Page 1 of 28 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES April 10, 2005 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: 2 Phenylphenol, and salts   Conventional Uses: Revised Occupational and Residential Exposure and Risk Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) Document ( Case 2575).

FROM: Matthew Crowley, Environmental Protection Specialist Reregistration Branch 4 Health Effects Division THRU: Susan Hummel, Branch Senior Scientist Reregistration Branch 4 Health Effects Division TO: Rebecca Miller, Chemical Review Manager Antimicrobials Division Rosanna Louie, Chemical Review Manager Reregistration Branch 3 Special Review and Reregistration Division DP Barcode: D328222 PC Code( s): 064103   o Phenylphenol 064104   o Phenylphenol, sodium salt 064108   o Phenylphenol, potassium salt 064116   o Phenylphenol, ammonium salt EPA MRID No.: 43432901 The following document is the revised occupational and residential exposure assessment and recommendations for conventional uses ( postharvest commodity applications only) of ortho Phenylphenol ( OPP), and salts for the RED document based on Phase I " error correction" comments. Page 2 of 28 Executive Summary Short ( 1 30 days), intermediate ( 1 6 months), and long term (> 6 months) dermal and inhalation risks for occupational handlers using OPP, and salts as a conventional post harvest fungicide for citrus and pears are not of concern when workers wear baseline personal protective equipment ( PPE) ( i. e., long sleeve shirt, long pants, shoes/ socks, no respirator) plus chemical resistant gloves. The following handler scenarios were assessed:

  Mixing/ loading ( M/ L) liquid concentrate solutions for automated post harvest foaming, dipping, drenching, brushing, spraying treatments;   Loading ready to use ( RTU) solutions for automated post harvest foaming, dipping, drenching, brushing, spraying treatments;   Loading RTU solution for thermo fogging post harvest treatment using an XEDA ® Electrofogger; significant dermal and inhalation exposures are not expected for thermofogging applications   workers are not present within the storage rooms during the application process;   Application of solutions by automated foaming, dipping, drenching, brushing, spraying ( inhalation exposure only   automated application process results in negligible dermal exposure).

Postapplication scenarios assessed following automated OPP, and salts application to citrus fruits and pears include pre sorting ( citrus only), sorting, and packing. Short ( 1 30 days) and intermediate ( 1 6 months)/ long (> 6 months) term postapplication dermal and inhalation risks for pre sorters ( citrus only), sorters, and packers are not of concern when workers wear baseline PPE ( i. e., long sleeve shirt, long pants, shoes/ socks, no respirator, no chemical resistant gloves). All dermal risks were calculated with exposures adjusted to the highest labelled application rate ( 2% solution).

Based on the incident reports, the classification of OPP and its sodium salt as Category I and II acute dermal irritants, respectively, and the absence of acute toxicity data, use of chemical resistant gloves should be considered for post harvest activities. Currently, some labels require handlers to wear baseline PPE with chemical resistant gloves and goggles or a faceshield.

Postapplication dermal and inhalation exposure risks are not of concern for storage room re entry workers following thermo fogging applications to pears. The operating instructions for the thermo fogging machine require application of a self contained breathing apparatus ( SCBA) when entering the cold storage room shortly after application due to low oxygen levels. Use of SCBA will mitigate any potential concerns for OPP, and salts inhalation exposure for workers re entering the storage room at this time. Additionally, inhalation exposure is considered negligible for those workers entering the storage room months after the application for pear processing and/ or distribution preparation. The aerosol fog has likely fully dissipated and the room is ventilated to return it to ambient atmospheric conditions. Postapplication dermal exposure risks for these re entry workers are considered negligible. Page 3 of 28 1.0 Background and Purpose This RED case includes four active ingredients: o Phenylphenol ( OPP) and its salts ( sodium, potassium, and ammonium). These ingredients have a variety of antimicrobial uses ( i. e., cleaning/ disinfectant); however, this assessment only addresses conventional uses of these chemicals   specifically, post harvest agricultural commodity ( citrus and pears only) fungicide applications. There are no residential uses; therefore only occupational exposures will be addressed.

For the purposes of this assessment, only OPP and OPP sodium salt ( SOPP) will be addressed. OPP potassium salt solely has registered antimicrobial uses and OPP ammonium salt currently has no active registered products.

2.0 Use Information Post Harvest Automated Applications ( Dip Tank, Foam, Spray)

OPP and SOPP are used in conventional post harvest fungicide products formulated as soluble ( SC) and emulsifiable concentrates ( EC) and RTU solutions. Currently, the registrants ( The Dow Chemical Company and Lanxess, Inc.) plan to support uses only for citrus fruits ( citron, sweet orange, tangerine, lemon, grapefruit, lime, and kumquat) and pears ( Louie, 2005). Of the two post harvest fungicide products with OPP as the active ingredient, one has been cancelled ( 2792 35; cancelled 21JUL05), and the other ( 43410 9) is not labelled for use on citrus or pears. As such, only products with SOPP as the active ingredient are currently labelled for these uses and are, therefore, the focus of this assessment.

Typical application methods were derived from the labels and/ or Agency knowledge of use practices and include bin drenching, flooding, dipping, waxing, foam washing, and spraying over rolling brushes. Application of SOPP solutions are typically automated with commodities passing through sprays/ foams/ brushes on conveyor belts or bins being mechanically dipped. The commodities are then manually sorted and packed by workers at the end of the process.

Thermo fogging An additional end use product ( EUP), formulated as a RTU solution is labeled for use on pears in cold storage only with the XEDA ® Electrofogger, a thermo fogging device. The label indicates that applications should strictly follow the machine's operating instructions.

Prior to treatment, cooling systems and humidifiers and circulation fans are turned off. Tubing suctions the product directly from the bung or spout of an open pail to the machine, which is outside the storage room. A rigid pipe and nozzle extending from the machine is attached to the storage room through an access hatch and further sealed with plastic sheeting and duct tape. The machine flash heats the liquid to 165  170 ° C in a fast flow of air which is dispersed as a fog of extremely small particles. Once the fogger is operational, an operator/ monitor stays with the fogger to insure it is working properly. At no time during the application process is anyone permitted inside the storage room. The fogging process takes Page 4 of 28 about 1 hour to treat 125 tons and approximately 3 hours to treat 400 tons of fruit. An operator will not treat more than two rooms per day. After treatment, the storage room is kept at 32   36 ° F and 1 3% oxygen for a period of 2 weeks to 4 months, at which time the fruit is scheduled for processing and/ or distribution ( Collantes, 2005).

Chemical specific information regarding daily amount treated ( i. e., pounds of fruit treated per day) is not available. However, use information from similar post harvest active ingredients previously assessed ( i. e., imazalil, thiabendazole, ethoxyquin, and diphenylamine) will be used in this assessment.

There are currently 9 active SOPP labels. Label directions for the liquid concentrate formulations call for dilution in water. Application rates are calculated as pounds of active ingredient per gallon of dilute solution ( i. e., lb ai/ gal soln) ranging from 0.0066 to 0.19 lb ai/ gal soln ( 0.05   2% solution by weight). Other labels further list the amount of fruit per gallon of dilute solution ( i. e., lbs fruit/ gal soln); this ranges from 3,000 10,000 pounds lbs fruit/ gal soln depending on the concentration. The RTU thermo fogging product has an application rate of 0.0633 lb ai/ 2200 lbs fruit. Appendix A has a more detailed summary of these products.

3.0 Hazard Identification Note: Hazard Identification section was provided by the Antimicrobials Division ( AD).

The acute toxicity database for OPP, and salts is considered incomplete. Acute dermal toxicity ( 870.1200), acute inhalation toxicity ( 870.1300), and primary eye irritation studies must be submitted. OPP has a moderate order of acute toxicity via the oral route of exposure ( Toxicity Category III). For dermal irritation, OPP and its sodium salt are severe ( Toxicity Cateogry I) and moderate to severe ( Toxicity Category II) irritants, respectively. OPP and its sodium salt are not dermal sensitizers. The acute toxicity data for OPP and salts is summarized below in Table 1.

Table 1: Acute Toxicity Profile for OPP, and salts Guideline Number Study Type/ Test substance (% a. i.) MRID Number/ Citation Results Toxicity Category 870.1100 ( § 81 1) Acute Oral Toxicity  Rat 2 phenylphenol, purity 99.9% 43334201 LD50 = 2733 mg/ kg III 870.1100 ( § 81 1) Acute Oral Toxicity  Rat 2 phenylphenol, sodium salt purity 99.1% 433342402 LD50 = 846 mg/ kg ( male) LD50 = 591 mg/ kg ( female) III 870.1200 ( § 81 2) Acute Dermal Toxicity NS NS

870.1300 ( § 81 3) Acute Inhalation Toxicity NS NS

870.2400 ( § 81 4) Acute Eye Irritation NS NS  Page 5 of 28 Table 1: Acute Toxicity Profile for OPP, and salts Guideline Number Study Type/ Test substance (% a. i.) MRID Number/ Citation Results Toxicity Category 870.2500 ( § 81 5) Acute Dermal Irritation Rabbit 2 phenylphenol purity 99.9% 43334202 Dermal irritant I 870.2600 ( § 81 6) Dermal Sensitization  Guinea pig 2 phenylphenol, purity 99.9% 43334203 Non sensitizer. NA 870.2600 ( § 81 6) Dermal Sensitization  Guinea pig 2 phenylphenol, sodium salt purity 99.1% 43334205 Non sensitizer. NA Table 2: Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for OPP, and salts for Use in Human Risk Assessments Exposure Scenario Dose Used in Risk Assessment ( mg/ kg/ day) Target MOE, UF, Special FQPA SF, for Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects Dietary Risk Assessments Acute Dietary ( general population and females 13 49) No appropriate endpoints were identified that represent a single dose effect. Therefore, this risk assessment is not required.

Chronic Dietary ( all populations) NOAEL = 39 mg/ kg/ day FQPA SF = 1 UF = 100 ( 10x interspecies extrapolation, 10x intra species variation)

Chronic RfD = 0.39 mg/ kg/ day Chronic PAD = 0.39 mg/ kg/ day Combined oral toxicity/ carcinogenicity study in rats ( MRID 43954301, 44852701, 44832201)

LOAEL of 200 mg/ kg/ day based upon decreased body weight, body weight gain, food consumption and food efficiency, increased clinical and gross pathological signs of toxicity.

Non Dietary Risk Assessments Incidental Oral Short Term ( 1  30 days) NOAEL ( maternal) = 100 mg/ kg/ day Target MOE = 100 FQPA SF = 1 UF = 100 ( 10x interspecies extrapolation, 10x intra species variation) Developmental ( gavage) toxicity studies in rats ( MRID 00067616, 92154037) and rabbits ( MRID 41925003; co critical developmental toxicity study)

Maternal LOAEL of 300 mg/ kg/ day based upon clinical observations of toxicity, decreased weight gain, food consumption and food efficiency observed in the rat developmental toxicity study.

Incidental Oral Intermediate Term NOAEL = Target MOE = 100 FQPA SF = 1 Combined oral toxicity/ carcinogenicity study in rats ( MRID 43954301, 44852701, 44832201) Page 6 of 28 Table 2: Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for OPP, and salts for Use in Human Risk Assessments Exposure Scenario Dose Used in Risk Assessment ( mg/ kg/ day) Target MOE, UF, Special FQPA SF, for Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects ( 1  6 months) 39 mg/ kg/ day UF = 100 ( 10x interspecies extrapolation, 10x intra species variation) LOAEL of 200 mg/ kg/ day based upon decreased body weight, body weight gain, food consumption and food efficiency, increased clinical and gross pathological signs of toxicity.

Dermal Short Term ( 1  30 days)

( residential and occupational) NOAEL ( dermal) = 100 mg/ kg/ day Target MOE = 100 FQPA SF = 1 UF = 100 ( 10x interspecies extrapolation, 10x intra species variation) 21 Day Dermal toxicity study in rats ( MRID 42881901)

LOAEL ( dermal) of 500 mg/ kg/ day based upon dermal irritation ( erythema, scaling) at the site of test substance application.

Dermal Intermediate and Long Term ( 1  6 months and > 6 months)

( residential and occupational) NOAEL = 39 mg/ kg/ daya Target MOE = 100 FQPA SF = 1 UF = 100 ( 10x interspecies extrapolation, 10x intra species variation) Combined oral toxicity/ carcinogenicity study in rats ( MRID 43954301, 44852701, 44832201)

LOAEL of 200 mg/ kg/ day based upon decreased body weight, body weight gain, food consumption and food efficiency ( effects observed as early as 13 weeks in this study), increased clinical and gross pathological signs of toxicity.

Inhalation Short Term ( 1  30 days)

( residential and occupational) NOAEL ( maternal) = 100 mg/ kg/ dayb Target MOE = 100 FQPA SF = 1 UF = 100 ( 10x interspecies extrapolation, 10x intra species variation) DB UF = an additional 10x is necessary for route extrapolation. If results are below an MOE of 1,000, a confirmatory inhalation study is warranted. Developmental ( gavage) toxicity studies in rats ( MRID 00067616, 92154037) and rabbits ( MRID 41925003; co critical developmental toxicity study)

Maternal LOAEL of 300 mg/ kg/ day based upon clinical observations of toxicity, decreased weight gain, food consumption and food efficiency observed in the rat developmental toxicity study.

Inhalation Intermediate and Long Term ( 1  6 months and > 6 months)

( residential and occupational) NOAEL = 39 mg/ kg/ dayb Target MOE = 100 FQPA SF = 1 UF = 100 ( 10x interspecies extrapolation, 10x intra species variation) DB UF = an additional 10x is necessary for route extrapolation. If results are below an MOE of 1,000, a confirmatory inhalation Combined oral toxicity/ carcinogenicity study in rats ( MRID 43954301, 44852701, 44832201)

LOAEL of 200 mg/ kg/ day based upon decreased body weight, body weight gain, food consumption and food efficiency ( effects observed as early as 13 weeks in this study), increased clinical and gross pathological signs of toxicity. Page 7 of 28 Table 2: Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for OPP, and salts for Use in Human Risk Assessments Exposure Scenario Dose Used in Risk Assessment ( mg/ kg/ day) Target MOE, UF, Special FQPA SF, for Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects study is warranted.

Cancer ( oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification: ortho Phenylphenol is classified as A Not likely to be carcinogenic below a specific dose range @, without quantification of risk.

UF = uncertainty factor, DB UF = data base uncertainty factor, FQPA SF = special FQPA safety factor, NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level, LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level, PAD = population adjusted dose ( a = acute, c = chronic), RfD = reference dose, MOE = margin of exposure aA human dermal absorption factor of 43% is used because an oral endpoint was selected for the intermediate and long term dermal exposure scenarios. bThe inhalation absorption factor of 100% ( default value, assuming oral and inhalation absorption are equivalent) should be used since an oral endpoint was selected for the inhalation exposure scenarios.

Short term dermal and inhalation risks are calculated separately. Intermediate and longterm dermal and inhalation risks can be combined due to a common toxicological endpoint; however, they are presented separately so a determination can be made for additional inhalation toxicity data. Table 2 notes that for inhalation risks, MOEs below 1000 warrant additional toxicity data. Table 3 below shows a summary of the levels of concern for each route of exposure and exposure duration.

Table 3: Levels of Concern for OPP, and salts Occupational ( Worker) Exposure Short Term Intermediate and Long Term Route MOE MOE Dermal 100 100 Inhalation 100* 100*

* MOEs below 1000 may warrant confirmatory inhalation toxicity data. See Table 2.

4.0 Incident Report No post harvest commodity fungicide application related incidences were reported in the incident report. All reports were associated with surface disinfectants. However, all reports indicated dermal, oral, and ocular irritation. The report notes that because the effects are reported with products containing ingredients other than OPP, and salts, it cannot rule out the possibility that some of the effects are caused by other ingredients ( Chen, 2005).

5.0 Occupational Exposure and Risk Assessment It has been determined that there is the potential for exposure in occupational scenarios from handling SOPP/ OPP products during the application process and from conducting activities in areas previously treated with SOPP/ OPP. As a result, risk assessments have been completed for both handler and postapplication scenarios. Page 8 of 28 5.1 Criteria for Conducting Exposure Assessments An occupational and/ or residential exposure assessment is required for an active ingredient if ( 1) certain toxicological criteria are triggered and ( 2) there is a potential for exposure to handlers ( mixers, loaders, applicators, flaggers, etc.) during use or to persons entering treated sites after application is complete. Toxicological endpoints were selected for short, intermediate, and long term exposures to SOPP. Risk assessments are required for occupational handlers and occupational postapplication exposures that can occur as a result of OPP, and salts use.

5.2 Occupational Handler Exposures and Risks The Agency uses the term " handlers" to describe those individuals who are involved in the pesticide application process. The agency believes that there are distinct job functions or tasks related to applications and that exposures can vary depending on the specifics of each task. Job requirements ( e. g., amount of chemical to be used in an application), the kinds of equipment used, the crop or target being treated, and the circumstances of the user ( e. g., the level of protection used by an applicator) can cause exposure levels to differ in a manner specific to each application event. Handler tasks can generally be categorized using one of the following terms:

  Mixer/ loaders   Applicators   Mixer/ loader/ applicators   Flaggers 5.2.1 Occupational Handler Exposure Scenarios Potential exists for dermal and/ or inhalation exposure during the following occupational handler scenarios:

  M/ L liquid concentrate solutions for post harvest foaming, dipping, drenching, brushing, spraying treatments;   Loading RTU solutions for post harvest foaming, dipping, drenching, brushing, spraying treatments;   Loading RTU solution for thermo fogging post harvest treatment using an XEDA ® Electrofogger; significant dermal and inhalation exposures are not expected for thermofogging applications   workers are not present within the storage rooms during the application process;   Application of solutions by foaming, dipping, drenching, brushing, spraying. Note: this scenario is not a typical " applicator" scenario. The assessment for automated application estimates exposures and risks ( inhalation exposure only   automated application process results in negligible dermal exposure) for workers in the vicinity of the application process. Page 9 of 28 5.2.2 Data and Assumptions for Occupational Handler Exposure Scenarios A series of assumptions and exposure factors served as the basis for completing the occupational handler risk assessments. Each assumption and factor is detailed below.

  It is anticipated that most of the occupational OPP, and salts exposure will generally occur in a short and intermediate term pattern, given that most uses are for controlling disease outbreaks after the harvest and most crops are not harvested longer than 6 months. There may be potential for long term exposures due to some citrus harvests lasting over 6 months ( California Citrus Quality Council, California Citrus Crop Profile, 2003). However, the endpoint is the same for intermediate and long term dermal and inhalation exposures, respectively, and the assessment of intermediate term risk is considered protective for long term risk.   The Agency always considers the maximum application rates allowed by labels in its short, intermediate, and long term risk assessments in order to consider what is legally possible based on the label.   A typical workday is assumed to be 8 hours per day.   Adult breathing rate is assumed 1.6 m3 per hour ( for moderate activities).   Adult body weight used in risk calculations is 70 kg;   Assumptions for amount treated per day ( i. e., lbs fruit/ day or gal soln/ day) values were taken from previously assessed active ingredients ( i. e., imazalil, thiabendazole, ethoxyquin, and diphenylamine) used in similar post harvest applications. Further refinement of this assessment is possible with crop/ chemical specific information.

o Citrus: 1,440,000 lbs/ day

2000 boxes/ hr * 90 lbs/ box * 8 hrs/ day o Pears: 500,000 lbs/ day

amount of citrus treated per day is assumed to be more conservative and is used in risk calculations; however the assessment for diphenylamine assumed 500,000 lbs pears/ day for a truck drencher application   Baseline PPE: includes typical work clothing ( i. e., a long sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes, socks, and no respiratory protection). It does not include chemical resistant gloves.   Baseline/ Gloves PPE: includes chemical resistant gloves in addition to baseline PPE. Note: most labels call for handlers to don at least this level of protection.

Unit Exposure Data Sources Many of the unit exposures used in this assessment were based on the PHED Version 1.1 of August 1998. The unit exposures from PHED that were used to complete all of the aspects of this risk assessment are discussed below.

Pesticide Handler Exposure Database ( PHED) Version 1.1 ( August 1998): It is the policy of HED to utilize the data from the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database ( PHED) Version 1.1 to Page 10 of 28 assess handler exposures for regulatory actions when no chemical specific data are provided. Data from PHED were used to complete this assessment.

PHED was designed by a task force of representatives from the U. S. EPA, Health Canada, the California Department of Pesticide regulation, and member companies of the American Crop Protection Association. PHED is a software system consisting of two parts   a database of measured exposure values for workers involved in the handling of pesticides under actual field conditions and a set of computer algorithms used to subset and statistically summarize the selected data. Currently, the database contains values for over 1,700 monitored individuals ( i. e., replicates) and HED has developed a series of tables of standard unit exposures for many occupational scenarios that can be utilized to ensure consistency in exposure assessments. These values are included in the " PHED Surrogate Exposure Guide".

The unit exposures calculated by PHED generally range from the geometric mean to the median of the selected data set. To add consistency and quality control to the values produced from this system, the PHED Task Force has evaluated all data within the system and has developed a set of grading criteria to characterize the quality of the original study data. The assessment of data quality is based on the number of observations and the available quality control data. While data from PHED provide the best available information on handler exposures, it should be noted that some aspects of the included studies ( e. g., duration, acres treated, pounds of active ingredient handled) may not accurately represent labeled uses in all cases.

Chemical specific Data Sources for Handler Activities A study designed to evaluate potential postapplication exposures of workers to SOPP/ OPP during post harvest pear and citrus fruit handling activities was conducted by The Dow Chemical Company to fulfill a portion of the data requirements requested by the Agency in a Data Call In ( DCI) in 1992. A protocol of the study was reviewed and comments and recommendations were made by HED ( Morris, 1993). The submitted study ( MRID 43432901), completed in 1994, is titled " Evaluation of Postapplication Exposures to Sodium o Phenlyphenate Tetrahydrate/ o Phenylphenol to Workers During Post Harvest Activities at Pear and Citrus Fruit Packaging Facilities."

The study, mainly designed to evaluate postapplication activities ( i. e., sorters and packers), included area ( i. e., background) air monitoring data. It is assumed that this data captured SOPP/ OPP air concentrations during the automated application process and will be used to quantitatively assess inhalation risk for process area workers during this process ( dermal exposure during the automated application process is considered negligible). It should be noted that the stated intention of the area monitoring was not for quantitative assessment of inhalation exposures during application. It was determined, however, that this data, although mostly collected in the sorting/ packing areas, provided a reasonable representation of inhalation exposure for workers in the vicinity of the operation during the application process. Page 11 of 28 The following is an overall description of the study including a detailed review of the results of area air monitoring. Discussion and review of postapplication dermal and inhalation exposure data is in Section 5.3.1.

  MRID 43432901: Evaluation of Post Application Exposures to Sodium o Phenylphenate Tetrahydrate/ o Phenylphenol to Workers During Post Harvest Activities at Pear and Citrus Fruit Packaging Facilities, 1994.

This study was conducted to determine postapplication dermal and inhalation exposures to workers following the application of SOPP/ OPP solutions to citrus fruits and pears. A total of 62 participants in 6 facilities ( located in Washington, Florida, and California) were monitored for dermal and inhalation exposure in this study. The following table details the breakdown of replicates.

Table 4: MRID 43432901   Replicate Breakdown Facility # Location( s) Automated Application Type Application Rate (% soln) Activities Monitored ( at each facility) Total # Replicates 1, 2, 3 Peshatin, Cashmere ( WA) Dip Tank 0.204% ( avg) 0.238% ( max, Facility 3) 5 Pear Sorters 5 Pear Packers 30* * two alternate replicates at Facility 2 with some uncollected data 4 Ft. Pierce ( FL) Foam 0.543% 2 Citrus Pre Sorters 3 Citrus Sorters 5 Citrus Packers 10 5, 6 Orange, Redlands ( CA) Spray 1.03% ( avg) 1.29% ( max, Facility 6) 2 Citrus Pre Sorters 3 Citrus Sorters 5 Citrus Packers 20 All application solutions were prepared using SOPP formulations; however, different concentrations ( i. e., application rates) were used in each facility. Samples of formulations were analyzed at each facility and showed a range of 0.140 to 1.29% ( averages, expressed as % OPP by weight). The maximum labeled application rate is 2%.

After treatment ( by automated dip, foam, or spray) the citrus or pears were conveyed to a pre sort station where workers would pull out culls ( i. e., damaged fruit). It should be noted that only workers performing pre sorting activities for citrus fruits were monitored. Fruits finally reached the sorters and packers after being cleaned, waxed, and dried.

Sorters separated the citrus/ pears into different grades based on appearance, quality, and size. Packers in the pear facilities performed all activities ( i. e., wrapping, boxing) manually, while packers in two citrus facilities operated packing machines and performed manual work. Approximately 180 300 boxes ( 40 50 pounds per box) of pears are packaged per day. Similar information was not provided for citrus packers.

Area air monitoring was conducted only in the three citrus facilities using a polyvinyl chloride ( PVC) filter in a plastic cassette and a silica gel sorbent tube. This data was conducted to evaluate ambient air concentrations of SOPP/ OPP in areas occupied by postapplication workers; the data was intended to augment the actual worker exposure data. Preliminary data Page 12 of 28 from the pear segment of the study ( conducted prior to the citrus segment) suggested that additional area monitoring data might better define sources of potential exposure. It is noted that the intention of this data was not to represent worker exposure data. However, it is believed that because the application process is automated, but workers are present in the vicinity of the process, this data represents the best approximation for exposure during the application process.

The following table presents a summary of the results of the area monitoring in the citrus facilities. Results have been corrected for field fortification recoveries below 100% and are expressed as a time weighted average ( TWA) in micrograms per cubic meter ( ug/ m3).

Table 5: Area Monitoring in Citrus Facilities Facility # Concentration ( ug/ m3) 1 4 23.1 5 11.8 6 90.3 All 38.6 1 All concentrations are arithmetic means expressed as a TWA.

5.2.3 Occupational Handler Exposure and Risk Calculation Methods Calculation Methods using Unit Exposures The Agency uses a concept known as unit exposure as the basis for assessing handler exposures. The unit exposure is amount of exposure that occurs while handling a pound of active ingredient. Daily exposures are calculated by considering application parameters ( i. e., rate and area treated) along with unit exposure levels. Exposures are then normalized by body weight to calculate dose levels and the Margin of Exposure ( MOE).

Daily Exposure: The daily exposures to handlers are calculated as described below. The first step is to calculate daily exposure ( dermal or inhalation) using the following formula:

Daily Exposure = Unit Exposure x Application Rate x Amount Treated Where:

Daily Exposure = Amount deposited on the surface of the skin or amount that is inhaled ( mg ai/ day); Unit Exposure = Normalized exposure value, derived from August 1998 PHED Surrogate Exposure Table and various referenced exposure studies ( mg ai/ lb ai); Application Rate = Amount of a. i. applied per unit treated such as acres or pounds of seed Amount Treated = Typically expressed as acres/ day for crops and pounds/ day for seed.

Inhalation exposure values ( for mixers/ loaders, only) are calculated in a similar manner. The only difference is that unit exposures representing the inhalation route are calculated using PHED and standard human breathing rates ( 29 liters/ minute and an 8 hour exposure).

Daily Dose: Daily dose ( inhalation or dermal) are then calculated by normalizing the daily dermal exposure value by body weight. It should be noted that short term dermal Page 13 of 28 exposures need not be corrected for dermal absorption ( i. e., dermal absorption factor) because the dermal endpoint was based upon a dermal study. Intermediate/ long term dermal exposure/ risk calculations are based on an oral endpoint, and are corrected for absorption using a 43% dermal absorption factor. The inhalation absorption factor is assumed to be 100 percent because the inhalation endpoint was based upon an oral study. Daily dose is calculated using the following formula:

Average Daily Dose

day kg mg / = Daily Exposure

day ai mg. x

) ( ) 100 / (%

kg Bodyweight factor absorbtion Where:

Average Daily Dose = The amount as absorbed dose received from exposure to a pesticide in a given scenario ( mg pesticide active ingredient/ kg body weight/ day); Daily Exposure = Amount deposited on the surface of the skin that is available for dermal absorption or amount that is inhaled ( mg ai/ day); Absorption Factor = 43% dermal absorption factor for int/ long term calculations 100% for inhalation exposures ( all durations) Body Weight = 70 kg representing the general adult population.

Margins of Exposure: Finally, the daily dermal dose and daily inhalation dose received by handlers are compared to the appropriate endpoint ( i. e., NOAEL or LOAEL) to obtain a Margin of Exposure ( MOE). All MOE values were calculated separately for dermal and inhalation exposures using the formula below:

MOE = NOAEL/ ADD Where:

MOE = Margin of exposure ADD = Average Daily Dose ( mg ai/ kg/ day) or the amount as absorbed dose received from exposure to a pesticide in a given scenario NOAEL = No Observed Adverse Effects Level ( mg ai/ kg/ day).

Calculation Methods using Chemical Specific Data Ambient area monitoring was used to quantitatively assess exposure to workers during the application process. As discussed previously, this data best represents exposure to workers in the vicinity of the automated application process, although the samples collected were in the area where workers conduct postapplication activities ( i. e., sorting and packing).

The study data presents exposure as a TWA concentration in micrograms per cubic meter. This concentration must be converted into an average daily exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) to be used in the MOE calculation described above. To present the area monitoring data as an average daily dose, the following calculation is used.

Avg Daily Dose

day kg mg / = Daily Exp.

3 m ug x Inhl. Rate

day m3 x

) ( ) 100 / (%

kg Bodyweight absfactor x

) 1000 ( ) 1 (

ug mg Where: Page 14 of 28 Average Daily Dose = The amount as absorbed dose received from exposure to a pesticide in a given scenario ( mg pesticide active ingredient/ kg body weight/ day); Daily Exposure = Area monitoring TWA concentration ( ug/ m3); Inhalation Rate = Adult daily inhalation rate: 8 hrs/ day * 1.6 m3/ hr = 12.8 m3/ day; Absorption Factor = 100% for inhalation exposures ( all durations); Body Weight = 70 kg representing the general adult population.

5.2.4 Occupational Handler Risk Estimates With the use of chemical resistant gloves ( i. e., Baseline/ Gloves PPE), short term dermal risks are not of concern for handlers. Short term inhalation risks are not of concern at baseline PPE ( i. e., no respiratory protection). Intermediate/ long term dermal risks are not of concern when chemical resistant gloves are used and intermediate/ long term inhalation risks are not of concern at baseline PPE. Tables 6 and 7 below summarize the handler risk estimates. Detailed exposure and risk calculations are in Appendix B.

Table 6: Short term Dermal and Inhalation Risks for OPP, and salts Handler Activities Short term Risk Dermal MOE ( Target MOE = 100) Inhalation MOE ( Target MOE = 100*) Exposure Scenario Crop Application Rate ( lb ai/ lb fruit)

Baseline Baseline/ Gloves Baseline Mixing/ Loading & Loading Mixing/ loading EC/ SC for Automated Post harvest Applications Citrus & Pears 0.0000633 26 3300 64000 Loading RTU for Automated Post harvest Applications Citrus only 0.0000133 130 16000 300000 Loading RTU for Thermofogging applications Pears only 0.0000288 58 7300 140000 Automated Application Process Citrus & Pears Activities during automated application ( i. e., operations monitoring) Citrus only NA Negligible 6100 * MOEs below 1000 may warrant confirmatory inhalation toxicity data. See Table 2.

Table 7: Intermediate/ Long term Dermal and Inhalation Risks for OPP, and salts Handler Activities Intermediate/ Long term Risk Dermal MOE ( Target MOE = 100) Inhalation MOE ( Target MOE = 100*) Exposure Scenario Crop Application Rate ( lb ai/ lb fruit)

Baseline Baseline/ Gloves Baseline Mixing/ Loading & Loading Mixing/ loading EC/ SC for Automated Post harvest Applications Citrus & Pears 0.0000633 24 3000 25000 Loading RTU for Automated Post harvest Applications Citrus only 0.0000133 110 14000 120000 Page 15 of 28 Loading RTU for Thermofogging applications Pears only 0.0000288 53 6700 55000 Automated Application Process Citrus & Pears Activities during automated application ( i. e., operations monitoring) Citrus only NA Negligible 2400 * MOEs below 1000 may warrant confirmatory inhalation toxicity data. See Table 2.

5.2.5 Occupational Handler Risk Characterization The exposure data that were used in the SOPP/ OPP occupational handler risk assessment represents the best data currently available. In many cases, the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database ( PHED) was used to develop the unit exposures. In addition to PHED, the Agency used a few literature and registrant submitted studies to define unit exposures. Generally, the quality of these studies is excellent. PHED unit exposures represent a central tendency of the data that ranges from the geometric mean to the median or arithmetic mean of the data ( it depends upon the distribution of the data). As such, the values based on the recent studies also are measures of central tendency ( e. g., the geometric means were selected from each study for assessment purposes in most cases).

Other inputs for this assessment included chemical specific data, application rates, and daily amount treated ( i. e., lbs fruit treated/ day). The application rate used was the maximum labeled rate. The daily amount treated, as seen in other post harvest commodity assessments, was based on a typical citrus fruit facility   and is considered a conservative estimate. The inhalation exposure used for " application" exposure was ambient area monitoring data from a submitted study, not personal monitoring data. Because the application process is automated, workers do not perform application activities per se; this data was considered a reasonable estimate of inhalation exposure to workers in the vicinity of the application process. Additionally, the value used ( 90.3 ug/ m3) was the maximum average exposure concentration from a California citrus facility ( Facility # 6). The overall average concentration for citrus facilities was much lower ( 38.6 ug/ m3). Ambient area monitoring was not conducted in pear facilities.

A summary of the input values is given in Table 8.

Table 8: Summary of Handler Input Values Input Value Source Comments Daily Amt. Treated ( lbs citrus/ day) From previously assessments of chemicals with post harvest applications ( i. e., imazalil, thiabendazole, ethoxyquin, and diphenylamine) Citrus value is assumed to be a conservative estimate.

Unit Exposure Data PHED Most values are geometric mean, not upper percentile.

Automated Postharvest Application Inhalation Exposure MRID 43432901 The data for area monitoring was used as a reasonable surrogate of inhalation exposures during the automated application process. The highest average ( from Facility 6) was used to Page 16 of 28 Table 8: Summary of Handler Input Values Input Value Source Comments provide the most conservative estimate.

Application Rate EPA Registration # 64864 54 This was the highest application rate of the two liquid concentrate products that specified the amount of fruit to treat with said rate. It is also the highest % soln of all labels ( 2%).

5.2.6 Recommendations for Occupational Handler Assessment All labels should require the use of chemical resistant gloves when handling SOPP/ OPP. As noted in Section 3.0, there is currently no acute eye, dermal, or inhalation toxicity studies, so application of protective equipment based on acute toxicity categories cannot be determined ( although it is recognized that this use does not fall under Worker Protection Standard ( WPS) provisions). Based on this handler assessment, however, chemical resistant gloves are warranted. Currently 4 of the 9 active labels require chemical resistant gloves. See Appendix A for more label information.

Additionally, labels should specify the amount of fruit to treat with the specified application rates. Currently 3 of the 9 active labels have this additional statement.

5.3 Occupational Postapplication Exposure and Risk Assessment The Agency uses the term " postapplication" to describe exposures to individuals that occur as a result of working in an environment that has been previously treated with a pesticide. The Agency believes that there are distinct job functions or tasks related to the kinds of activities that occur in previously treated areas such as harvesting vegetables in a treated field.

In the case of SOPP/ OPP post harvest commodity applications, workers performing sorting and packing activities are potentially exposed to SOPP/ OPP following application. Additionally, potential dermal and inhalation exposures exist for storage room re entry workers following thermo fogging applications performing post treatment residue sampling and for workers transporting treated pears from the storage room to be processed and/ or distributed.

5.3.1 Data Used for Occupational Postapplication Exposure Scenarios Postapplication data has been submitted for use in determining postapplication exposures and risks for workers performing sorting and packing activities. No data is currently available to quantitatively assess postapplication exposures to storage room re entry workers following thermo fogging applications.

The study previously summarized in Section 5.2.2 determined dermal and inhalation exposure monitoring through passive dosimetry for workers performing sorting and packing activities following application of SOPP/ OPP solutions to citrus fruits and pears. The following is a summary and discussion of results of the postapplication dermal and inhalation exposures. Page 17 of 28 As previously discussed, the citrus fruits and pears reach the sorters and packers following application of the SOPP/ OPP solution, a pre sorting phase, a cleaning/ waxing phase, and a drying phase. The sorters then separate the citrus/ pears into grades which the packers package both manually ( in the case of both citrus fruits and pears) and mechanically ( in the case of citrus only). The study conducted dermal ( arms, hands, torso) and inhalation ( personal breathing zone) exposure monitoring during these activities. The study noted that during presurvey observations, it was visually apparent that there was a lack of contact with treated fruit with lower portions of the body; therefore only upper body exposures were determined.

Dermal exposure to the torso region ( stomach, back, chest, shoulders, and upper arms) was quantified by extraction of SOPP/ OPP from an inner, short sleeve, 100% cotton t shirt using acetonitrile. Because workers typically wear short sleeve shirts, arm dosimeters cut from an outer, long sleeve, 65% polyester/ 35% cotton shirt long sleeve shirt, combined as one sample, represent exposure to bare arms. A penetration factor ( i. e., the ratio between the outer shirt torso dosimeter and the inner shirt torso dosimeter) was also derived   this factor was not used in the dermal exposure calculation, but could be used to determine protection offered by additional clothing layers. Analysis of the three dosimeters ( arms, outer torso, and inner torso) was done by gas chromatography with flame ionization detection ( GC/ FID). Laboratory recoveries averaged approximately 92% and 99% for the long sleeve cotton blend shirt and the short sleeve cotton t shirt, respectively.

Dermal exposure to the hands was assessed by hand rinses conducted throughout the day when workers would normally wash their hands after coming off the line ( i. e., bathroom and lunch breaks). Although thin cotton gloves, finger cots, or fingernail tape are typically worn as an industry practice by sorters and packers to protect their hands from cuts and punctures and to protect the fruit from damage, the study directors asked workers not to wear any hand coverings. Packers at all the pear packing facilities wore thin cotton gloves, finger cots, or fingernail tape, sorters did not; citrus facility # 4 was the only facility to have all sorter and packer samples ( including pre sorters) without hand coverings; at citrus facilities 5 and 6, only packers wore cotton gloves   sorters and pre sorters, with the exception of fingernail tape, did not wear hand coverings. Cotton gloves, when used, were removed prior to the hand rinse procedure ( and not included in the sample); fingernail tapes remained. The study notes that the cotton gloves were not intended to nor were effective as a chemical barrier. Hand rinses were collected by rinsing with soap and water over a stainless steel bowl and transferring the solution to a bottle containing sodium chloride. Ethyl acetate was then added to extract the SOPP/ OPP. Like the torso and arm dosimeters, analysis was done by GC/ FID, with an average laboratory recovery of approximately 112%.

The following table presents a summary of the results for total dermal exposure by facility, crop, and postapplication activity. Results, both the arithmetic mean and the maximum reported exposure, are presented in micrograms and represent exposure over an 8 hour workday. Results shown have been corrected for field fortification recoveries below 100% ( including those above 90%). Page 18 of 28 Table 9: MRID 43432901   Dermal Exposure Results for Sorters and Packers in Citrus Fruit and Pear Facilities Dermal Exposure ( ug) Facilities ( State) Crop Activity Arithmetic Mean Maximum Sorter 6134 14102 1, 2, 3 ( WA) Pears Packer 4022 6147 Sorter 2460 3448 Pre sorter 7873 12693 4 ( FL) Citrus Packer 1500 3088 Sorter 1934 5153 Pre sorter 4513 7784 5, 6 ( CA) Citrus Packer 720 1845 Inhalation exposure was monitored using a PVC filter in a plastic cassette, followed in series by a silica gel sorbent tube. The filter and tube sample train, placed in the worker's breathing zone on the lapel of their work shirt, was used to collect both particulate and vapor components of SOPP and OPP in the air. The air flow rate was approximately 1 liter per minute using vacuum pumps. Both the filter and tube were desorbed with acetonitrile and analyzed by GC/ FID. Laboratory recovery for this method averaged approximately 92%.

The following table presents a summary of the results of the personal air monitoring in all facilities. Results have been corrected for field fortification recoveries below 100% ( including those above 90%) and are expressed as a time weighted average ( TWA) in micrograms per cubic meter ( ug/ m3). Like dermal exposure, both the arithmetic mean and maximum reported exposure are shown.

Table 10: MRID 43432901   Inhalation Exposure Results for Sorters and Packers in Citrus Fruit and Pear Facilities Inhalation Exposure ( ug/ m3) Facilities ( State) Crop Activity Arithmetic Mean Maximum Sorter 95.1 154 1, 2, 3 ( WA) Pears Packer 75.4 96.4 Sorter 19.8 29.8 Pre sorter 43.7 50 4 ( FL) Citrus Packer 4.6 5.4 Sorter 7.6 27.4 Pre sorter 93.2 197 5, 6 ( CA) Citrus Packer 6.6 16.7 5.3.2 Postapplication Exposure Assumptions, Factors, and Calculation Methods The following assumptions and factors were used for assessing the occupational postapplication risks:

  Body weights, dermal and inhalation absorption factors, inhalation rates, hours worked per day, and toxicological endpoints are the same as those used for the occupational handler assessments.   As with the handler assessment, all exposure durations ( short term and intermediate / long term) will be assessed. Page 19 of 28   Chemical specific dermal and inhalation exposure data from MRID 43432901 was used to assess all postapplication risks.   The cotton gloves described in the study were not chemical resistant, nor were they intended to be a chemical barrier. Calculation corrections for these gloves were not performed, nor were the gloves analyzed for chemical residue/ content.

Dermal and inhalation exposure data was used to quantitatively assess exposure to sorters and packers following SOPP/ OPP application. The study data presents inhalation exposure as a TWA concentration in micrograms per cubic meter ( ug/ m3) and dermal exposure as a work day total ( 8 hours) in micrograms ( ug). These concentrations must be converted into an average daily exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) to be used in the MOE calculations described in Section 5.2.3.

To present the inhalation monitoring data as an average daily dose, the following calculation is used.

Avg Daily Dose

day kg mg / = Daily Exp.

3 m ug x Inhl. Rate

day m3 x

) ( ) 100 / (%

kg Bodyweight absfactor x

) 1000 ( ) 1 (

ug mg Where:

Average Daily Dose = the amount as absorbed dose received from exposure to a pesticide in a given scenario ( mg pesticide active ingredient/ kg body weight/ day); Daily Exposure = Personal air monitoring TWA concentration ( ug/ m3); Inhalation Rate = Adult daily inhalation rate: 8 hrs/ day * 1.6 m3/ hr = 12.8 m3/ day; Absorption Factor = 100% for inhalation exposures ( all durations); Body Weight = 70 kg.

To present the dermal exposure data as an average daily dose, the following calculation is used.

Avg Daily Dose

day kg mg / = Daily Exp.

day ug x

) ( ) 100 / (%

kg Bodyweight absfactor x

) 1000 ( ) 1 (

ug mg Where:

Average Daily Dose = the amount as absorbed dose received from exposure to a pesticide in a given scenario ( mg pesticide active ingredient/ kg body weight/ day); Daily Exposure = Dermal exposure during a typical workday ( ug/ day); Absorption Factor = 43% for intermediate/ long term duration; Body Weight = 70 kg.

5.3.3 Occupational Postapplication Risk Estimates Table 11 below summarizes the postapplication risk estimates for citrus and pear facilities. Short term risk calculations are shown using both the arithmetic mean and maximum reported exposures; intermediate/ long term risks are calculated using the arithmetic mean only. Additionally, all dermal risk estimates are calculated with exposures adjusted for the maximum labeled application rate ( 2% solution). See Table 4 for actual application solutions used in each facility. Page 20 of 28 There are risks of concern for the following scenarios. Detailed exposure and risk calculations are in Appendix B.

Sorters   Short term dermal risk for sorting in pear facilities ( MOE = 51). Note: this risk is calculated with the maximum reported dermal exposure.

Table 11: Postapplication Risk Estimates for Sorters and Packers in Citrus Fruit and Pear Facilities Short term Risk ( Target MOE = 100) Intermediate/ Long term Risk ( Target MOE = 100*) Dermal MOE Inhalation MOE Dermal MOE Inhalation MOE Postapplication Activity Crop ( State) Mean Max Mean Max Mean Mean Citrus ( FL) 240 150 20000 11000 220 7900 Pre sorting Citrus ( CA) 870 580 5900 2800 790 2300 Pears ( WA) 120 51 5800 3600 110 2200 Citrus ( FL) 770 550 28000 18000 700 11000 Sorting Citrus ( CA) 2200 880 72000 20000 2000 28000 Pears ( WA) 190 130 7300 5700 170 2800 Citrus ( FL) 1300 620 120000 100000 1100 47000 Packing Citrus ( CA) 5500 2400 81000 33000 5000 32000 Note: Dermal risks are calculated with exposures adjusted to the maximum labeled application rate ( 2% solution). See Table 4 for actual rates used in the study. * Inhalation MOEs below 1000 may warrant confirmatory inhalation toxicity data. See Table 2.

Postapplication inhalation exposure risks are not of concern for storage room re entry workers following thermo fogging applications to pears. Workers performing post treatment residue sampling likely will enter the storage room shortly after application ( i. e., a few hours to a couple of days). At this time, the oxygen level in the storage rooms is 1 3% and the machine's operating instructions require application of a self contained breathing apparatus ( SCBA). Use of SCBA will mitigate any potential concerns for SOPP/ OPP inhalation exposure. Additionally, inhalation exposure is considered negligible for those workers entering the storage room months after the application for processing/ distribution preparation. The aerosol fog has likely fully dissipated and the room is ventilated to return it to ambient atmospheric conditions.

Postapplication dermal exposure risks for the re entry workers are considered negligible. Post treatment residues samplers will contact very few pears and workers preparing the pears for processing and/ or distribution will contact the pears months after the application.

5.3.4 Occupational Postapplication Risk Characterization The data used from the postapplication exposure study is the best available representation of dermal and inhalation exposure to sorters and packers of citrus fruits and pears. Risk calculations using both the arithmetic mean and maximum reported dermal and inhalation exposures for each crop/ geographic location are the most conservative estimates. Other statistical manipulations ( i. e., median or geometric mean of exposures) may be more representative of actual exposure. Page 21 of 28 The short term dermal risk for pear sorters was reported to be a risk of concern ( MOE = 51) when the maximum reported dermal exposure for pear sorters was used. However, it should be noted that it is unlikely that this level of dermal exposure would persist over the entire shortterm exposure duration ( i. e., up to 30 days), and is a conservative risk estimate. The short term dermal risk using the average of dermal exposure for pear sorters ( MOE = 120) may be a more appropriate estimate.

It is recognized that the adjustment of the dermal exposure data for the maximum labeled application rate ( 2% solution), though typical in HED assessments, is conservative. For some data points this adjustment yields a result approximately 14 times greater than the reported exposure. However, because of a wide variety of uncertainty regarding potential factors influencing exposure, it was assumed that a higher solution concentration would correlate to higher dermal exposures   although, in some cases the data did not exhibit this trend. For example, the data showed that post harvest workers at pear facilities, while exposed to lower solution concentrations than citrus facility workers in California ( 0.204% average solution in pear facilities versus 1.03% average solution in the California citrus facilities), the workers in the pear facilities reported higher dermal exposures. This appears to hold true when holding certain observable parameters equal, such as wearing cotton gloves during packing activities ( i. e., pear packers wearing gloves exposed to lower concentration solutions reported higher dermal exposures than citrus packers wearing cotton gloves). Additionally, this holds true even when comparing sorters and packers in the pear facilities with pre sorters in the citrus facilities   because pre sorters handle the fruits prior to the drying/ waxing phase, one may intuitively assume they would have the highest exposures, but they do not. Data for pre sorters in pear facilities might help refine this discrepancy.

The reasons for these patterns in the data are unclear. As mentioned before, there may be factors influencing the data that were not reported in the study and cannot be determined simply by data observation. Factors such as the ventilation rates within each facility, chemical absorption by cotton gloves, the influence of application method ( dip tank, foam, or spray) on chemical/ fruit residue, the influence of ambient temperature on the application solutions, the effectiveness of the drying and waxing phases, and the amount of fruit treated ( which influences the solution concentration) all may affect exposure, but are indeterminable.

5.3.5 Recommendations for Occupational Postapplication Assessment Although the label specifying use with the XEDA ® Electrofogger requires users to follow the machine's operator instructions, which, in turn, directs re entry workers to wear SCBA when oxygen levels are low, it is recommended that this provision be directly referenced on the label for workers re entering the storage room to collect residue samples or perform other early re entry activities.

It is recommended that sorters ( including pre sorters) and packers of citrus fruits and pears wear chemical resistant gloves with baseline PPE ( i. e., long sleeve shirt and pants). It was noted in the study that sorters/ packers typically wear short sleeve shirts, so chemical resistant gloves with arm extensions ( instead of a long sleeve shirt) may be more appropriate. The incident reports, OPP/ SOPP's classifications as Category I and II acute dermal irritants, Page 22 of 28 respectively, and the absence of acute toxicity data warrant use of this additional PPE. Currently, some labels require handlers to wear baseline PPE with chemical resistant gloves and goggles or a faceshield.

6.0 References Chen, J. 2005. Draft Incident Reports Associated With o Phenylphenol & Salts. USEPA/ OPPTS/ OPP/ AD. Dated May 10, 2005.

California Citrus Quality Council, Citrus Research Board. Crop Profile   Citrus in California. Dated December, 2003.

Collantes, M. 2005. Memorandum: Diphenylamine: Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment for Proposed Section 3 Registration for Post harvest Use on Apples and Pears ( Petition No. 06987). Dated 8/ 8/ 2005.

Jaquith, D. 2002. Memorandum: Revision to Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment for Thiabendazole Use for Post Harvest Treatment. Dated February 7, 2002.

Jaquith, D. 2004. Memorandum: Occupational Exposure Assessment and Recommendations for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document Ethoxyquin. Dated June 30, 2004.

Louie, R. 2005. Memorandum: Use Closure Memorandum for Conventional Uses of 2 phenyphenol Salts Case # 2575: 2 phenyphenol PC # 064103; Sodium 2 phenyphenate PC # 064104 to Support the Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED). Dated July 18, 2005.

Maxey, S. W., and Murphy, P. G. 1994. Evaluation of Post Application Exposures to Sodium o Phenylphenate Tetrahydrate/ o Phenylphenol to Workers During Post Harvest Activities at Pear and Citrus Fruit Packaging Facilities. Dated 10/ 19/ 1994. MRID No. 43432901. The Dow Chemical Company.

Morris, L. 1993. Memorandum: Review of Protocol for Post Application Exposure to Sodium o Phenylphenate Tetrahydrate. Dated June 15, 1993.

Tadayon, S. 2000. Memorandum: Revised Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment and Recommendations for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Documents for Imazalil. Dated December 25, 2000. Page 23 of 28 APPENDIX A Summary of Registered Products Label Extractions Page 24 of 28 o Phenylphenol ( PC# 064103)

Registered Product (% ai) Crop/ Use App Equipment Max App Rate ( ai) Max Exposure Time Comments/ Description The following two products were initially listed for conventional use:

$ 2792 35: canceled as of 21JUL05 $ 43410 9: not labeled for use on citrus or pears ( labeled for tomatoes, cucumbers, and peppers only)

o Phenylphenol, sodium salt ( PC# 064104)

Wash tank 0.0463 lb ai/ gal soln ( 0.35% soln)

Citrus Bin drencher 0.0066 lb ai/ gal soln ( 0.05% soln) 5 minutes Deccosol 122 Concentrate Reg No. 2792 28 ( 14.5%) Pears Wash tank Bin drencher 0.0422 lb ai/ gal soln ( 0.05% soln) 4 minutes Liquid ( SC)

PPE  Baseline, gloves,

goggles/ faceshield Citrus Mechanical washer 0.0592 lb ai/ gal soln ( 0.6% soln) 4 minutes Stop Mold AF@

Reg No. 43553 20 ( 22.6%) Pears Mechanical washer 0.0485 lb ai/ gal soln ( 0.5% soln) 20 seconds Liquid ( SC)

PPE  not on label Spray type application;

apply by spraying over rolling brushes 0.19 lb ai/ gal soln/ 3000 lbs fruit ( 2% soln) 3 minutes Foamex Reg No. 64864 54 ( 14.52%) Citrus Bin drenchers 0.0285 lb ai/ gal soln ( 0.3% soln) 3 minutes Liquid ( SC)

PPE  not on label Citrus spray, flood, dip 0.17 lb ai/ gal soln ( 2% soln) 60 seconds SOPP Soap/ SOPP Tank Reg No. 64864 45 ( 13%) Pears spray, flood, dip 0.17 lb ai/ gal soln 30 seconds Liquid ( SC)

PPE  Baseline, gloves,

goggles/ faceshield Page 25 of 28 ( 2% soln)

Tank/ spray washer 0.0411 lb ai/ gal soln ( 0.5% soln) 4 minutes Citrus Waxing 0.0812 lb ai/ gal soln/ 10000 lbs fruit ( 1% soln) Not on label Freshguard 25 Reg No. 8764 1 ( 25%) Pears flood or dip 0.0411 lb ai/ gal soln ( 0.5% soln) Not on label Liquid ( SC)

PPE  Baseline, gloves,

goggles/ faceshield Sta Fresh 401 Reg No. 8764 24 ( 1.0%) Citrus spray brush applicator 0.133 lb ai/ gal soln/ 10000 lbs fruit RTU Product conc =

0.133 lb ai/ gal ( 1%

ai); apply 1 gal/ 10000 lbs fruit Not on label Liquid ( SC)

PPE  not on label Citrus Foam generator, foam washing solution 0.1676 lb ai/ gal soln ( 2% soln) 1 minute Freshguard 5 Reg No. 8764 16 ( 24%) Pears Foam generator, foam washing solution 0.155 lb ai/ gal soln ( 1.86% soln) 30 seconds Liquid ( SC)

PPE  not on label Fresh Foam 26F Foam Cleaner Reg No. 33354 2 ( 14.15%) Citrus Foaming or brushing 0.185 lb ai/ gal soln ( 1.94% soln) 30 seconds Liquid ( SC)

PPE  not on label Steri Seal AD@

Reg No. 57227 7 ( 22.6%) Pears XEDA Fogging machine 0.0633 lb ai/ 2200 lbs fruit; 0.0234 gal/ 2200 lbs fruit RTU Product conc =

2.7 lb ai/ gal ( 22.6%

ai); apply 3 fl oz/ 2200 lbs fruit Not on label Liquid ( SC)

PPE  Baseline, gloves,

goggles/ faceshield Page 26 of 28 APPENDIX B Exposure and Risk Calculation Page 27 of 28 OPP, and salts Short and Intermediate/ Long Term Dermal and Inhalation Postapplication Exposure Calculations Adult Body Weight  Gen Pop ( kg) 70 100** Target MOE Exposure Factors ST Dermal NOAEL ( mg/ kg/ day) 100 ST Inhalation NOAEL ( mg/ kg/ day) 100 IT/ LT Dermal/ Inhalation NOAEL ( mg/ kg/ day) 39 100**

Dermal absorption factor ( use for IT/ LT risk only) 43%

Adult Inhalation rate ( m3/ hr) 1.6 Typical work day ( hrs/ day) 8 Inhalation absorption factor 100%

Conversion Factor ( ug/ mg) 1000 Postapplication Activity Location Crop Dermal MOE Inhalation MOE**

Mean Max Mean Max Mean Max Mean Max Mean Max Mean Max Mean Mean WA Pears 59071.28 136251.21 95.10 154.00 0.84388 1.9464 0.01739 0.0282 120 51 5800 3600 110 2200 FL Citrus 9060.77 12699.82 19.80 29.80 0.12944 0.1814 0.00362 0.0054 770 550 28000 18000 700 11000 CA Citrus 3237.94 7989.15 7.58 27.40 0.04626 0.1141 0.00139 0.005 2200 880 72000 20000 2000 28000 WA Pears 37419.93 53452.174 75.39 96.40 0.53457 0.7636 0.01378 0.0176 190 130 7300 5700 170 2800 FL Citrus 5525.672 11373.849 4.56 5.43 0.07894 0.1625 0.00083 0.001 1300 620 120000 100000 1100 47000 CA Citrus 1271.112 2860.4651 6.75 16.70 0.01816 0.0409 0.00123 0.0031 5500 2400 81000 33000 5000 32000 FL Citrus 28996.32 46751.381 26.95 50.00 0.41423 0.6679 0.00493 0.0091 240 150 20000 11000 220 7900 CA Citrus 8029.353 12068.217 93.23 197.00 0.11471 0.1724 0.01705 0.036 870 580 5900 2800 790 2300 * Dermal exposures are adjusted to the maximum labeled application rate of 2% solution ** Inhalation MOEs below 1000 may warrant confirmatory inhalation tox data IT/ LT Risk Pre sorter Dermal MOE Inhalation MOE**

ST Risk Packer Inhalation ( ug ai/ m3)

Sorter ( mg/ kg/ day) ( mg/ kg/ day)

Inhalation Daily Dose Dermal Exposure Dermal*

( ug ai/ day) Page 28 of 28 OPP, and salts Short and Intermediate/ Long Term Dermal and Inhalation Handler Exposure Calculations Adult Body Weight  Gen Pop ( kg) 70 Exposure Factors Targe t MOE ST Dermal NOAEL ( mg/ kg/ day) 100 ST Inhalation NOAEL ( mg/ kg/ day) 100 IT/ LT Dermal/ Inhalation NOAEL ( mg/ kg/ day) 39 100*

Dermal absorption factor ( use for IT/ LT risk only) 43%

Adult Inhalation rate ( m3/ hr) 1.6 Typical work day ( hrs/ day) 8 Inhalation absorption factor 100%

Conversion Factor ( ug/ mg) 1000 App Equipment Crop( s) Formulation Daily Area Treated Max App Rate Handler Scenario ( lbs fruit/ day) ( lb ai/ lb fruit) Inhalation Inhalation Inhalation MOE Inhalation MOE ( ug/ lb ai) ( mg/ kg/ day)

Baseline Baseline/ Gloves Baseline Baseline Baseline/ Gloves Baseline Baseline Baseline/ Gloves Baseline Baseline Baseline/ Gloves Baseline Thermofogger Pears RTU 1440000 0.0000288 M/ L 2.9 0.023 1.2 1.718126 0.013626514 0.000710949 58 7300 140000 53 6700 55000 M/ L 2.9 0.023 1.2 3.776297 0.029949943 0.001562606 26 3300 64000 24 3000 25000 A ** see below 0.016504686 6100 2400 M/ L 2.9 0.023 1.2 0.79344 0.0062928 0.00032832 130 16000 300000 110 14000 120000 A ** see below 0.016504686 6100 2400 * Inhalation MOEs below 1000 may warrant confirmatory inhalation tox data ** Inhalation Exposure from MRID 43432901 Area ( ambient) air monitoring TWA ( ug/ m3)

Avg ( arithmetic mean) from all data points 38.6 Avg ( arithmetic mean) from Facility 6 ( highest avg) 90.26 IT/ LT Risk NA NA Dermal MOE Negligible Negligible Negligible 1440000 0.0000133 Negligible Negligible Negligible Unit Exposure Dermal ( mg/ kg/ day)

( mg/ lb ai) Dermal MOE Dermal ST Risk Daily Dose Citrus & Pears 1440000 0.0000633 SC/ EC Automated spraying, dipping,

brushing, foaming 100*

Citrus RTU


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 126 (Monday, July 1, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31176-31178]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14008]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2018-1037; Special Conditions No. 25-750-SC]

Special Conditions: Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 900EX
Airplanes; Large Non-Structural Glass in the Passenger Compartment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Dassault Aviation
(Dassault) Model Falcon 900EX airplane. This airplane will have a novel
or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology
envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category
airplanes. This design feature is the installation of large, non-
structural glass panels in the passenger compartment. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary
to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Dassault on July 1, 2019. Send
comments on or before August 15, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2018-1037 using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket website, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478).
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Lennon, FAA, Airframe and
Cabin Safety Branch, AIR-675, Aircraft Certification Service, 2200 S
216th St., Des Moines, Washington 98198-6547; telephone and fax 206-
231-3209.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The substance of these special conditions
previously has been published in the Federal Register for public
comment. These special conditions have been derived without substantive
change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public
comment would result in a significant change from the substance
contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public
notice and comment are unnecessary, and finds that, for the same
reason, good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon
publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    On June 14, 2016, Dassault applied for a change to Type Certificate
No. A46EU for installation of large, non-structural glass panels in the
passenger compartment in Model Falcon 900EX airplane. The Model Falcon
900EX airplane has three turbofan engines. The airplane will have a
maximum takeoff weight of 43,800 lbs, capacity for 2 crewmembers, and
seating for 19 passengers.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Dassault must show that the Model Falcon 900EX airplane,
as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the
regulations listed in type certificate no. A46EU, or the applicable
regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except
for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Dassault Model Falcon 900EX
airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special
conditions are prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Dassault Model Falcon 900EX airplane must comply with
the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and
the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Dassault Model Falcon 900EX airplane will have a novel or
unusual design feature associated with the installation of large, non-
structural glass panels in the cabin area occupied by passengers and
crew. Possible installations of large, non-structural glass items
include, but are not limited to, the following items:
     Glass partitions.
     Glass floor installations.
     Glass attached to the ceiling.
     Glass parts integrated in a stairway.
     Wall- or door-mounted mirrors and glass panels.
     Mirrors as part of a door blow-out panel.
     Glass plate installed in a doorframe.
     Washstand with glass panel.
    The installation of these glass items in the passenger compartment,
which can be occupied during taxi, takeoff, and landing (TT&L), is a
novel or unusual design feature with respect to the installed material.
The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for this design feature.

Discussion

    The use of glass results in trade-offs between the one unique
characteristic of glass--its capability for undistorted or controlled
light transmittance, or transparency--and the negative aspects of the
material. Glass, in its basic form as annealed, untreated sheet, plate,
or float glass, when compared to metals, is extremely notch-sensitive,
has a low fracture resistance, has a low modulus of elasticity, and can
be highly variable in its properties. While reasonably strong, it is
nonetheless not a desirable material for traditional airplane
applications because it is heavy (about the same density as aluminum),
and when it fails, it breaks into extremely sharp fragments that have
the potential for injury, and which have been known to be lethal. Thus,
the use of glass traditionally was limited to windshields, and
instrument or display transparencies. The regulations in Sec.  25.775
only address, and likewise only recognize, the unique use of glass in
windshield or window applications where no other material will serve.
This regulation does address the adverse properties of glass, but
pilots occasionally are injured from shattered glass windshields.
    The FAA divides other uses of glass in the passenger cabin into
four groups. These groups were created to address the practical and
functional uses of glass. The four groups are as follows:
    The first group is glass items installed in rooms or areas in the
cabin that are not occupied during TT&L, and a person does not have to
enter or pass through the room or area to get to any emergency exit.
    The second group is glass integrated into a functional device the
operation of which is dependent upon the characteristics of glass, such
as instrument or indicator protective transparencies, or monitor
screens such as liquid crystal displays or plasma displays. This group
may be installed in any area in the cabin regardless of occupancy
during TT&L. Acceptable means of compliance for these items may depend
on the size and specific location of the device containing the glass.
    The third group is small glass items installed in occupied rooms or
areas during TT&L, or rooms or areas that a person does not have to
enter or pass through to get to any emergency exit. The FAA defines a
small glass item as less than 8.8 lbs (4 kg) in mass.
    The fourth group is large glass items, the subject of these special
conditions, installed in occupied rooms or areas during TT&L, or rooms
or areas that a person must enter or pass through to get to any
emergency exit. A large glass item is defined as 8.8 lbs (4 kg) or
greater in mass. Groups of glass items that collectively weigh 4 kg or
more would also be included. The mass is based on the amount of glass
that becomes hazardous in high inertial loads.
    The glass items in groups one, two, and three are restricted to
applications where the potential for injury is either highly localized,
such as flight-instrument faces, or the location is such that injury
due to failure of the glass is unlikely, for example mirrors in
lavatories, because these installations necessitate the use of glass.
These glass items typically are addressed in a method-of-compliance
issue paper for each project based on existing part 25 regulations, or
in established policy. These issue papers identify specific tests that
could include abuse loading and ball-impact testing. In addition, these
items are subject to the inertia loads contained in Sec.  25.561, and
maximum positive-differential pressure for items like video monitors to
meet Sec.  25.789.
    The items in group four are much larger and heavier than previously
approved, and raise additional safety concerns. These large, heavy
glass panels, primarily installed as architectural features, were not
envisioned in the regulations. The unique aspects of glass, with the
potential to become highly injurious or lethal objects during emergency
landing, minor crash conditions, or in flight, warrant a unique
approach to certification that addresses the characteristics of glass
that prevented its use in the past. These special conditions were
developed to ensure that airplanes with large glass features in
passenger

cabins provide the same level of safety as airplanes using traditional,
lightweight materials. The FAA reiterates this intention in the text of
the special conditions by qualifying their use for group four glass
items.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to
Dassault Model Falcon 900EX airplanes. Should Dassault apply at a later
date for a change to the type certificate to include another model
incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special
conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model series of airplane. It is not a rule of general
applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702,
44704.

The Special Conditions

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for the Dassault Model Falcon 900EX
airplane.
    For large glass items (a single item, or a collective group of
glass items, that weigh 4 kg or more in mass) installed in passenger-
occupied rooms or areas during taxi, takeoff, and landing, or installed
in rooms or areas that occupants must enter or pass through to access
any emergency exit, the glass installations on the Dassault Model
Falcon 900EX airplane must meet the following conditions:
    1. Material Fragmentation--The applicant must use tempered or
otherwise treated glass to ensure that, when fractured, the glass
breaks into small pieces with relatively dull edges. The glass
component installation must retain glass fragments to minimize the
danger from flying glass shards or pieces. The applicant must
demonstrate this characteristic by impact and puncture testing, and
testing to failure. The applicant may conduct this test with or without
any glass coating that may be utilized in the design.
    2. Strength--In addition to meeting the load requirements for all
flight and landing loads, including any of the applicable emergency-
landing conditions in subparts C & D of 14 CFR part 25, the glass
components that are located such that they are not protected from
contact with cabin occupants must not fail due to abusive loading, such
as impact from occupants stumbling into, leaning against, sitting on,
or performing other intentional or unintentional forceful contact with
the glass component. The applicant must assess the effect of design
details such as geometric discontinuities or surface finish, including
but not limited to embossing and etching.
    3. Retention--The glass component, as installed in the airplane,
must not come free of its restraint or mounting system in the event of
an emergency landing, considering both the directional loading and
resulting rebound conditions. The applicant must assess the effect of
design details such as geometric discontinuities or surface finish,
including but not limited to embossing and etching.
    4. Instructions for Continued Airworthiness--The instructions for
continued airworthiness must reflect the method used to fasten the
panel to the cabin interior and must ensure the reliability of the
methods used (e.g., life limit of adhesives, or clamp connection). The
applicant must define any inspection methods and intervals based upon
adhesion data from the manufacturer of the adhesive, or upon actual
adhesion-test data, if necessary.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 20, 2019.
Christopher R. Parker,
Acting Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-14008 Filed 6-28-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35541-35542]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12519]

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

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: ER20-1828-004.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Compliance filing: OATT Order 864 Compliance Filing--
June 2022 to be effective 1/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/6/22.
    Accession Number: 20220606-5193.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1003-002.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: LPL Second Amended PR Agreement
Amendment to be effective 2/9/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/6/22.
    Accession Number: 20220606-5036.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1361-000.
    Applicants: Georgia-Pacific Toledo LLC.
    Description: Refund Report: Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 6/6/22.
    Accession Number: 20220606-5114.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1566-001.
    Applicants: Guernsey Power Station LLC.
    Description: Guernsey Power Station LLC submits request for the
Market-Based Rate Tariff to have an effective date of May 16, 2022 and
request a waiver of the Commission's prior notice requirements set
forth in 18 CFR 35.3 and 35.11 (2021).
    Filed Date: 5/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220525-5287.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1571-002.

    Applicants: NextEra Energy Transmission New York, Inc., New York
Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: NextEra Energy Transmission New
York, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.17(b): NEET NY Second Amendment
to Formula Rate Revisions to be effective 6/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/6/22.
    Accession Number: 20220606-5070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2029-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to PJM's FTR
Credit Requirement to be effective 8/3/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/3/22.
    Accession Number: 20220603-5207.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/24/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2030-000.
    Applicants: Sonoran West Solar Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline new to be effective
6/4/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/3/22.
    Accession Number: 20220603-5211.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/24/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2031-000.
    Applicants: Sonoran West Solar Holdings 2, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline new to be effective
6/4/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/3/22.
    Accession Number: 20220603-5214.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/24/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2032-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, New York Independent
System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Niagara Mohawk Power
Corporation submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: NYISO-National
Grid joint 205 Amended & Restated SGIA2554 Albany County 1 Solar to be
effective 5/20/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/6/22.
    Accession Number: 20220606-5091.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2033-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised ISA, Service
Agreement No. 5861; Queue Nos. AF2-305/AG1-398 to be effective 5/13/
2022.
    Filed Date: 6/6/22.
    Accession Number: 20220606-5093.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2034-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2022-06-06_SA 3372 Entergy
Louisiana-Oak Ridge Solar 1st Rev GIA (J697 J1436) to be effective 5/
20/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/6/22.
    Accession Number: 20220606-5127.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2035-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 400,
CAWCD LGIA to be effective 5/12/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/6/22.
    Accession Number: 20220606-5134.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/22

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2036-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, New York Independent
System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Niagara Mohawk Power
Corporation submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: NYISO-National
Grid joint 205 SGIA2555 Albany County 2 Solar to be effective 5/20/
2022.
    Filed Date: 6/6/22.
    Accession Number: 20220606-5151.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2037-000.
    Applicants: States Edge Wind I Holdings LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Notice of Cancellation of Market-
Based Rate Tariff to be effective 8/6/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/6/22.
    Accession Number: 20220606-5167.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2038-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2022-06-06 Interconnection
Agreement Between NEP and Narragansett Electric Co. to be effective 5/
25/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/6/22.
    Accession Number: 20220606-5169.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2039-000.
    Applicants: The Narragansett Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2022-06-06 Interconnection
Agreement Between Narragansett Electric Co. and NEP to be effective 5/
25/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/6/22.
    Accession Number: 20220606-5179.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/22.

    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: June 6, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-12519 Filed 6-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P