/minutes2008-03-25.pdf
   3) Marino, T.; Coady, K.; Sosinski, L.; et al. (2010) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid: A Fish Short-Term Reproduction Assay Using the Fathead Minnow, Pimephales promelas. Project Number: 101026. Unpublished study prepared by Dow Chemical, USA. 155 p. MRID 48317001.
Study
   4) Coady, K.; Marino, T.; Thomas, J. (2010) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid: The Amphibian Metamorphosis Assay Using the South African Clawed Frog, Xenopus laevis. Project Number: 101025. Unpublished study prepared by Dow Chemical, USA. 152 p. MRID 48317002.
Study
   5) Schisler, M.; LeBaron, M.; Visconti, N. (2011) (Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program): Evaluation of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) in an in vitro Androgen Receptor Binding Assay. Project Number: 111111/OCR. Unpublished study prepared by Exponent, Inc. and The Dow Chemical Co. 91p. MRID 48614301.
Study
   6) Coady, K.; Sosinski, L. (2011) (Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program): 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid: Evaluation of 2,4-Dichlorophenoxy Acetic Acid in the Human Recombinant Aromatase Assay. Project Number: 111036/OCR 31868 P803. Unpublished study prepared by Exponent, Inc. and The Dow Chemical Co. 98p. MRID 48614302.
Study
   7) LeBaron, M.; Schisler, M.; Visconti, N. (2011) (Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program): 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid: Evaluation of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) in an in vitro Estrogen Receptor Binding Assay. Project Number: 111121/OCR. Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical Co., and Exponent, Inc. 91p. MRID 48614303.
Study
   8) LeBaron, M.; Kan, H. (2011) (Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program): Evaluation of 2,4-Dichlorophenoxy Acetic Acid (2,4-D) in an in vitro Estrogen Receptor Transcriptional Activation Assay in Human Cell Line HELA-9903. Project Number: 111043/OCR. Unpublished study prepared by Exponent, Inc., and The Dow Chemical Co. 109p.MRID 48614304.
Study
   9) LeBaron, M.; Kan, H.; Perala, A. (2011) (Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program): Evaluation of 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) in the in vitro Steroidogenesis Assay. Project Number: 111038/OCR. Unpublished study prepared by Exponent, Inc., and The Dow Chemical Co. 78p. MRID 48614305.
Study
   10) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, EPA, Memorandum from Greg Ackerman to Katie Weyrauch, "2, 4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) - Report of the Endocrine Disruptor Review Team - Test Order #: EDSP - 031001-120"  (December 20, 2010).
Available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877 at regulations.gov
   11) EPA, A User's Guide to Available EPA Information on Assessing Exposure to Pesticides in Food (June 21, 2000).
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/July/Day-12/6061.pdf
   12) Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs' Policy on the Determination of the Appropriate FQPA Safety Factor(s) for Use in the Tolerance Setting Process (February 28, 2002).
http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science/determ.pdf
   13) Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA, Memorandum from Stephen L. Johnson to Douglas D. Campt, "Transmittal of Final FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Reports on the June 25, 1987 meeting" (July 8, 1987).
Available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877 at regulations.gov
   14) EPA, Scientific Advisory Panel Open Meeting (June 25, 1987).
Available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877 at regulations.gov
   15) EPA, An SAB Report:  Assessment of Potential 2,4-D Carcinogenicity.  Review of the Epidemiological and Other Data on Potential Carcinogenicity of 2,4-D by the SAB/SAP Joint Committee.  (March 22, 1994).
Available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877 at regulations.gov
   16) EPA, Carcinogenicity Peer Review (4[th]) of 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D).  (January 29, 1997).
Available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877 at regulations.gov
   17) EPA, Agency Review of Task Force II Study Submission:  MRID 44284501 and MRID 44284502.  (March 16, 1999).
Available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877 at regulations.gov
   18) Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA, Reregistration Eligibility Decision for 2,4-D (June 2005).
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/24d_red.pdf
   19) Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA, Memorandum from Timothy C. Dole to Katie Hall, "2,4-D. HED's Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Revised to Reflect Public Comments. PC Code 030001; DP Barcode D316597" (May 12, 2005).
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0167-0219
   20) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, EPA, Memorandum from Alexandra LaMay to Michael Walsh, "Petition for the Establishment of a New Formulation of 2,4-D Choline on Herbicide Tolerant Field Corn Containing the Aryloxyalkanoate Dioxygenase-1 (ADD-1) Gene. (October 27, 2011).
Available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877 at regulations.gov
   21) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, EPA, Memorandum from Alexandra LaMay to Michael Walsh,  "2,4-D: Amended Petition for the Establishment of a New Formulation of 2,4-D Choline on Herbicide Tolerant Field Corn Containing the Aryloxyalkanoate Dioxygenase-1 (ADD-1) Gene."  (February 22, 2012).
Available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877 at regulations.gov
   22) NRDC, "Supplement To The Natural Resources Defense Council Petition To Revoke All Tolerances And Cancel All Registrations For The Pesticide 2,4 D" (February 23, 2009).
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877-0305
   23) Boston Women's Health Book Collective, et al., Objections to the establishment of a tolerance for pesticide chemical residues of 2,4-D.  OPP 301219.  (May 7, 2002).
Available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877 at regulations.gov
   24) Beyond Pesticides, NRDC, et. al. comments on RED 2004. At regulations.gov EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0167-0072 (August 23, 2004).
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0167-0072
   25) Agricultural Retailers Association et al.  Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877. Available at regulations.gov EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877-0104.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877-0104
   26) Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data, "Comments on The Natural Resource Defense Council's Petition to Revoke All Tolerances and Cancel All Registrations for the Pesticide 2,4-D" (February 23, 2009).
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877-0350
   27) National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., "Re: Docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877 (February 20, 2009).
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877-0286
   28) Beyond Pesticides, "Re: Petition to Revoke all Tolerances and Cancel all Registrations for the Pesticide 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D); Docket Number: EPA-OPP-2008-0877" (February 23, 2009).
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877-0306
   29) New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Department of Health, "RE: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877" (February 23, 2009).
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877-0323
   30) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, EPA, Memorandum from Linda Taylor, Nancy McCarroll, and Khin Swe Oo to Joel Wolf, "2,4-D: Evaluation of Data Identified in NRDC Petition and Associated Documents" (March 27, 2012).
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877-0450
   31) Risk Assessment Branch VII, Health Effects Division (7509P), EPA, 2,4-D:  Review of Extended 1-Generation Reproduction Study and Dose-Range-Finding and Pharmacokinetic Titration Studies.  D376556. MRID 47972101, 47417901, 47417902. (November 30, 2010).
Available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877 at regulations.gov
   32) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, EPA, Memorandum from Linda Taylor to Katie Weyrauch, "2,4-D:  Revised Executive Summary of the Data Evaluation record of the Extended 1-Generation Reproduction Study" (June 1, 2011).
Available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877 at regulations.gov
   33) Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA, Health Effects Test Guidelines, OPPTS 870.3800: Reproduction and Fertility Effects (August 1998).
http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/SuppDocs/FedDocs/EPA/EPA_870_3800.pdf
   34) Xie, L.; Thrippleton, K.; Irwin, M.A., et al. Evaluation of estrogenic activities of aquatic herbicides and surfactants using a rainbow trout vitellogenin assay. Toxicological Sciences 87(2):391-398, 2005.
Copyrighted
   35) Rawlings, N.C.; Cook, S.J.; Waldbillig, D. Effects of the pesticides carbofuran, chlorpyrifos, dimethoate, lindande, triallate, trifluralin, 2,4-D, and pentachlorphenol on the metabolic endocrine and reproductive endocrine system in ewes. Journal of Toxicology and  Environmental Health 54:21-36, 1998.
Copyrighted
   36) Charles, J.M.; Cunny, H.C.; Wilson, R.D.; Bus, J.S. Comparative subchronic studies on 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, amine, and ester in rats. Fundamental & Applied Toxicology 33:161-165, 1996.
Copyrighted
   37) Liu, R.C.; Hahn; Hurtt, M.E. The direct effect of hepatic peroxisome proliferators on rat leydig cell function in vitro. Fundamental & Applied Toxicology 30:102-108, 1996.
Copyrighted
   38) Kim, H.J.; Park, Y.I.; Dong, M.S.  Effectos of 2,4-D and DCP on the DHT-induced androgenic action in human prostate cancer cells.  Toxocological Sciences 88(I); 52-59, 2005.
Copyrighted
   39) Kim, H.J.; Kim, W.D,, et al. Mechanism of phenoxy compounds as an endocrine disruptor. Journal of Toxicology Public Health 18:331-339, 2002.
Copyrighted
   40) Duffard, R.; Bortolozzi, Ferri A.; Garcia, G., Evangelista de Duffard A.M. Developmental neurotoxicity of the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Neurotoxicology 16(4):764, 1995.
Copyrighted
   41) Lerda, D.; Rixxi, R. Study of reproductive function in persons occupationally exposed to 2-4-D. Mutation Research 262:47-50, 1991.
Copyrighted
   42) Garry, V.F.; Schreinemachers, D.; Harkins, M.E., et al. Pesticide appliers, biocides and birth defects in rural Minnesota. Environmental Health Perspectives 104:394-399,1996.
Copyrighted
   43) Garry, V.F.; Hawkins, M.E.; Erickson, L.L.; Long-Simpson, L.K.; Holland, S.E.; Burroughs, B.L.  Birth defects, season of conception, and sex of children born to pesticide applicators living in the Red River Valley of Minnesota, USA.  Environmental Health Perspectives. 2002 June; 110(Suppl 3): 441 - 449.
Copyrighted
   44) Garry, V.F.; Tarone, R.E.; Kirsch, I.R.; Abdallah, J.M.; Lombardi, D.P.; Long, L.K.; Burroughs, B.L.; Barr, D.B.; and Kesner, J.S. Biomarker Correlations of Urinary 2,4-D Levels in Foresters: Genomic Instability and Endocrine Disruption. Environmental Health Perspectives V109/No. 5 pp. 495-500 (May 2001).
Copyrighted
   45) Malysheva, L.N.; and Zhavoronkov, A.A. (1997). Morphological and histochemical changes in the thyroid gland after a single exposure to 2,4-DA herbicide. Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine 124 (12),676-677.
Copyrighted
   46) Ton, C.; Lin,Y.; Willett, C. Zebrafish as a model for development neurotoxicity testing, Birth Defects Research (Part A) 76:553-567, 2006. http://phylonix.com/BDRA-Ton.pdf.
Copyrighted http://phylonix.com/BDRA-Ton.pdf
   47) Evangelista de Duffard, A.M; Bortolozzi, A.; Duffard, R.O. Altered behavioral responses in 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid treated and amphetamine challenged rats. Neurotoxicology 16(3):479-488, 1995.
Copyrighted
   48) Bortolozzi, A.; Evanglista de Duffard, A.M.; Dajas, F.; Duffard, R. Silveira, R. Intracerebral administration of 2,4-diclorophenoxyacetic acid induces behavioral and neurochemical alterations in the rat brain. Neurotoxicology 2001 April 22 (2):221-32.
Copyrighted
   49) Rosso, S.B.; Garcia, G.B.; Madariaga, M.J.; Evangelisa de Duffard, A.M.; Duffard, R.O, 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in developing rats alters behaviour, myelination and regions brain gangliosides pattern, Neurotoxicology 2000 Feb-Apr; 21(1-2):155-63.
Copyrighted
   50) Duffard, R.; Garcia, G.; Rosso, S.; Bortolozzi, A.; Madariaga, M.; di Paolo, O.; Evangelista De Duffard, A.M. Central nervous system myelin deficit in rats exposed 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid throughout lactation, Neurotoxicolgy and Teratology 1996 Nov-Dec; 18(6):691-6.
Copyrighted
   51) Konjuh, C.; Garcia, G.; Lopez, L.; De Duffard, A.M.; Brusco, A.; Duffard, R. Neonatal hypomyelination by the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Chemical and ultrastructural studies in rats. Toxicological Sciences 104(2):332-40, 2008.
Copyrighted
   52) EPA, Guidelines for Mutagenicity Risk Assessment (1986).
http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/MUTAGEN2.PDF
   53) Dearfield et al. (1991), Considerations in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's testing approach for mutagenicity, Mutation Research, 258: 259-283.
Copyrighted
   54) EPA, Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (2005).
http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/CANCER_GUIDELINES_FINAL_3-25-05.PDF
   55) McGregor et al., (2000), Strategies and testing methods for identifying mutagenic risks, Mutation Research 455: 3-20.
Copyrighted
   56) Dearfield, K.; Cimino, M.; McCarroll, N.; Mauer, I.; Valcovic, L., 2002. Genotoxicity risk assessment: a proposed classification strategy. Mutation Research, 521(2002): 121-135.
Copyrighted
   57) Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA, Health Effects Test Guidelines, OPPTS 870.5100, Bacterial Reverse Mutation Test (August 1998).
http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/publications/Test_Guidelines/series870.htm
   58) Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA, Health Effects Test Guidelines, OPPTS 870.5300 In Vitro Mammalian Cell Gene Mutation Test (August 1998).
http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/publications/Test_Guidelines/series870.htm
   59) Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA, Health Effects Test Guidelines, OPPTS 870.5375, In Vitro Mammalian Chromosome Aberration Test (August 1998).
http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/publications/Test_Guidelines/series870.htm
   60) Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA, Health Effects Test Guidelines, OPPTS 870. 5385 Mammalian Bone Marrow Chromosome Aberration Test (August 1998).
http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/publications/Test_Guidelines/series870.htm
   61) Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA, Health Effects Test Guidelines, OPPTS 870.5395 Mammalian Erythrocyte Micronucleus Test (August 1998).
http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/publications/Test_Guidelines/series870.htm
   62) Thybaud et al., (2011), Strategies in case of positive in vivo results in genotoxicity testing strategies in vivo. Mutation Research 723: 121-128.
Copyrighted
   63) Madrigal-Bujaidar, E.; Hernandez-Ceruelos, A.; Chamorro, G. Induction of sister chromatid exchanges by 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in somatic and germ cells of mice exposed in vivo. Food and Chemical Toxicology 39(9):941-6, 2001.
Copyrighted
   64) Soleneski, S.; Gonzalez, N.V.; Reigosa, M.A.; Larramendy, M.L., Herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)-induced cytogenic damage in human lymphocytes in vitro presence of erythrocytes. Cell Biology International 31(11):1316-22, 2007.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1065699507001527
   65) Gonzalez, M.; Solenski, S.; Reigosa, M.A.; Larramendy, M.L. Genotoxicity of the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic and a commercial formulation, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid dimethylamine salt. I. Evaluation of DNA. Damage and cytogenic endpoints in Chinese Hamster ovary (CHO) cells. Toxicology In Vitro 19(2):289-97, 2005.
Copyrighted

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1065699507001527
   66) Arias, E. Sister chromatid exchange induction by the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in chick embryos. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety  55(3):338-43, 2003.
Copyrighted
   67) Arias, E.  Cytogenetic Effects of Short- and Long-term Exposure of Chick Embryos to the Phenoxyherbicide 2,4-D. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis., 48:462-466. Doi:10.1002/em.20301. 2007.
Copyrighted
   68) Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA, Reevaluation of the Genetic Toxicology Profile on 2,4-D (December 12, 2011).
Page 140 of:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877-0450
   69) Zeljezic, D.; Garaj-Vrhovac,V. Chromosomal aberrations, micronuclei and nuclear buds induced in human lymphocytes by 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid pesticide formulation. Toxicology 200:39-47, 2004.
Copyrighted
   70) Venkov, P.; Topashka-Ancheva, M.; Georgieva, M.; Alexieva, V.; Karanov, E. Genotoxic effect of substituted phenoxyacetic acids. Archives of Toxicology 74:560-6, 2000.
Copyrighted
   71) Figgs, L.W.; Holland, N.T.; Rothman, N.; Zahm, S.H., et al. Increased lymphocyte replicative index following 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid herbicide exposure. Cancer Causes and Control  11(4):373-80, 2000.
Copyrighted
   72) Holland, N.T.; Duramad, P.; Rothman, N.; Giggs, L.W., et al. Micronucleus frequency and proliferation in human lymphocytes after exposure to herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in vitro and in vivo. Mutation Research 521:165-178, 2002.
Copyrighted
   73) Tuschl, H.; Schwab, C. Cyctotoxic effects of the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in HepG2 cells. Food and Chemical Toxicology 41:385-393, 2003.
Copyrighted
   74) Bukowska, B. Effects of 2,4-D and its metabolite 2,4-dichlorophenol on antioxidant enzymes and level of glutathione in human erythrocytes. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part C: Toxicology and Pharmacology 135(4):435-41, 2004.
Copyrighted
   75) Venkov, P.; Topashka-Ancheva, M.; Georgieva, M.; Alexieva, V.; Karanov, E. Genotoxic effect of substituted phenoxyacetic acids.  Archives of Toxicology 74:560-6, 2000.
Copyrighted
   76) Tripathy, N.K.; Routray, P.K.; Sahu, G.P.; Kumar; A.A. Genotoxicity of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid tested in somatic germ-line cells of Drosophila. Mutation Research 319(3):237-42, 1993.
Copyrighted
   77) Sturtz, N.; Bongiovanni, B., et al. Detection of 2,4-dichlorphenoxyacetic acid in rat milk of dams exposed during lactation and milk analysis of their major components. Food and Chemical Toxicology 44:8-16, 2006.
Copyrighted
   78) Marty, M.S.; S.A. Saghir; C.L. Zablotny;  A.J. Clark; A.W. Perala; B.L. Yano; J.S. Bus, and B.H. Neal. A dietary dose range-finding and toxicokinetic (TK) study of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) in adult CRL:CD(SD) rats and their offspring: II. Toxicity. Abstract No. 1262.  2009 Itinerary Planner.  Baltimore, MD:  Society of Toxicology.
Copyrighted
   79) Tasker, E. (1985) A Dietary Two-Generation Reproduction Study in Fischer 344 Rats with 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid: Final Report: Project No. WIL-81137. Unpublished study prepared by Wil Research Laboratories, Inc. MRID 00150557.
Study
   80) Brown, R. (1986) A Dietary Two-generation Reproduction Study in Fischer 344 Rats with 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid: Addendum to the Final Report: [Microscopic Evaluation of the Kidneys of the FO, F1 and F1b Male Rats]: Project No. WIL-81137. Unpublished study prepared by WIL Research Laboratories, Inc. MRID 00163996.
Study
   81) Nishioka, M.G.; Burkholder, H.M.; Brinkman, M.C.; Gordon, S.M. 1996.  Measuring lawn transport of lawn-applied herbicide acids from turf to home:  Correlation of dislodgeable 2,4-D turf residues with carpet dust and carpet surface residues.  Environmental Science and Technology 30:3313-3320.
Copyrighted
   82) Nishioka, M.G.; Lewis, R.G.; Brinkman, M.C.; Burkholder, H.M.; Hines, C.E.; and Menkedick, J.R. Distribution of 2,4-D in air and on surfaces inside residences after lawn applications: comparing exposure estimates from various media for young children. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2001 November; 109(11): 1185 - 1191.
Copyrighted
   83) Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S.EPA, 2,4-D Response to Public Comments (December 16, 2004); EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0167-0090.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0167-0090
   84) Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA, Memorandum from Myra Christiansen to Debra Edwards, "Transmittal of meeting minutes of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting on the Evaluation of Updated Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Exposure Assessment"  (December 16, 2009).
http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2009/october/100609meetingminutes.pdf
   85) Child Specific Exposure Factors Handbook (Table 5-1, pg 5-5).  See http://www.epa.gov/ncea/efh/pdfs/efh-chapter05.pdf.
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/efh/pdfs/efh-chapter05.pdf
   86) Wilson, R. (1998) Comparison of Transferable Turf Residues from the Application of Various Forms of Phenoxy Herbicides and the Effects from the Application of Various Spray Volumes Per Acre: Lab Project Number: RDW98-0903. Unpublished study prepared by Broadleaf Turf Herbicide TFR Task Force LLC. 40 p. (OPPTS 875.2100) MRID 44655701.
Study
   87) Meeting of the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee, Children/Worker Risk Policy.  See http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/2011/april/session4-ch-workerrisk.pdf. April 20-21, 2011.
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/2011/april/session4-ch-workerrisk.pdf
   88) Residue Chemistry Test Guidelines, OPPTS 860.1000, Background.  EPA 712 - C - 96 - 169, August 1996.
http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/publications/Test_Guidelines/series860.htm
   89) Moody, R.P.; Wester, R.C.; Melendres, J.L.; Maibach, H.I. Dermal absorption of the phenoxy herbicide 2,4-D dimethylamine in humans effect of DEET and anatomic site. Journal of  Toxicology and Environmental Health 36(3):241-50.,1992. MRID 48772102.
Copyrighted
   90) Feldmann, R.J.; Maibach, H.I., 1974. Percutaneous penetration of some pesticides and herbicides in man. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 28, 126 - 132.
Copyrighted
   91) Ross, R.H.; Driver, J.H.; Harris, S.A.; Maibach, H.I. (2005). Dermal absorption of 2, 4-D: a review of species differences. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 41: 82-91.
Copyrighted
   92) Brand, R.M.; McMahon, L., et al. (2007) Transdermal absorption of the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid is enhanced by both ethanol consumption and sunscreen application.  Food and Chemical Toxicology 45:93-97.
Copyrighted
   93) Pont, A.R.; Charron, A.R.; Brand, R.M.  (2004). Active ingredients in sunscreens act as topical penetration enhancers for the herbicide, 4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 195: 348-354.
Copyrighted
   94) Brand, R.M.; Charron, A.R.; Dutton, L.; Gavlic, T.L., et al. (2004). Effects of Chronic Alcohol Consumption on Dermal Penetration of Pesticides in Rats. Journal of  Toxicology and Environmental Health A 67, 153-161.
Copyrighted
   95) Brand, R.M.; Spalding, M.; Mueller, C. (2002). Sunscreens can increase dermal penetration of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Journal of Toxicology Clinical Toxicology 40 (7): 827-832.
Copyrighted
   96) Harris, S.A.; Solomon, K.R. 1992. Percutaneous penetration of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid and 2,4-D dimethylamine salt in human volunteers. Journal of  Toxicology and Environmental Health 36, 233 - 240. MRID 48772104.
Copyrighted
   97) Maibach, H.I.; Feldmann, R.J., 1974. Systemic absorption of pesticides through the skin of man. In: Occupational Exposure to Pesticides: Report to the Federal Working Group on Pest Management from the Task Group on Occupational Exposure to Pesticides, Appendix B. U.S. Government Printing Office, 0-551-026, Washington, DC, pp. 120 - 127. MRID 46859102.
Available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877 at regulations.gov
   98) Wester, R.C.; Melendres, J.; Sedik, L.; Maibach, H.; Riviere, J.E., 1998. Percutaneous absorption of salicylic acid, theophylline, 2,4-dimethylamine, diethyl hexyl phthalic acid, and p-aminobenzoic acid in the isolated perfused porcine skin flap compared to man in vivo. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 151, 159 - 165. MRID 48772101.
Copyrighted
   99) Lerda, D.; and Rizzi, R. Study of Reproductive Function In Persons Occupationally Exposed to 2,4-D.  Mutation Research, 262 (1991) pp. 47-50.
Copyrighted
   100) Morgan, M.K.; L.S. Sheldon; K.W. Thomas; P.O. Egegly; C.W. Croghan; P.A. Jones; J.C. Chuang, and N.K. Wilson. Adult and children's exposure to 2, 4-D from multiple sources and pathways. (2008) Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 18, 486-494.
Copyrighted
   101) Alexander, B.H.; Mandel, J.S.; Baker, B.A.; Burns, C.J.; Bartels, M.J.; Acquavella, J.F.; Gustin, C., Biomonitoring of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid exposure and dose in farm families.  (2007) Environmental Health Perspectives 115(3):370-6.
Copyrighted
   102) Draft Framework and Case Studies on Atrazine, Human Incidents, and the Agricultural Health Study:  Incorporation of Epidemiology and Human Incident Data into Human Health Risk Assessment.  FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel, (February 2010).
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0851-0004


Environmental Protection Agency § 51.308

§ 51.308 Regional haze program requirements.

(a) What is the purpose of this section?

This section establishes requirements

for implementation plans, plan revisions,

and periodic progress reviews to

address regional haze.

(b) When are the first implementation

plans due under the regional haze program?

Except as provided in § 51.309(c),

each State identified in § 51.300(b)(3)

must submit, for the entire State, an

implementation plan for regional haze

meeting the requirements of paragraphs

(d) and (e) of this section no

later than December 17, 2007.

(c) [Reserved]

(d) What are the core requirements for

the implementation plan for regional

haze? The State must address regional

haze in each mandatory Class I Federal

area located within the State and in

each mandatory Class I Federal area

located outside the State which may be

affected by emissions from within the

State. To meet the core requirements

for regional haze for these areas, the

State must submit an implementation

plan containing the following plan elements

and supporting documentation

for all required analyses:

(1) Reasonable progress goals. For each

mandatory Class I Federal area located

within the State, the State must establish

goals (expressed in deciviews) that

provide for reasonable progress towards

achieving natural visibility conditions.

The reasonable progress goals must

provide for an improvement in visibility

for the most impaired days over

the period of the implementation plan

and ensure no degradation in visibility

for the least impaired days over the

same period.

(i) In establishing a reasonable

progress goal for any mandatory Class

I Federal area within the State, the

State must:

(A) Consider the costs of compliance,

the time necessary for compliance, the

energy and non-air quality environmental

impacts of compliance, and the

remaining useful life of any potentially

affected sources, and include a demonstration

showing how these factors

were taken into consideration in selecting

the goal.

(B) Analyze and determine the rate of

progress needed to attain natural visibility

conditions by the year 2064. To

calculate this rate of progress, the

State must compare baseline visibility

conditions to natural visibility conditions

in the mandatory Federal Class I

area and determine the uniform rate of

visibility improvement (measured in

deciviews) that would need to be maintained

during each implementation period

in order to attain natural visibility

conditions by 2064. In establishing

the reasonable progress goal,

the State must consider the uniform

rate of improvement in visibility and

the emission reduction measures needed

to achieve it for the period covered

by the implementation plan.

(ii) For the period of the implementation

plan, if the State establishes a

reasonable progress goal that provides

for a slower rate of improvement in

visibility than the rate that would be

needed to attain natural conditions by

2064, the State must demonstrate,

based on the factors in paragraph

(d)(1)(i)(A) of this section, that the rate

of progress for the implementation

plan to attain natural conditions by

2064 is not reasonable; and that the

progress goal adopted by the State is

reasonable. The State must provide to

the public for review as part of its implementation

plan an assessment of the

number of years it would take to attain

natural conditions if visibility improvement

continues at the rate of

progress selected by the State as reasonable.

(iii) In determining whether the

State’s goal for visibility improvement

provides for reasonable progress towards

natural visibility conditions, the

Administrator will evaluate the demonstrations

developed by the State pursuant

to paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and

(d)(1)(ii) of this section.

(iv) In developing each reasonable

progress goal, the State must consult

with those States which may reasonably

be anticipated to cause or contribute

to visibility impairment in the

mandatory Class I Federal area. In any

situation in which the State cannot

agree with another such State or group

of States that a goal provides for reasonable

progress, the State must describe

in its submittal the actions

taken to resolve the disagreement. In

reviewing the State’s implementation

VerDate Mar<15>2010 10:40 Aug 04, 2010 Jkt 220144 PO 00000 Frm 00311 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\220144.XXX 220144 wwoods2 on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with CFR

302

§ 51.308 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–10 Edition)

plan submittal, the Administrator will

take this information into account in

determining whether the State’s goal

for visibility improvement provides for

reasonable progress towards natural

visibility conditions.

(v) The reasonable progress goals established

by the State are not directly

enforceable but will be considered by

the Administrator in evaluating the

adequacy of the measures in the implementation

plan to achieve the progress

goal adopted by the State.

(vi) The State may not adopt a reasonable

progress goal that represents

less visibility improvement than is expected

to result from implementation

of other requirements of the CAA during

the applicable planning period.

(2) Calculations of baseline and natural

visibility conditions. For each mandatory

Class I Federal area located within

the State, the State must determine

the following visibility conditions (expressed

in deciviews):

(i) Baseline visibility conditions for

the most impaired and least impaired

days. The period for establishing baseline

visibility conditions is 2000 to 2004.

Baseline visibility conditions must be

calculated, using available monitoring

data, by establishing the average degree

of visibility impairment for the

most and least impaired days for each

calendar year from 2000 to 2004. The

baseline visibility conditions are the

average of these annual values. For

mandatory Class I Federal areas without

onsite monitoring data for 2000–

2004, the State must establish baseline

values using the most representative

available monitoring data for 2000–2004,

in consultation with the Administrator

or his or her designee;

(ii) For an implementation plan that

is submitted by 2003, the period for establishing

baseline visibility conditions

for the period of the first longterm

strategy is the most recent 5-year

period for which visibility monitoring

data are available for the mandatory

Class I Federal areas addressed by the

plan. For mandatory Class I Federal

areas without onsite monitoring data,

the State must establish baseline values

using the most representative

available monitoring data, in consultation

with the Administrator or his or

her designee;

(iii) Natural visibility conditions for

the most impaired and least impaired

days. Natural visibility conditions

must be calculated by estimating the

degree of visibility impairment existing

under natural conditions for the

most impaired and least impaired days,

based on available monitoring information

and appropriate data analysis

techniques; and

(iv)(A) For the first implementation

plan addressing the requirements of

paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section,

the number of deciviews by which baseline

conditions exceed natural visibility

conditions for the most impaired

and least impaired days; or

(B) For all future implementation

plan revisions, the number of deciviews

by which current conditions, as calculated

under paragraph (f)(1) of this

section, exceed natural visibility conditions

for the most impaired and least

impaired days.

(3) Long-term strategy for regional

haze. Each State listed in § 51.300(b)(3)

must submit a long-term strategy that

addresses regional haze visibility impairment

for each mandatory Class I

Federal area within the State and for

each mandatory Class I Federal area

located outside the State which may be

affected by emissions from the State.

The long-term strategy must include

enforceable emissions limitations,

compliance schedules, and other measures

as necessary to achieve the reasonable

progress goals established by

States having mandatory Class I Federal

areas. In establishing its longterm

strategy for regional haze, the

State must meet the following requirements:

(i) Where the State has emissions

that are reasonably anticipated to contribute

to visibility impairment in any

mandatory Class I Federal area located

in another State or States, the State

must consult with the other State(s) in

order to develop coordinated emission

management strategies. The State

must consult with any other State having

emissions that are reasonably anticipated

to contribute to visibility impairment

in any mandatory Class I

Federal area within the State.

(ii) Where other States cause or contribute

to impairment in a mandatory

Class I Federal area, the State must

VerDate Mar<15>2010 10:40 Aug 04, 2010 Jkt 220144 PO 00000 Frm 00312 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\220144.XXX 220144 wwoods2 on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with CFR

303

Environmental Protection Agency § 51.308

demonstrate that it has included in its

implementation plan all measures necessary

to obtain its share of the emission

reductions needed to meet the

progress goal for the area. If the State

has participated in a regional planning

process, the State must ensure it has

included all measures needed to

achieve its apportionment of emission

reduction obligations agreed upon

through that process.

(iii) The State must document the

technical basis, including modeling,

monitoring and emissions information,

on which the State is relying to determine

its apportionment of emission reduction

obligations necessary for

achieving reasonable progress in each

mandatory Class I Federal area it affects.

The State may meet this requirement

by relying on technical analyses

developed by the regional planning organization

and approved by all State

participants. The State must identify

the baseline emissions inventory on

which its strategies are based. The

baseline emissions inventory year is

presumed to be the most recent year of

the consolidate periodic emissions inventory.

(iv) The State must identify all anthropogenic

sources of visibility impairment

considered by the State in developing

its long-term strategy. The

State should consider major and minor

stationary sources, mobile sources, and

area sources.

(v) The State must consider, at a

minimum, the following factors in developing

its long-term strategy:

(A) Emission reductions due to ongoing

air pollution control programs, including

measures to address reasonably

attributable visibility impairment;

(B) Measures to mitigate the impacts

of construction activities;

(C) Emissions limitations and schedules

for compliance to achieve the reasonable

progress goal;

(D) Source retirement and replacement

schedules;

(E) Smoke management techniques

for agricultural and forestry management

purposes including plans as currently

exist within the State for these

purposes;

(F) Enforceability of emissions limitations

and control measures; and

(G) The anticipated net effect on visibility

due to projected changes in

point, area, and mobile source emissions

over the period addressed by the

long-term strategy.

(4) Monitoring strategy and other implementation

plan requirements. The State

must submit with the implementation

plan a monitoring strategy for measuring,

characterizing, and reporting of

regional haze visibility impairment

that is representative of all mandatory

Class I Federal areas within the State.

This monitoring strategy must be coordinated

with the monitoring strategy

required in § 51.305 for reasonably attributable

visibility impairment. Compliance

with this requirement may be

met through participation in the Interagency

Monitoring of Protected Visual

Environments network. The implementation

plan must also provide for the

following:

(i) The establishment of any additional

monitoring sites or equipment

needed to assess whether reasonable

progress goals to address regional haze

for all mandatory Class I Federal areas

within the State are being achieved.

(ii) Procedures by which monitoring

data and other information are used in

determining the contribution of emissions

from within the State to regional

haze visibility impairment at mandatory

Class I Federal areas both within

and outside the State.

(iii) For a State with no mandatory

Class I Federal areas, procedures by

which monitoring data and other information

are used in determining the

contribution of emissions from within

the State to regional haze visibility

impairment at mandatory Class I Federal

areas in other States.

(iv) The implementation plan must

provide for the reporting of all visibility

monitoring data to the Administrator

at least annually for each mandatory

Class I Federal area in the

State. To the extent possible, the State

should report visibility monitoring

data electronically.

(v) A statewide inventory of emissions

of pollutants that are reasonably

anticipated to cause or contribute to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 10:40 Aug 04, 2010 Jkt 220144 PO 00000 Frm 00313 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\220144.XXX 220144 wwoods2 on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with CFR

304

§ 51.308 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–10 Edition)

visibility impairment in any mandatory

Class I Federal area. The inventory

must include emissions for a baseline

year, emissions for the most recent

year for which data are available,

and estimates of future projected emissions.

The State must also include a

commitment to update the inventory

periodically.

(vi) Other elements, including reporting,

recordkeeping, and other measures,

necessary to assess and report on

visibility.

(e) Best Available Retrofit Technology

(BART) requirements for regional haze

visibility impairment. The State must

submit an implementation plan containing

emission limitations representing

BART and schedules for compliance

with BART for each BART-eligible

source that may reasonably be

anticipated to cause or contribute to

any impairment of visibility in any

mandatory Class I Federal area, unless

the State demonstrates that an emissions

trading program or other alternative

will achieve greater reasonable

progress toward natural visibility conditions.

(1) To address the requirements for

BART, the State must submit an implementation

plan containing the following

plan elements and include documentation

for all required analyses:

(i) A list of all BART-eligible sources

within the State.

(ii) A determination of BART for

each BART-eligible source in the State

that emits any air pollutant which

may reasonably be anticipated to cause

or contribute to any impairment of visibility

in any mandatory Class I Federal

area. All such sources are subject

to BART.

(A) The determination of BART must

be based on an analysis of the best system

of continuous emission control

technology available and associated

emission reductions achievable for

each BART-eligible source that is subject

to BART within the State. In this

analysis, the State must take into consideration

the technology available,

the costs of compliance, the energy and

nonair quality environmental impacts

of compliance, any pollution control

equipment in use at the source, the remaining

useful life of the source, and

the degree of improvement in visibility

which may reasonably be anticipated

to result from the use of such technology.

(B) The determination of BART for

fossil-fuel fired power plants having a

total generating capacity greater than

750 megawatts must be made pursuant

to the guidelines in appendix Y of this

part (Guidelines for BART Determinations

Under the Regional Haze Rule).

(C) Exception. A State is not required

to make a determination of BART for

SO2 or for NOX if a BART-eligible

source has the potential to emit less

than 40 tons per year of such pollutant(

s), or for PM10 if a BART-eligible

source has the potential to emit less

than 15 tons per year of such pollutant.

(iii) If the State determines in establishing

BART that technological or

economic limitations on the applicability

of measurement methodology to

a particular source would make the imposition

of an emission standard infeasible,

it may instead prescribe a design,

equipment, work practice, or other

operational standard, or combination

thereof, to require the application of

BART. Such standard, to the degree

possible, is to set forth the emission reduction

to be achieved by implementation

of such design, equipment, work

practice or operation, and must provide

for compliance by means which achieve

equivalent results.

(iv) A requirement that each source

subject to BART be required to install

and operate BART as expeditiously as

practicable, but in no event later than

5 years after approval of the implementation

plan revision.

(v) A requirement that each source

subject to BART maintain the control

equipment required by this subpart and

establish procedures to ensure such

equipment is properly operated and

maintained.

(2) A State may opt to implement or

require participation in an emissions

trading program or other alternative

measure rather than to require sources

subject to BART to install, operate,

and maintain BART. Such an emissions

trading program or other alternative

measure must achieve greater

reasonable progress than would be

achieved through the installation and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 10:40 Aug 04, 2010 Jkt 220144 PO 00000 Frm 00314 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\220144.XXX 220144 wwoods2 on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with CFR

305

Environmental Protection Agency § 51.308

operation of BART. For all such emission

trading programs or other alternative

measures, the State must submit

an implementation plan containing

the following plan elements

and include documentation for all required

analyses:

(i) A demonstration that the emissions

trading program or other alternative

measure will achieve greater

reasonable progress than would have

resulted from the installation and operation

of BART at all sources subject

to BART in the State and covered by

the alternative program. This demonstration

must be based on the following:

(A) A list of all BART-eligible

sources within the State.

(B) A list of all BART-eligible

sources and all BART source categories

covered by the alternative program.

The State is not required to include

every BART source category or every

BART-eligible source within a BART

source category in an alternative program,

but each BART-eligible source in

the State must be subject to the requirements

of the alternative program,

have a federally enforceable emission

limitation determined by the State and

approved by EPA as meeting BART in

accordance with section 302(c) or paragraph

(e)(1) of this section, or otherwise

addressed under paragraphs (e)(1)

or (e)(4)of this section.

(C) An analysis of the best system of

continuous emission control technology

available and associated emission

reductions achievable for each

source within the State subject to

BART and covered by the alternative

program. This analysis must be conducted

by making a determination of

BART for each source subject to BART

and covered by the alternative program

as provided for in paragraph (e)(1) of

this section, unless the emissions trading

program or other alternative measure

has been designed to meet a requirement

other than BART (such as

the core requirement to have a longterm

strategy to achieve the reasonable

progress goals established by

States). In this case, the State may determine

the best system of continuous

emission control technology and associated

emission reductions for similar

types of sources within a source category

based on both source-specific and

category-wide information, as appropriate.

(D) An analysis of the projected emissions

reductions achievable through

the trading program or other alternative

measure.

(E) A determination under paragraph

(e)(3) of this section or otherwise based

on the clear weight of evidence that

the trading program or other alternative

measure achieves greater reasonable

progress than would be

achieved through the installation and

operation of BART at the covered

sources.

(ii) [Reserved]

(iii) A requirement that all necessary

emission reductions take place during

the period of the first long-term strategy

for regional haze. To meet this requirement,

the State must provide a

detailed description of the emissions

trading program or other alternative

measure, including schedules for implementation,

the emission reductions required

by the program, all necessary

administrative and technical procedures

for implementing the program,

rules for accounting and monitoring

emissions, and procedures for enforcement.

(iv) A demonstration that the emission

reductions resulting from the

emissions trading program or other alternative

measure will be surplus to

those reductions resulting from measures

adopted to meet requirements of

the CAA as of the baseline date of the

SIP.

(v) At the State’s option, a provision

that the emissions trading program or

other alternative measure may include

a geographic enhancement to the program

to address the requirement under

§ 51.302(c) related to BART for reasonably

attributable impairment from the

pollutants covered under the emissions

trading program or other alternative

measure.

(vi) For plans that include an emissions

trading program that establishes

a cap on total annual emissions of SO2

or NOX from sources subject to the program,

requires the owners and operators

of sources to hold allowances or

authorizations to emit equal to emissions,

and allows the owners and operators

of sources and other entities to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 10:40 Aug 04, 2010 Jkt 220144 PO 00000 Frm 00315 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\220144.XXX 220144 wwoods2 on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with CFR

306

§ 51.308 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–10 Edition)

purchase, sell, and transfer allowances,

the following elements are required

concerning the emissions covered by

the cap:

(A) Applicability provisions defining

the sources subject to the program.

The State must demonstrate that the

applicability provisions (including the

size criteria for including sources in

the program) are designed to prevent

any significant potential shifting within

the State of production and emissions

from sources in the program to

sources outside the program. In the

case of a program covering sources in

multiple States, the States must demonstrate

that the applicability provisions

in each State cover essentially

the same size facilities and, if source

categories are specified, cover the same

source categories and prevent any significant,

potential shifting within such

States of production and emissions to

sources outside the program.

(B) Allowance provisions ensuring

that the total value of allowances (in

tons) issued each year under the program

will not exceed the emissions cap

(in tons) on total annual emissions

from the sources in the program.

(C) Monitoring provisions providing

for consistent and accurate measurements

of emissions from sources in the

program to ensure that each allowance

actually represents the same specified

tonnage of emissions and that emissions

are measured with similar accuracy

at all sources in the program. The

monitoring provisions must require

that boilers, combustion turbines, and

cement kilns in the program allowed to

sell or transfer allowances must comply

with the requirements of part 75 of

this chapter. The monitoring provisions

must require that other sources

in the program allowed to sell or transfer

allowances must provide emissions

information with the same precision,

reliability, accessibility, and timeliness

as information provided under

part 75 of this chapter.

(D) Recordkeeping provisions that

ensure the enforceability of the emissions

monitoring provisions and other

program requirements. The recordkeeping

provisions must require that

boilers, combustion turbines, and cement

kilns in the program allowed to

sell or transfer allowances must comply

with the recordkeeping provisions

of part 75 of this chapter. The recordkeeping

provisions must require that

other sources in the program allowed

to sell or transfer allowances must

comply with recordkeeping requirements

that, as compared with the recordkeeping

provisions under part 75 of

this chapter, are of comparable stringency

and require recording of comparable

types of information and retention

of the records for comparable periods

of time.

(E) Reporting provisions requiring

timely reporting of monitoring data

with sufficient frequency to ensure the

enforceability of the emissions monitoring

provisions and other program

requirements and the ability to audit

the program. The reporting provisions

must require that boilers, combustion

turbines, and cement kilns in the program

allowed to sell or transfer allowances

must comply with the reporting

provisions of part 75 of this chapter, except

that, if the Administrator is not

the tracking system administrator for

the program, emissions may be reported

to the tracking system administrator,

rather than to the Administrator.

The reporting provisions must

require that other sources in the program

allowed to sell or transfer allowances

must comply with reporting requirements

that, as compared with the

reporting provisions under part 75 of

this chapter, are of comparable stringency

and require reporting of comparable

types of information and require

comparable timeliness and frequency

of reporting.

(F) Tracking system provisions

which provide for a tracking system

that is publicly available in a secure,

centralized database to track in a consistent

manner all allowances and

emissions in the program.

(G) Authorized account representative

provisions ensuring that the owners

and operators of a source designate

one individual who is authorized to

represent the owners and operators in

all matters pertaining to the trading

program.

(H) Allowance transfer provisions

providing procedures that allow timely

transfer and recording of allowances,

minimize administrative barriers to

the operation of the allowance market,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 10:40 Aug 04, 2010 Jkt 220144 PO 00000 Frm 00316 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\220144.XXX 220144 wwoods2 on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with CFR

307

Environmental Protection Agency § 51.308

and ensure that such procedures apply

uniformly to all sources and other potential

participants in the allowance

market.

(I) Compliance provisions prohibiting

a source from emitting a total tonnage

of a pollutant that exceeds the tonnage

value of its allowance holdings, including

the methods and procedures for determining

whether emissions exceed allowance

holdings. Such method and

procedures shall apply consistently

from source to source.

(J) Penalty provisions providing for

mandatory allowance deductions for

excess emissions that apply consistently

from source to source. The tonnage

value of the allowances deducted

shall equal at least three times the

tonnage of the excess emissions.

(K) For a trading program that allows

banking of allowances, provisions

clarifying any restrictions on the use

of these banked allowances.

(L) Program assessment provisions

providing for periodic program evaluation

to assess whether the program is

accomplishing its goals and whether

modifications to the program are needed

to enhance performance of the program.

(3) A State which opts under 40 CFR

51.308(e)(2) to implement an emissions

trading program or other alternative

measure rather than to require sources

subject to BART to install, operate,

and maintain BART may satisfy the

final step of the demonstration required

by that section as follows: If the

distribution of emissions is not substantially

different than under BART,

and the alternative measure results in

greater emission reductions, then the

alternative measure may be deemed to

achieve greater reasonable progress. If

the distribution of emissions is significantly

different, the State must conduct

dispersion modeling to determine

differences in visibility between BART

and the trading program for each impacted

Class I area, for the worst and

best 20 percent of days. The modeling

would demonstrate ‘‘greater reasonable

progress’’ if both of the following two

criteria are met:

(i) Visibility does not decline in any

Class I area, and

(ii) There is an overall improvement

in visibility, determined by comparing

the average differences between BART

and the alternative over all affected

Class I areas.

(4) A State that chooses to meet the

emission reduction requirements of the

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) by

participating in one or more of the

EPA-administered CAIR trading programs

for SO2 and NOX need not require

BART—eligible EGUs subject to

such trading programs in the State to

install, operate, and maintain BART

for the pollutants covered by such

trading programs in the State. A State

may choose to participate in the EPAadministered

CAIR trading programs

either by submitting a State implementation

plan that incorporates the

CAIR model trading rules in part 96 of

this chapter, and is approved, in accordance

with § 51.123(o)(1) or (2) (for

the NOX annual program) and (aa)(1) or

(2) (for the NOX ozone season program)

and § 51.124(o)(1) or (2) (for the SO2 program)

or by remaining subject to the

Federal implementation plan in part 97

of this chapter (which may be modified

by a State implementation plan approved

in accordance with §§ 51.123(p)

and (ee) and 51.124(r)). A State that

chooses to participate in such trading

programs may also adopt provisions,

consistent with such trading programs,

for a geographic enhancement to the

program to address the requirement

under § 51.302(c) related to BART for

reasonably attributable impairment

from the pollutants covered by the

CAIR cap-and-trade programs.

(5) After a State has met the requirements

for BART or implemented emissions

trading program or other alternative

measure that achieves more reasonable

progress than the installation

and operation of BART, BART-eligible

sources will be subject to the requirements

of paragraph (d) of this section

in the same manner as other sources.

(6) Any BART-eligible facility subject

to the requirement under paragraph

(e) of this section to install, operate,

and maintain BART may apply

to the Administrator for an exemption

from that requirement. An application

for an exemption will be subject to the

requirements of § 51.303(a)(2)–(h).

(f) Requirements for comprehensive periodic

revisions of implementation plans for

regional haze. Each State identified in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 10:40 Aug 04, 2010 Jkt 220144 PO 00000 Frm 00317 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\220144.XXX 220144 wwoods2 on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with CFR

308

§ 51.308 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–10 Edition)

§ 51.300(b)(3) must revise and submit its

regional haze implementation plan revision

to EPA by July 31, 2018 and

every ten years thereafter. In each plan

revision, the State must evaluate and

reassess all of the elements required in

paragraph (d) of this section, taking

into account improvements in monitoring

data collection and analysis

techniques, control technologies, and

other relevant factors. In evaluating

and reassessing these elements, the

State must address the following:

(1) Current visibility conditions for

the most impaired and least impaired

days, and actual progress made towards

natural conditions during the

previous implementation period. The

period for calculating current visibility

conditions is the most recent five year

period preceding the required date of

the implementation plan submittal for

which data are available. Current visibility

conditions must be calculated

based on the annual average level of

visibility impairment for the most and

least impaired days for each of these

five years. Current visibility conditions

are the average of these annual values.

(2) The effectiveness of the long-term

strategy for achieving reasonable

progress goals over the prior implementation

period(s); and

(3) Affirmation of, or revision to, the

reasonable progress goal in accordance

with the procedures set forth in paragraph

(d)(1) of this section. If the State

established a reasonable progress goal

for the prior period which provided a

slower rate of progress than that needed

to attain natural conditions by the

year 2064, the State must evaluate and

determine the reasonableness, based on

the factors in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) of

this section, of additional measures

that could be adopted to achieve the

degree of visibility improvement projected

by the analysis contained in the

first implementation plan described in

paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) of this section.

(g) Requirements for periodic reports describing

progress towards the reasonable

progress goals. Each State identified in

§ 51.300(b)(3) must submit a report to

the Administrator every 5 years evaluating

progress towards the reasonable

progress goal for each mandatory Class

I Federal area located within the State

and in each mandatory Class I Federal

area located outside the State which

may be affected by emissions from

within the State. The first progress report

is due 5 years from submittal of

the initial implementation plan addressing

paragraphs (d) and (e) of this

section. The progress reports must be

in the form of implementation plan revisions

that comply with the procedural

requirements of § 51.102 and

§ 51.103. Periodic progress reports must

contain at a minimum the following

elements:

(1) A description of the status of implementation

of all measures included

in the implementation plan for achieving

reasonable progress goals for mandatory

Class I Federal areas both within

and outside the State.

(2) A summary of the emissions reductions

achieved throughout the

State through implementation of the

measures described in paragraph (g)(1)

of this section.

(3) For each mandatory Class I Federal

area within the State, the State

must assess the following visibility

conditions and changes, with values for

most impaired and least impaired days

expressed in terms of 5-year averages of

these annual values.

(i) The current visibility conditions

for the most impaired and least impaired

days;

(ii) The difference between current

visibility conditions for the most impaired

and least impaired days and

baseline visibility conditions;

(iii) The change in visibility impairment

for the most impaired and least

impaired days over the past 5 years;

(4) An analysis tracking the change

over the past 5 years in emissions of

pollutants contributing to visibility

impairment from all sources and activities

within the State. Emissions

changes should be identified by type of

source or activity. The analysis must

be based on the most recent updated

emissions inventory, with estimates

projected forward as necessary and appropriate,

to account for emissions

changes during the applicable 5-year

period.

(5) An assessment of any significant

changes in anthropogenic emissions

within or outside the State that have

occurred over the past 5 years that

VerDate Mar<15>2010 10:40 Aug 04, 2010 Jkt 220144 PO 00000 Frm 00318 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\220144.XXX 220144 wwoods2 on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with CFR

309

Environmental Protection Agency § 51.308

have limited or impeded progress in reducing

pollutant emissions and improving

visibility.

(6) An assessment of whether the current

implementation plan elements

and strategies are sufficient to enable

the State, or other States with mandatory

Federal Class I areas affected by

emissions from the State, to meet all

established reasonable progress goals.

(7) A review of the State’s visibility

monitoring strategy and any modifications

to the strategy as necessary.

(h) Determination of the adequacy of

existing implementation plan. At the

same time the State is required to submit

any 5-year progress report to EPA

in accordance with paragraph (g) of

this section, the State must also take

one of the following actions based upon

the information presented in the

progress report:

(1) If the State determines that the

existing implementation plan requires

no further substantive revision at this

time in order to achieve established

goals for visibility improvement and

emissions reductions, the State must

provide to the Administrator a negative

declaration that further revision

of the existing implementation plan is

not needed at this time.

(2) If the State determines that the

implementation plan is or may be inadequate

to ensure reasonable progress

due to emissions from sources in another

State(s) which participated in a

regional planning process, the State

must provide notification to the Administrator

and to the other State(s)

which participated in the regional

planning process with the States. The

State must also collaborate with the

other State(s) through the regional

planning process for the purpose of developing

additional strategies to address

the plan’s deficiencies.

(3) Where the State determines that

the implementation plan is or may be

inadequate to ensure reasonable

progress due to emissions from sources

in another country, the State shall

provide notification, along with available

information, to the Administrator.

(4) Where the State determines that

the implementation plan is or may be

inadequate to ensure reasonable

progress due to emissions from sources

within the State, the State shall revise

its implementation plan to address the

plan’s deficiencies within one year.

(i) What are the requirements for State

and Federal Land Manager coordination?

(1) By November 29, 1999, the State

must identify in writing to the Federal

Land Managers the title of the official

to which the Federal Land Manager of

any mandatory Class I Federal area

can submit any recommendations on

the implementation of this subpart including,

but not limited to:

(i) Identification of impairment of

visibility in any mandatory Class I

Federal area(s); and

(ii) Identification of elements for inclusion

in the visibility monitoring

strategy required by § 51.305 and this

section.

(2) The State must provide the Federal

Land Manager with an opportunity

for consultation, in person and

at least 60 days prior to holding any

public hearing on an implementation

plan (or plan revision) for regional haze

required by this subpart. This consultation

must include the opportunity

for the affected Federal Land Managers

to discuss their:

(i) Assessment of impairment of visibility

in any mandatory Class I Federal

area; and

(ii) Recommendations on the development

of the reasonable progress goal

and on the development and implementation

of strategies to address visibility

impairment.

(3) In developing any implementation

plan (or plan revision), the State must

include a description of how it addressed

any comments provided by the

Federal Land Managers.

(4) The plan (or plan revision) must

provide procedures for continuing consultation

between the State and Federal

Land Manager on the implementation

of the visibility protection program

required by this subpart, including

development and review of implementation

plan revisions and 5-year

progress reports, and on the implementation

of other programs having the

potential to contribute to impairment

of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal

areas.

[64 FR 35765, July 1, 1999, as amended at 70

FR 39156, July 6, 2005; 71 FR 60631, Oct. 13,

2006]