II. E. 1  Page 1 of 37 Appendix II. E. 1. Residential Pesticide Use Inputs from REJV Survey Data Pesticide Use and Aggregating Residential Exposures The probabilistic models require residential pesticide use inputs to aggregate exposure from multiple use scenarios. The percent of households applying the various products, and the timing of those applications directly impact US per capita estimates of aggregate exposure. 1 The REJV data can be used to generate empirically based estimates to address those needs.

Figure II. E. 1 1: Co occurrent Use for Household User Figure II. E. 1 1 depicts the application scenarios ( sites and dates) for a particular REJV Household ( 1516840). The top row represents carbaryl use on Trees (` Fruit/ Nut trees'), the middle row represents carbaryl use on Gardens (` Vegetable Gardens'), and the bottom row represents carbaryl use on Ornamentals (` Ornamental flowers',

1 The pesticide use data enables the models to account for users ( any NMC scenario) and non users. The models differ in how pesticide use data are utilized to account for users and to account for cooccurrent use ( multiple NMC scenarios) among users. The duration ( time spent) in treated areas also directly impacts estimates of per capita exposure. Lifeline differs from Calendex and CARES since the NHAPS time use diaries are empirically built into the model; therefore, individuals have a probability of not spending any time in treated areas on any given day; in contrast to the time spent distributions used in Calendex and CARES that reflect only ` doers'. II. E. 1  Page 2 of 37 ` Shrubs/ Bushes'). The horizontal axis reflects the Julian dates ( Day 1= Jan 1st, Day 365= Dec 31st), and each dot indicates that a carbaryl product was applied to that site on that day. The REJV application records indicate that Household 1516840 applied 5 different carbaryl products to these three sites on 15 different dates: Day 127, 129, 134, 141, 146, 150, 167, 174, 180, 186, 196, 198, 202, 204, and 257.

This household made co occurrent applications ( treated multiple sites) on four dates: ( 1) Day 127, a 61 yr old female applied carbaryl ( Sevin 5% Dust, codewlabel= 008) to both her Garden and to Ornamentals ( flowers), on ( 2) Day 180 she applied another carbaryl product ( Garden Tech Sevin 10%, codewlabel= 016) to her Garden and Ornamentals ( shrubs/ bushes), on ( 3) Day 257 she applied a third product (' GARDEN SEVEN 10 BUG KILLER', codewlabel= 033) to Garden and Trees, and ( 4) on Day 174, another household member ( 72 yr old male) applied carbaryl ( Garden Tech Sevin 10%, codewlabel= 016) to Ornamentals ( shrubs/ bushes) and Trees. This anecdotal example suggests that household users often apply carbaryl to multiple sites on the same day. However, the data also indicate that other homeowners may also treat multiple sites, but on different dates ( e. g., HHID= 0709697 made five applications of SEVIN DUST 10% to their lawn, and two applications to their Garden on separate dates), while many other users make only one application of either carbaryl or propoxur to only one site ( e. g., HHID= 1607484 made one application of Sevin to their lawn).

The timing of each application event directly affects the modeled surface and air residues available for post application exposure. In the example above, the household member that applied carbaryl to ornamentals and trees on Day 174, may also receive post application exposure while tending to the garden that day  to the extent that residues are still available from the previous application, a week earlier ( Day 167). Similarly, toddlers may obtain exposure while spending time in a kitchen that just received a crack and crevice treatment, and obtain additional exposure while playing on a lawn that was treated the previous week. 2 The REJV data was collected to provide refined estimates of both the percent of households affected by various permutations of use scenarios, and the timing of the corresponding application events. Ideally, it would be desirable to empirically utilize the REJV diaries in the exposure models to fully capture the variability in residential use patterns reported among these households. Since the probabilistic risk assessment models currently are unable to utilize the REJV data in that manner, descriptive statistics were extracted  tailored to the specific models   and utilized for this preliminary risk assessment. 3 The residential use patterns differ across the models to the extent that these models imperfectly mimic the residential use patterns depicted in the REJV diaries. The next section provides a brief overview of the REJV data. The following sections describe the pesticide use inputs compiled from the REJV data and used in the respective models.

2 There was no co occurrent use ( same day application) of Propoxur Crack and Crevice & Carbaryl Lawn in the REJV ( 1217 Households) 3 The REJV companies have been working to match the CARES Reference Population with the REJV households. The Calendex developer ( S. Peterson) has also been working to incorporate REJV type data into his model. Lifeline already has pesticide use diaries ( II. G. e., NHGPUS), built into the model; several modifications would be required to empirically incorporate REJV data. II. E. 1  Page 3 of 37 Residential Exposure Joint Venture ( REJV) Data4 The Residential Exposure Joint Venture ( REJV) enlisted households to collect pesticide use data over a 12 month period. An initial screening survey was sent to over 100,000 panel members maintained by the market research firm, National Family Opinion ( NFO) Research. The NFO previously collected demographic data for these panel members ( e. g., age, gender) as well as information on other household members, the location and type of home, pet ( dog/ cat/ other) ownership, etc. Of the 70,427 individuals that returned the screening survey, about 47,274 ( 67%) reported applying pesticides during the past year. A subset of respondents ( users) whom indicated an interest in participating in the pesticide use survey were recruited to maintain pesticide use diaries. Approximately 6,102 households provided one or more monthly pesticide use diaries, and a total of 1,217 households provided diaries for the entire 12 month study period, May 2001   April 2002.

At the beginning of the 12 month survey period, these participants were asked to locate all pesticide products stored around their homes  both indoors ( kitchen, bathroom) and outdoors ( garage, shed), and to record the product's name and EPA Registration number. The respondents were provided numerically labeled stickers, and were asked to affix one sticker to each product so that each product had a unique identification number ( e. g., two cans of Raid might be identified as products # 1 and # 2, respectively). A monthly inventory sheet also was provided so that respondents could update their pesticide product inventory with any new purchases. 5 The REJV consultants ( Infoscientific) used the EPA Registration Number to identify all active ingredients contained in the product, and the corresponding percentages from the EPA Pesticide Product Inventory System ( PPIS) data base. This information was appended to the appropriate records in the REJV Inventory and Application Tables.

4 The REJV consist of approximately 8 member companies who sponsored, and oversaw the residential pesticide use study. 5 On three occasions, the initial inventory ( 5/ 1/ 01), after six months ( 11/ 1/ 01) and at end of the study period ( 4/ 30/ 02), the respondents were also asked to provide an estimate of how full each of the products were: ( 1) Have Not Used Yet, ( 2) 76% 99%, ( 3) 51% 75%, ( 4) 26% 50%, ( 5) 1% 25%. This information can be used to get a rough estimate on the average amount of product applied over all of the applications made during the preceding interval. II. E. 1  Page 4 of 37 At the end of each of month, the respondents were asked to fill out and send a monthly pesticide product application diary to NFO. 6 The application records contain the following information:

Application Date

Name of Pesticide Product

Pesticide ID

Where/ On Whom The Product Was Applied ( Site)

Who Applied The Pesticide Product

Method of Application

If the Product was Used Up

If the Product was Disposed of After Use The Application Table contains approximately 30,000 valid application records. A valid application is defined as an application that was made by a homeowner with a pesticide product that was in the product inventory table ( linked by the unique product identification number from the sticker). This application table provides the primary source of use data for the exposure models.

Assigning REJV Application Events to NMC Scenarios The first task for using REJV data to model pesticide exposure is to assign each relevant application record ( event) to a corresponding NMC Scenario. The data from the following three fields in the application table were used to make these assignments: ( i) chemical, ( ii) application site, and ( iii) application method. For this preliminary NMC CRA, only application records with products containing NMC chemicals used by homeowners ( carbaryl and propoxur) were used. The list of REJV sites is more detailed than the list NMC modeled scenarios. For example, there were 695 application events with a product containing carbaryl to ` Ornamentals', of which, 444 application events were to ` Ornamental Flowers', 248 events to Shrubs/ Bushes, and 3 events to an Aquatic Garden/ Pond. While some respondents reported applying carbaryl to two or more of these sites on a given day, such events were considered as one application to ` Ornamentals'. Similarly, if an individual reported applying a product containing propoxur to their bathroom, their kitchen, or to both locations ( as well as other ` Indoor' locations), then that application event was considered as one ` Indoor Crack and Crevice' application for the Calendex and CARES inputs ( the following section describes the construction of Lifeline inputs). The decision to group these application sites ( Ornamentals, Indoors) was based on the fact that the REJV did not collect any information on the areas treated nor the application rates, therefore, limiting the ability to utilize such refined estimates.

6 The respondents were also asked to fill out and send a pesticide product purchase sheet to record any new products purchased that month. II. E. 1  Page 5 of 37 Table II. E. 1 1: Decision Rules for Assigning Application Events to NMC Scenarios in REJV Data Lawn Garden Ornamentals Trees Pet Indoor C& C Carbaryl Carbaryl Carbaryl Carbaryl Carb Prop Propoxur Other ( Carbl &

Prop) Total Site Code APPMETHOD Scena rio N Scena rio N Scenario N Scenario N Scenario N N Scenario N N N 50 Aerosol spray HES 3 RTU 9 RTU 21 HES 7 Collar 2 Indoor C& C 601 440 1,083 51 Bait box ( bait station/ traps) Dust 1 Dust 1 Indoor C& C 80 33 115 53 Direct pour ( liquid) HES 1 RTU 1 RTU 2 2 6 54 Foam/ Gel 1 1 55 Fogger, outdoor area HES 2 HES 1 3 58 Granular  broadcast/ rotary spreader GPS 5 Dust 1 Dust 7 2 15 59 Granular  drop spreader GPS 1 Dust 1 Dust 2 4 60 Granular  handheld rotary spreader Dust 6 Dust 4 HES 1 1 12 61 Granular/ Dust/ Powder

pour spout, shaker can Dust 65 Dust 395 Dust 378 HES 25 Collar 42 Indoor C& C 5 175 1,085 63 Pellets GPS 2 Dust 3 Dust 19 HES 3 2 29 64 Pet collar Dust 1 Collar 5 3 Indoor C& C 11 3 23 65 Spot on RTU 2 RTU 5 HES 1 Indoor C& C 1 9 67 Sprayer, hose end HES 11 HES 9 HES 23 HES 10 Indoor C& C 3 15 71 68 Sprayer, hand wand/ pump/ tank HES 24 HES 136 HES 141 HES 130 Indoor C& C 6 46 483 69 Sprayer, backpack RTU 3 RTU 2 5 70 Sprayer, spritz HES 1 RTU 2 RTU 10 HES 1 Collar 2 Indoor C& C 15 18 49 71 Sprayer, hand trigger HES 5 RTU 22 RTU 55 HES 23 Indoor C& C 29 20 154 72 Other HES 7 RTU 9 RTU 11 HES 3 Collar 5 6 Indoor C& C 10 14 65  2 Check verbatims Dust 5 Dust 5 HES 1 5 16  3 Bad data Dust 1 Dust 3 Indoor C& C 4 1 9 < blank> GPS 1 Dust 6 Dust 4 Indoor C& C 6 13 30 Grand Total 12 6 614 695 205 54 11 771 791 3,267 Site Groupings: Ornamentals ( 695) = Ornamental flowers ( 444), Shrubs/ Bushes ( 248), Aquatic Garden/ Pond ( 3); Trees = Fruit/ Nut trees ( 142),

Ornamental/ Other type of trees ( 63); Indoor C& C ( N= 771) = Indoor Sites include Bath ( N= 157), Bedroom ( 62), Child's play room ( 4), Dining room ( 29), Family game room ( 4), Indoor enclosed porch/ Sun room ( 8), Kitchen ( 352), Living room ( 65), Office/ Study/ Den ( 7), Utility/ Laundry room ( 61);

Pet Collar, Carbaryl = Dog ( 30), Cat ( 22), Other Pet ( 2); II. E. 1  Page 6 of 37 Since carbaryl products are available in several formulations ( dust, liquid, granules), the application method was used to assign all events within the modeled sites to the appropriate NMC Scenario. As Table II. E. 1 1 indicates, the REJV respondents reported applying carbaryl to turf via several application methods, including: Granular/ Dust/ Powder  pour spout, shaker can ( 65 application events), Sprayer, hand wand/ pump/ tank ( 24 events), and Granular  broadcast/ rotary spreader ( 5 events). The Sprayer, hand wand/ pump/ tank scenario was assigned to Hose End Spray due to recent regulatory decisions affecting the product labels. Other application methods that did not fit into the scenarios developed for this preliminary assessment were assigned to the ` closest' scenario for that site, or to a scenario that was conservative with respect to post application exposure. For example, the application method for carbaryl applied to lawn was blank for one record, and that event was assigned to Granular Push Spreader to capture post application to toddlers. Applications to other sites were not considered in this assessment ( e. g., carbaryl and/ or propoxur use around the house perimeter, wasp/ hornet nests, etc.).

There were no reported applications of methiocarb in the REJV data base. However, 4 homeowners reported having one or more products containing methiocarb on hand ( ORTHO SLUG GETA BAIT, EPA REG NO: 239 2416 AA; INV_ ID= 065277, 096753, 096761, 096761, 100479). Similarly, the REJV survey did not capture professional applications of carbaryl to lawns by Lawn Care Operators ( LCOs), nor Indoor Crack and Crevice applications by Pest Control Operators ( PCOs) with products containing propoxur. The available marketing data suggest relatively low use of these carbamates to residential settings. OPP/ BEAD estimated LCOs applied between 40,000 lbs ai   125,000 lbs ai of carbaryl, less than 1% of all insecticides ( lbs ai) applied to residential lawns; and no reported use of propoxur by PCOs. 7 The two professional use scenarios were not included in this assessment since there is relatively low residential use of carbaryl and propoxur by LCOs and PCOs respectively  and since homeowners do not obtain ( applicator) exposure from those scenarios.

7 Estimates of the Non Agricultural Usage of Carbaryl and Propoxur, Jenna Carter/ T. Kiely, OPP/ BEAD. II. E. 1  Page 7 of 37 REJV Weights For economical and practical purposes, only ` users' were enlisted to maintain pesticide use diaries during the data collection phase. Since ` non users' were not enlisted in this survey, the REJV projects total use for the US population by adjusting the use estimates among the 1,217 completed diaries ( users) by multiplying estimates ( Percent of Total US Households) by 0.76 to account for the 24% of ` non users'. 8 Equivalently, the 1,217 households may be considered to represent approximately 1,603 households ( 1,603 = 1,217 users + 386 non users). The REJV ( NFO) also developed sampling weights for each of the 1,217 households; with those weights summing up to 78,855,307 8 The REJV recalculated sampling weights for the respondents to the Screening Survey ( N= 70,427) to determine the extent of residential pesticide use among homeowners. Approximately 76% of all households were estimated to make one or more pesticide applications  indoors and/ or outdoors  during any given year ( slightly higher than the unweighted count/ pct of 67% = 47,274/ 70,427). The NFO developed the weights for the 1217 households that provided 12 months of pesticide use diaries to ensure that the ending sample was representative of the overall U. S. population on the following criteria: ( 1) geographical region, ( 2) household income, ( 3) household size, ( 4) Age of head of household, ( 5) Market Size ( e. g., MSA) of city/ township, ( 6) presence of kids. The weights range from 0.3 to 3.0, and sum up to 1200. Black and Hispanic populations are known to be under represented in NFO panel; which the NFO took into account when developing these weights. Box II. E. 1 1: Possible Approach for Modeling Professional Use While there are few professional applications ( LCO, PCO) of carbaryl and propoxur to residential settings, use estimates ( Tables II. G. 4, 1.13, 1.14) for such scenarios could be developed in the following manner. As noted above, a total of 70,427 NFO panel members responded to the screener survey. Of this total, 62,611 ( 89%) reported having a private lawn, 13,834 ( 19.6%) reported hiring a PCO during the last 12 months, and 8,705 ( 12.3%) reported hiring an Lawn Care Operator ( LCO). Those responses may be used to generate application events for these three scenarios. Specifically, only respondents with a yard ( lawn) would be allowed to apply methiocarb to control for snails/ slugs; such households may be assumed to have a one percent chance of applying methiocarb to ornamental plants. Similarly, and only people that hired a LCO during the last 12 months would be allowed to hire an LCO to apply carbaryl to their lawn; such households may be assumed to have a 10 percent chance of hiring an LCO to apply carbaryl to their lawn. And finally, respondents that reported hiring a PCO during the last 12 months may have a 10 percent chance of having a PCO to make an Indoor Crack and Crevice application of propoxur. Applying such percentages ( conditional probabilities) to the NMC Scenario user application events makes an implicit assumption that these 3 scenario users are a subset of the NMC Scenariousers and that the application dates occurred on the same dates as other NMC Scenario applications. This approach would be conservative in the sense that it is likely to overestimate co occurrence; e. g., it would allow a homeowner to treat his lawn, as well as hire an LCO to treat the lawn on the same day ( similar for crack and crevice applications). II. E. 1  Page 8 of 37 households, or approximately 76% of all households in the US ( Table II. E. 1 2). For this preliminary NMC CRA, pesticide use statistics were calculated using two methods: ( 1) a simple count of the number of households, and ( 2) using the sampling weights for these 1217 households. Since these two application methods produced similar results, we use/ present the statistics/ results using the simple count method.

Table II. E. 1 2: Total & Projected Number of Households in REJV Survey Region Number of Households with 12 Month Diaries Proj Number of Households ( users+ non users)/ 1 Proj Number of Households w/ 12 Month Diaries Proj Total Number of Household ( Users+ Nonusers) US 1,217 1,603 78,855,307 103,885,440 East 171 225 13,500,548 17,785,871 Midwest 261 344 17,983,445 23,691,723 South 501 660 30,237,128 39,834,951 West 284 374 17,134,187 22,572,895 There are high confidence intervals around the REJV estimates due to the infrequent nature of residential pesticide use. This is especially true for the Calendex inputs where use statistics were calculated for each ` User type'   as determined by the total number of applications per year, and further compounded by regional breakouts. The regional statistics are intended to provide additional perspective on the degree of variability in regional use patterns. The primary concern was to capture high end use patterns as reported by REJV respondents. Concerns regarding statistical reliability may be better addressed with appropriate sensitivity analyses.

As Table II. E. 1 3 indicate, the three models ( Calendex, CARES and Lifeline) require slightly different set of pesticide use inputs. The following discussion is meant to highlight similarities/ differences across the three models; further details regarding these models can be found on the internet sites when each of these models were brought to the SAP. The REJV statistics for the various pesticide use inputs can be found in the Appendix Tables as indicated in the corresponding cells.

In Calendex, all modeled scenarios are ` custom'   the exposure factors and the pesticide use inputs are not constrained based on any label assigned to that scenario. Distributions need to be specified for all exposure factors in each applicable routes, and the percent of households and all application timing data are specified in that scenario input file. CARES and Lifeline require the users to assign each modeled scenario to a pre defined category. For any modeled scenario, several common exposure factors ( e. g., area treated, application rate, and duration) apply to all exposure routes within the scenario. In CARES, the total percent of households apply to all products within that scenario ( e. g., 4% of all Households may make an application to the Garden  that figure includes applications made with any of the 3 modeled scenario products: RTU, dust hand, liquid Hose End Spray). For Lifeline, the percent of households is indirectly determined by the various Target Pest Use Factors ( II. E. e., market shares) discussed in further detail below. II. E. 1  Page 9 of 37 Table II. E. 1 3: Residential Pesticide Use Inputs for Models Pesticide Use Input Calendex CARES Lifeline Scenario Selection All Scenarios are ` Custom' 17 Scenarios Affect PHT, available algorithms, and possibly co occurrence 85 Scenarios Affect PHT, potential area treated ( AHS/ NGS) & duration ( NHAPS)

Pct of Households ( Product Scenario) Apply to Scenario ( Table II. E. 1 4) Apply to all uses within Scenario ( Tables II. E. 1 4 & II. E. 1 8) Target Pest Use Factors via NHGPUS diaries ( Table II. E. 1 15) Professional vs Homeowner Applicator Option Available Option Available Option Available User Type Defined by Number of Applications & Application Schedules Single Type for Each Product Scenario ( need multiple ` products') Types Defined by NHGPUS Diaries ( Table II. E. 1 15)

Day of Week ( Sun Sat) Distribution 1st App ( Table II. E. 1 5) Distribution All Apps ( Table II. E. 1 10)

Month or Julian Date ( Day/ Week of Year) Apply distribution ( CDF) to 1st Application ( Table II. E. 1 6) Apply to All Applications ( Table II. E. 1 11) Number of Applications & Interval ( Days) Between Applications Apply to 2nd and subsequent Applications ( Table II. E. 1 7) Variable   indirectly related to existing applications ( Table II. E. 1 9) All Application Events Randomly determined based on NHGPUS (# Apps/ Yr) & Region. Independent daily Probabilities for North (=# apps/ 182.5) and South (=# apps/ 365)

Co occurrent Use/ Exposure Across Scenarios Four sequential ( pair wise) Links ( Table II. E. 1 12) Co occurrence ( Conditional Probability) Matrix ( Tables II. E. 1 13b & 14b) NHGPUS Diaries ( Partially Independent wrt Daily Probabilities)

The scenario selection has a definitive impact in the Lifeline model since several data bases are empirically built into Lifeline. For example, post application exposure from ` Indoor Crack and Crevice' applications are a function of the probability that the various rooms were treated on a given day ( National Home and Garden Pesticide Use Survey), the areas treated ( based on data from the American Housing Survey), and the time spent and activities ( Transfer Coefficient) engaged in while in the treated rooms ( National Human Activity Pattern Survey). 9 The three models provide an option to account for use by professional applicators. In all cases, the modeled individuals obtain only post application exposure from such uses.

The Calendex model allows for multiple ` user types'. For this assessment, Calendex user types were developed based on the total number of applications made over the year. Calendex requires a cumulative distribution for the date of the first application ( by day of year or by week of year, and day of week). If there are multiple user types, then Calendex also requires inputs on the number of days between successive applications for each type. The CARES model can be specified using either a general Scenario category, or using the general Sceanrio cateogory and specifying ` user groups'. The first approach assumes a representative user type, and therefore, average values would 9 Similarly for applicator exposure, the amount applied is a function of area treated. Lifeline has built in distributions for Lawn size ( American Housing Survey, Lot size  footprint), garden sizes ( National Gardening Survey), and size of Indoor rooms ( National Realtors Study). The entire area is generally assumed to be treated in the Lifeline ` Broadcast' scenarios, while a fraction of that total potential area is treated for ` Spot' scenarios. II. E. 1  Page 10 of 37 be inputted for all application schedule inputs, in particular, the average number of applications, average days between applications, distributions for day of week and month of year apply to all applications. These application schedules are applied to all products application methods modeled within a particular scenario ( i. e., dust, RTU and liquid hose end spray applications to a Garden share the same application schedule). In the latter approach, separate application schedules ( i. e., day of week, month, number of applications, interval between applications, and co occurrence) are inputted for each Scenario user group.

The Lifeline model utilizes the US EPA National Home and Garden Pesticide Use ( NHGPUS) ` diaries' to model residential pesticide use; there are as many user types as distinct diaries. 10 A modeled individual is first ( stochastically) determined to be a user or a non user based on the Target Pests Use Factors inputted for the various products. Table II. E. 1 15 presents these inputs for the Lifeline model. For example, carbaryl has 8.6% of the market ( total applications) made to control ` plant chewing insects' on lawn; if 10% of all households applied some insecticide to lawn to control ` plant chewing insects', then an individual may have approximately 0.86% (= 0.1 x 0.086) of applying carbaryl to lawns for this purpose. Once an individual has been determined to be a user, Lifeline calculates a probability of use on any given day based on the total number of applications made during the past 12 months, and the region in which that individual resides. If the NHGPUS diary indicates that two applications were made to lawns over the 12 month period and that individual resides in a Southern state, then the probability of an application on any given day is 0.8% ( 0.0082= 2/ 365). All application events are randomly ( independently) determined for each simulated day.

The three models have different approaches to account for co occurrent use patterns. In Calendex, all scenarios are listed in an ` AGM' file, and the user may specify one of four types of linkages: 3 pair wise numeric links and alphabetical type of link. The numeric links define correlations between the application( s) of one scenario with the application( s) of the preceding scenario: Code ` 2' forces a scenario to have identical application date( s) as the preceding scenario  this linkage requires both scenarios to have the same application schedules; Code ` 3' is similar to Code ` 2', but forces the same date only for the first application; and Code ` 4' forces the application of that scenario when the previous scenario was used, but application schedules ( number of applications and dates) may be different. Alphabetical codes are used to model ` mutually independent' events ( e. g., may want to have users affix only one of two potential pet collars to a pet). The alphabetical links may be assigned to two or more scenarios ( e. g., select 1 of 2 pet collars). Table II. E. 1 12 presents alternative links for a Calendex simulation based on the conditional probabilities in the co occurrence matrix ( further discussion below).

10 The Lifeline model randomly assigns a ( 12 month recall) NHGPUS diary to each modeled individual based on several demographic characteristics. The diary applies to that individual as long as s/ he remains in the same residence. If s/ he moves, then a new diary is randomly selected from the appropriate bin. II. E. 1  Page 11 of 37 CARES uses a ` co occurrence matrix' to account for correlations across residential use scenarios. 11 Table II. E. 1 13b presents the Co occurrence matrix based on the various scenario sites. The matrix contains conditional probabilities, and is read by row, as follows: " For a modeled individual that treated both their lawn and garden, for each lawn application event, there is a 36% (= 28/ 78) chance that the ornamental plants were treated on the same day, a 9% chance that trees were treated on the same day, an 8% chance that the garden was treated on the same day, and a 0% chance that pets were treated on the same day." 12 Table II. E. 1 12b provides a more refined co occurrence by scenario.

Table II. E. 1 14b presents a co occurrence matrix that was generated for the various scenarios ( product site application method). This co occurrence matrix may provide stronger correlations across products. For example, an individual that treated his/ her lawn with a dust formulation is more likely to continue applying that same product to their ornamental plants, garden and/ or trees, than selecting another product ( such as a liquid concentrate applied using a hand wand) to treat those sites. That anecdotal practice is reflected in this co occurrence matrix. In order to utilize these inputs, the CARES scenarios need to be individually grouped by each modeled scenario ( formulation application method). The conditional probabilities in this co occurrence matrix can also be used as a general guide for setting Calendex linkages. A cursory review of this table indicates that between 22% and 25% of the time, individuals that applied a carbaryl product ( dust or liquid) to their garden also treated their ornamental plants on the same day. Based on similar figures for other product site combinations, the 25% figure was provided in the Calendex links ( Type 4   1st application on the same date) for products applied to different sites.

As noted above, Lifeline empirically utilizes the NHGPUS diaries. A modeled individual may apply one or more products to multiple sites on a given day based upon the probabilities calculated for each product( s) to the various sites. Continuing with the example above, if the diary indicates two applications were made to lawn and two applications are made to garden, then the probability of applying carbaryl each of these sites on any given day is 0.8% ( 0.0082= 2/ 365). While there is a good chance that the individual will make at least one application to both sites at some point during the year, the probability that a modeled individual will treat both sites on the same day is very low since applications to each site are independently determined.

11 For each modeled individual, CARES determines the permutation of use scenarios affecting that modeled individual during some time during the year; each scenario is independently determined based on the scenario probabilities ( Table II. G. 4). If multiple scenarios are affected, a dominant scenario is selected and an application date determined based on the seasonal use patterns ( Table II. G. 10, 1.11). The co occurrence matrix ( Table II. G. 13b or II. G. 14b) provide conditional probabilities of treating the other scenario( s) site( s) on that same date. Subsequent applications for the dominant scenario are determined based on the seasonal use patterns, and the Interval between applications ( Table II. G. 9). 12 The ` 1s' on the diagonals indicate that use occurred on that site; CARES requires the user to enter ` 0' instead of ` 1'. II. E. 1  Page 12 of 37 Table II. E. 1 4: Total Number of Households in REJV that applied N Methyl Carbamates Total Number of Households Applying Product ( 1+ Apps), Among 1,217 Households Percent of Households Applying Product ( 1+ Apps), Among Projected 1603 Households Scenario_ NMC US East Midwest South West US East Midwest South West Garden_ All 97 10 26 46 15 6% 4% 8% 7% 4%

Carbaryl_ GardenDust 82 8 25 37 12 5% 4% 7% 6% 3%

Carbaryl_ GardenHES 24 4 4 12 4 1% 2% 1% 2% 1%

Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 11 2 3 6 1% 1% 1% 1% 0%

Lawn_ All 33 4 6 21 2 2% 2% 2% 3% 1%

Carbaryl_ LawnDust 18 2 1 15 1% 1% 0% 2% 0%

Carbaryl_ LawnGPS 2 2 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%

Carbaryl_ LawnHES 16 2 4 8 2 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Carbaryl_ Lawn_ LCO / 1 15 2 5 4 4 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Ornamentals_ All 107 10 26 52 19 7% 4% 8% 8% 5%

Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 70 3 20 35 12 4% 1% 6% 5% 3%

Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 25 4 5 10 6 2% 2% 1% 2% 2%

Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 21 2 3 12 4 1% 1% 1% 2% 1%

Methiocarb_ Ornamental / 1 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Pet_ All 15 3 1 8 3 1% 1% 0% 1% 1%

Carbaryl_ PetCollar 12 1 8 3 1% 0% 0% 1% 1%

Propoxur_ PetCollar 3 3 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%

Carbaryl_ TreeHES 36 7 7 17 5 2% 3% 2% 3% 1%

IndoorC& C All 84 16 14 34 20 5% 7% 4% 5% 5%

Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 69 15 10 26 18 4% 7% 3% 4% 5%

Prpxur_ IndrC& C_ PCO / 1 15 1 4 8 2 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% II. E. 1  Page 13 of 37 Table II. E. 1 5a: Distribution of 1st Application, by Day of Week Distribution of 1 st Application ( Pct), By DayOfWeek Region NMC Scenario Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat East Carbaryl_ GardenDust 25 13 25 13 25 East Carbaryl_ GardenHES 25 25 25 25 East Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 50 50 East Carbaryl_ LawnDust 50 50 East Carbaryl_ LawnHES 50 50 East Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 33 33 33 East Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 25 25 25 25 East Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 50 50 East Carbaryl_ TreeHES 14 29 14 43 East Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 13 7 13 13 40 13 East Propoxur_ PetCollar 33 33 33 Midwest Carbaryl_ GardenDust 12 28 20 8 12 4 16 Midwest Carbaryl_ GardenHES 50 50 Midwest Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 33 33 33 Midwest Carbaryl_ LawnDust 100 Midwest Carbaryl_ LawnGPS 50 50 Midwest Carbaryl_ LawnHES 100 Midwest Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 15 15 10 15 25 15 5 Midwest Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 60 20 20 Midwest Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 33 33 33 Midwest Carbaryl_ PetCollar 100 Midwest Carbaryl_ TreeHES 29 29 29 14 Midwest Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 10 10 10 30 20 20 South Carbaryl_ GardenDust 11 19 19 8 19 3 22 South Carbaryl_ GardenHES 25 8 17 25 25 South Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 17 33 17 33 South Carbaryl_ LawnDust 20 20 27 20 13 South Carbaryl_ LawnHES 13 13 38 38 South Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 17 14 14 9 17 14 14 South Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 30 50 20 South Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 17 17 17 25 17 8 South Carbaryl_ PetCollar 63 13 13 13 South Carbaryl_ TreeHES 6 24 12 6 35 12 6 South Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 8 15 20 15 15 12 15 West Carbaryl_ GardenDust 17 17 17 8 17 25 II. E. 1  Page 14 of 37 Distribution of 1 st Application ( Pct), By DayOfWeek Region NMC Scenario Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat West Carbaryl_ GardenHES 25 50 25 West Carbaryl_ LawnHES 50 50 West Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 25 17 25 17 8 8 West Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 17 17 17 33 17 West Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 50 25 25 West Carbaryl_ PetCollar 33 67 West Carbaryl_ TreeHES 20 20 20 40 West Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 6 11 6 33 17 11 17 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenDust 11 5 18 21 20 10 16 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenHES 21 25 13 13 8 21 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 9 36 9 27 18 US Total Carbaryl_ LawnDust 22 22 11 17 22 6 US Total Carbaryl_ LawnGPS 50 50 US Total Carbaryl_ LawnHES 31 25 6 6 31 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 19 13 10 11 14 13 20 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 4 16 8 16 12 8 36 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 14 10 5 29 14 14 14 US Total Carbaryl_ PetCollar 8 8 42 8 8 25 US Total Carbaryl_ TreeHES 8 17 14 14 17 8 22 US Total Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 7 13 13 12 13 19 23 US Total Propoxur_ PetCollar 33 33 33 II. E. 1  Page 15 of 37 Table II. E. 1 6: Distribution of Date of 1st Application CDF for 1st Application ( All User Types)

Region Scenario_ NMC n mean Pct_ 0_ 1 Pct_ 1 Pct_ 10 Pct_ 20 Pct_ 30 Pct_ 40 Pct_ 50 Pct_ 60 Pct_ 70 Pct_ 80 Pct_ 90 Pct_ 100 East Carbaryl_ GardenDust 8 186 147 147 147 160 160 166 169 172 186 238 255 255 East Carbaryl_ GardenHES 4 183 146 146 146 146 148 148 181 213 213 226 226 226 East Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 2 213 177 177 177 177 177 177 213 248 248 248 248 248 East Carbaryl_ LawnDust 2 217 203 203 203 203 203 203 217 230 230 230 230 230 East Carbaryl_ LawnHES 2 193 160 160 160 160 160 160 193 226 226 226 226 226 East Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 3 176 123 123 123 123 123 147 147 147 258 258 258 258 East Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 4 133 105 105 105 105 132 132 134 135 135 159 159 159 East Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 2 233 190 190 190 190 190 190 233 276 276 276 276 276 East Carbaryl_ TreeHES 7 152 109 109 109 113 124 124 130 139 139 149 303 303 East Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 15 124 5 5 19 46 102 124 140 146 151 173 223 238 East Propoxur_ PetCollar 3 154 121 121 121 121 121 166 166 166 174 174 174 174 Midwest Carbaryl_ GardenDust 25 180 124 124 129 135 137 160 181 196 199 207 248 277 Midwest Carbaryl_ GardenHES 4 167 129 129 129 129 135 135 157 178 178 226 226 226 Midwest Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 3 212 184 184 184 184 184 188 188 188 263 263 263 263 Midwest Carbaryl_ LawnDust 1 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 Midwest Carbaryl_ LawnGPS 2 110 108 108 108 108 108 108 110 112 112 112 112 112 Midwest Carbaryl_ LawnHES 4 162 107 107 107 107 150 150 161 171 171 220 220 220 Midwest Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 20 182 109 109 124 139 157 167 179 201 213 223 235 264 Midwest Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 5 163 125 125 125 138 150 161 171 178 184 185 185 185 Midwest Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 3 222 188 188 188 188 188 220 220 220 259 259 259 259 Midwest Carbaryl_ PetCollar 1 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 Midwest Carbaryl_ TreeHES 7 149 108 108 108 111 133 133 137 176 176 184 197 197 Midwest Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 10 113 44 44 61 83 96 104 106 112 118 133 187 228 South Carbaryl_ GardenDust 37 155 100 100 110 125 132 137 144 149 164 186 241 267 South Carbaryl_ GardenHES 12 159 96 96 108 127 130 134 148 162 172 201 205 275 South Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 6 136 103 103 103 123 123 133 134 135 158 158 163 163 South Carbaryl_ LawnDust 15 164 29 29 64 99 109 125 147 161 234 248 276 343 South Carbaryl_ LawnHES 8 153 66 66 66 103 110 135 142 149 166 188 310 310 South Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 35 153 69 69 87 125 129 133 135 154 170 190 196 343 South Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 10 141 54 54 60 85 115 137 152 164 171 173 209 244 South Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 12 160 103 103 109 125 133 140 147 166 171 192 221 270 South Carbaryl_ PetCollar 8 177 107 107 107 129 136 144 157 170 195 248 283 283 South Carbaryl_ TreeHES 17 147 93 93 103 106 114 117 140 169 172 179 204 237 South Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 26 112 2 2 10 59 82 98 115 124 140 148 186 345 West Carbaryl_ GardenDust 12 155 116 116 117 122 123 134 139 143 156 186 236 253 II. E. 1  Page 16 of 37 CDF for 1st Application ( All User Types)

Region Scenario_ NMC n mean Pct_ 0_ 1 Pct_ 1 Pct_ 10 Pct_ 20 Pct_ 30 Pct_ 40 Pct_ 50 Pct_ 60 Pct_ 70 Pct_ 80 Pct_ 90 Pct_ 100 West Carbaryl_ GardenHES 4 181 145 145 145 145 162 162 172 181 181 237 237 237 West Carbaryl_ LawnHES 2 211 181 181 181 181 181 181 211 240 240 240 240 240 West Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 12 138 48 48 56 87 89 95 117 133 145 181 242 345 West Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 6 172 152 152 152 162 162 167 169 171 181 181 196 196 West Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 4 152 141 141 141 141 143 143 147 150 150 172 172 172 West Carbaryl_ PetCollar 3 134 33 33 33 33 33 138 138 138 230 230 230 230 West Carbaryl_ TreeHES 5 200 100 100 100 124 148 165 181 217 253 286 319 319 West Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 18 162 22 22 67 120 131 141 145 150 160 228 301 307 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenDust 82 165 100 100 122 129 135 142 149 166 186 198 241 277 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenHES 24 168 96 96 127 130 145 146 156 172 181 213 226 275 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 11 170 103 103 123 133 135 158 163 177 184 188 248 263 US Total Carbaryl_ LawnDust 18 171 29 29 64 100 124 147 161 176 230 246 276 343 US Total Carbaryl_ LawnGPS 2 110 108 108 108 108 108 108 110 112 112 112 112 112 US Total Carbaryl_ LawnHES 16 168 66 66 103 110 135 150 163 171 188 220 240 310 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 70 160 48 48 88 122 129 134 147 167 184 201 234 345 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 25 152 54 54 103 126 135 151 159 168 171 178 185 244 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 21 174 103 103 125 140 142 150 166 172 190 220 259 276 US Total Carbaryl_ PetCollar 12 162 33 33 107 126 129 136 141 170 195 230 248 283 US Total Carbaryl_ TreeHES 36 156 93 93 103 109 114 133 140 149 176 184 237 319 US Total Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 69 128 2 2 29 67 98 117 125 140 147 160 228 345 US Total Propoxur_ PetCollar 3 154 121 121 121 121 121 166 166 166 174 174 174 174 II. E. 1  Page 17 of 37 Table II. E. 1 7: Distribution of Date of 2nd and Subsequent Applications Average Days Between Applications Region Scenario_ NMC Apps / Yr NHH PCT 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 East Carbaryl_ GardenDust 1 4 50.0 East Carbaryl_ GardenDust 2 3 37.5 19 East Carbaryl_ GardenDust 5 1 12.5 1 4 8 11 East Carbaryl_ GardenHES 1 1 25.0 East Carbaryl_ GardenHES 3 2 50.0 12 41 East Carbaryl_ GardenHES 8 1 25.0 11 8 14 14 10 21 39 East Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 1 1 50.0 East Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 2 1 50.0 8 East Carbaryl_ LawnDust 1 2 100.0 East Carbaryl_ LawnHES 2 1 50.0 77 East Carbaryl_ LawnHES 4 1 50.0 8 2 4 East Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 1 2 66.7 East Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 3 1 33.3 35 9 East Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 1 3 75.0 East Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 4 1 25.0 36 31 77 East Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 1 1 50.0 East Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 3 1 50.0 25 10 East Carbaryl_ TreeHES 1 3 42.9 East Carbaryl_ TreeHES 4 2 28.6 17 41 34 East Carbaryl_ TreeHES 5 1 14.3 48 31 9 14 East Carbaryl_ TreeHES 6 1 14.3 30 24 22 10 28 East Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 1 6 40.0 East Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 3 3 20.0 14 92 East Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 4 1 6.7 45 38 21 East Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 5 1 6.7 1 6 22 3 East Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 9 1 6.7 3 2 4 3 3 2 3 4 East Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 12 1 6.7 4 23 40 24 168 5 3 6 10 12 6 East Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 14 1 6.7 9 80 13 18 30 1 18 1 20 24 17 16 69 East Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 31 1 6.7 1 3 1 2 94 10 2 5 3 3 4 2 2 1 1 19 5 9 3 6 6 2 23 8 2 3 3 1 2 5 East Propoxur_ PetCollar 1 1 33.3 East Propoxur_ PetCollar 2 1 33.3 40 East Propoxur_ PetCollar 6 1 33.3 31 30 31 31 30 Midwest Carbaryl_ GardenDust 1 10 40.0 Midwest Carbaryl_ GardenDust 2 5 20.0 14 Midwest Carbaryl_ GardenDust 3 2 8.0 20 14 II. E. 1  Page 18 of 37 Average Days Between Applications Region Scenario_ NMC Apps / Yr NHH PCT 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Midwest Carbaryl_ GardenDust 4 2 8.0 33 12 13 Midwest Carbaryl_ GardenDust 5 1 4.0 25 16 9 44 Midwest Carbaryl_ GardenDust 6 3 12.0 22 4 6 7 25 Midwest Carbaryl_ GardenDust 9 1 4.0 12 12 6 3 5 13 8 4 Midwest Carbaryl_ GardenDust 11 1 4.0 6 23 16 10 6 2 3 20 5 20 Midwest Carbaryl_ GardenHES 1 3 75.0 Midwest Carbaryl_ GardenHES 4 1 25.0 5 5 61 Midwest Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 1 2 66.7 Midwest Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 2 1 33.3 6 Midwest Carbaryl_ LawnDust 2 1 100.0 3 Midwest Carbaryl_ LawnGPS 1 2 100.0 Midwest Carbaryl_ LawnHES 1 2 50.0 Midwest Carbaryl_ LawnHES 2 1 25.0 33 Midwest Carbaryl_ LawnHES 7 1 25.0 18 5 16 13 9 6 Midwest Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 1 10 50.0 Midwest Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 2 6 30.0 23 Midwest Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 3 1 5.0 40 35 Midwest Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 4 1 5.0 56 3 7 Midwest Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 5 1 5.0 5 61 14 27 Midwest Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 7 1 5.0 3 5 3 5 10 8 Midwest Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 1 1 20.0 Midwest Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 2 2 40.0 9 Midwest Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 3 1 20.0 1 32 Midwest Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 7 1 20.0 18 5 16 13 9 6 Midwest Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 1 3 100.0 Midwest Carbaryl_ PetCollar 1 1 100.0 Midwest Carbaryl_ TreeHES 1 3 42.9 Midwest Carbaryl_ TreeHES 2 3 42.9 9 Midwest Carbaryl_ TreeHES 3 1 14.3 12 10 Midwest Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 1 3 30.0 Midwest Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 2 3 30.0 24 Midwest Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 3 2 20.0 33 19 Midwest Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 4 1 10.0 77 18 90 Midwest Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 9 1 10.0 23 23 1 83 19 13 17 40 South Carbaryl_ GardenDust 1 13 35.1 South Carbaryl_ GardenDust 2 10 27.0 20 II. E. 1  Page 19 of 37 Average Days Between Applications Region Scenario_ NMC Apps / Yr NHH PCT 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 South Carbaryl_ GardenDust 3 8 21.6 12 24 South Carbaryl_ GardenDust 4 1 2.7 107 11 68 South Carbaryl_ GardenDust 5 3 8.1 17 13 15 14 South Carbaryl_ GardenDust 7 2 5.4 22 8 3 13 8 9 South Carbaryl_ GardenHES 1 6 50.0 South Carbaryl_ GardenHES 3 1 8.3 10 3 South Carbaryl_ GardenHES 4 1 8.3 4 11 33 South Carbaryl_ GardenHES 5 1 8.3 14 96 14 14 South Carbaryl_ GardenHES 6 1 8.3 11 26 7 9 21 South Carbaryl_ GardenHES 7 1 8.3 5 4 16 1 2 21 South Carbaryl_ GardenHES 8 1 8.3 2 5 7 5 4 17 13 South Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 1 2 33.3 South Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 2 2 33.3 15 South Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 3 1 16.7 13 8 South Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 8 1 16.7 17 32 15 7 12 23 18 South Carbaryl_ LawnDust 1 9 60.0 South Carbaryl_ LawnDust 2 2 13.3 14 South Carbaryl_ LawnDust 3 1 6.7 74 7 South Carbaryl_ LawnDust 4 1 6.7 1 6 4 South Carbaryl_ LawnDust 5 1 6.7 115 14 20 6 South Carbaryl_ LawnDust 16 1 6.7 26 21 7 5 2 6 5 44 39 17 45 18 5 12 9 South Carbaryl_ LawnHES 1 6 75.0 South Carbaryl_ LawnHES 2 1 12.5 43 South Carbaryl_ LawnHES 3 1 12.5 128 45 South Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 1 13 37.1 South Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 2 10 28.6 41 South Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 3 5 14.3 20 26 South Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 4 3 8.6 8 18 15 South Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 5 1 2.9 50 5 31 113 South Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 6 2 5.7 27 12 6 11 21 South Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 7 1 2.9 61 31 25 15 14 5 South Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 1 2 20.0 South Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 2 2 20.0 38 South Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 3 2 20.0 9 13 South Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 4 4 40.0 41 35 19 South Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 1 8 66.7 II. E. 1  Page 20 of 37 Average Days Between Applications Region Scenario_ NMC Apps / Yr NHH PCT 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 South Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 4 3 25.0 36 8 23 South Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 11 1 8.3 19 11 8 9 6 10 16 9 12 15 South Carbaryl_ PetCollar 1 5 62.5 South Carbaryl_ PetCollar 2 2 25.0 58 South Carbaryl_ PetCollar 6 1 12.5 11 2 14 9 1 South Carbaryl_ TreeHES 1 9 52.9 South Carbaryl_ TreeHES 2 4 23.5 45 South Carbaryl_ TreeHES 4 2 11.8 5 8 21 South Carbaryl_ TreeHES 7 1 5.9 6 24 8 21 11 24 South Carbaryl_ TreeHES 8 1 5.9 17 14 18 15 7 12 58 South Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 1 9 34.6 South Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 2 7 26.9 87 South Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 3 2 7.7 108 95 South Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 4 1 3.8 62 11 75 South Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 5 1 3.8 5 11 6 12 South Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 7 2 7.7 69 39 21 17 25 20 South Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 8 1 3.8 24 5 45 46 10 29 26 South Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 9 1 3.8 15 19 53 6 12 3 9 72 South Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 22 1 3.8 5 4 4 2 4 4 4 96 8 6 5 2 67 4 3 7 1 1 1 5 1 South Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 30 1 3.8 12 9 2 4 3 19 4 4 28 33 17 11 13 3 35 2 8 36 1 4 5 14 8 14 10 22 10 8 13 West Carbaryl_ GardenDust 1 6 50.0 West Carbaryl_ GardenDust 2 2 16.7 12 West Carbaryl_ GardenDust 3 4 33.3 31 25 West Carbaryl_ GardenHES 1 2 50.0 West Carbaryl_ GardenHES 2 1 25.0 34 West Carbaryl_ GardenHES 4 1 25.0 39 18 21 West Carbaryl_ LawnHES 1 1 50.0 West Carbaryl_ LawnHES 2 1 50.0 47 West Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 1 5 41.7 West Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 2 4 33.3 78 West Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 4 1 8.3 13 34 4 West Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 5 2 16.7 51 33 34 30 West Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 1 3 50.0 West Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 3 1 16.7 10 11 West Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 4 1 16.7 39 18 21 West Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 6 1 16.7 7 9 14 10 8 II. E. 1  Page 21 of 37 Average Days Between Applications Region Scenario_ NMC Apps / Yr NHH PCT 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 West Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 1 3 75.0 West Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 2 1 25.0 109 West Carbaryl_ PetCollar 1 2 66.7 West Carbaryl_ PetCollar 6 1 33.3 28 33 161 1 5 West Carbaryl_ TreeHES 1 3 60.0 West Carbaryl_ TreeHES 2 1 20.0 68 West Carbaryl_ TreeHES 3 1 20.0 39 18 West Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 1 10 55.6 West Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 2 3 16.7 104 West Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 4 2 11.1 83 2 91 West Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 5 1 5.6 1 131 35 1 West Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 11 1 5.6 6 70 2 3 2 8 2 2 3 2 West Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 28 1 5.6 45 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 16 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 2 1 2 1 7 7 1 1 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenDust 1 33 40.2 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenDust 2 20 24.4 17 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenDust 3 14 17.1 18 23 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenDust 4 3 3.7 57 11 31 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenDust 5 5 6.1 15 12 12 19 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenDust 6 3 3.7 22 4 6 7 25 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenDust 7 2 2.4 22 8 3 13 8 9 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenDust 9 1 1.2 12 12 6 3 5 13 8 4 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenDust 11 1 1.2 6 23 16 10 6 2 3 20 5 20 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenHES 1 12 50.0 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenHES 2 1 4.2 34 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenHES 3 3 12.5 11 28 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenHES 4 3 12.5 16 11 38 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenHES 5 1 4.2 14 96 14 14 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenHES 6 1 4.2 11 26 7 9 21 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenHES 7 1 4.2 5 4 16 1 2 21 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenHES 8 2 8.3 7 7 11 10 7 19 26 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 1 5 45.5 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 2 4 36.4 11 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 3 1 9.1 13 8 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 8 1 9.1 17 32 15 7 12 23 18 US Total Carbaryl_ LawnDust 1 11 61.1 US Total Carbaryl_ LawnDust 2 3 16.7 10 II. E. 1  Page 22 of 37 Average Days Between Applications Region Scenario_ NMC Apps / Yr NHH PCT 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 US Total Carbaryl_ LawnDust 3 1 5.6 74 7 US Total Carbaryl_ LawnDust 4 1 5.6 1 6 4 US Total Carbaryl_ LawnDust 5 1 5.6 115 14 20 6 US Total Carbaryl_ LawnDust 16 1 5.6 26 21 7 5 2 6 5 44 39 17 45 18 5 12 9 US Total Carbaryl_ LawnGPS 1 2 100.0 US Total Carbaryl_ LawnHES 1 9 56.3 US Total Carbaryl_ LawnHES 2 4 25.0 50 US Total Carbaryl_ LawnHES 3 1 6.3 128 45 US Total Carbaryl_ LawnHES 4 1 6.3 8 2 4 US Total Carbaryl_ LawnHES 7 1 6.3 18 5 16 13 9 6 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 1 30 42.9 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 2 20 28.6 43 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 3 7 10.0 25 25 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 4 5 7.1 19 18 11 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 5 4 5.7 39 33 28 50 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 6 2 2.9 27 12 6 11 21 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 7 2 2.9 32 18 14 10 12 7 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 1 9 36.0 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 2 4 16.0 24 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 3 4 16.0 7 17 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 4 6 24.0 40 32 29 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 6 1 4.0 7 9 14 10 8 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 7 1 4.0 18 5 16 13 9 6 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 1 15 71.4 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 2 1 4.8 109 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 3 1 4.8 25 10 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 4 3 14.3 36 8 23 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 11 1 4.8 19 11 8 9 6 10 16 9 12 15 US Total Carbaryl_ PetCollar 1 8 66.7 US Total Carbaryl_ PetCollar 2 2 16.7 58 US Total Carbaryl_ PetCollar 6 2 16.7 20 18 88 5 3 US Total Carbaryl_ TreeHES 1 18 50.0 US Total Carbaryl_ TreeHES 2 8 22.2 34 US Total Carbaryl_ TreeHES 3 2 5.6 26 14 US Total Carbaryl_ TreeHES 4 4 11.1 11 24 27 US Total Carbaryl_ TreeHES 5 1 2.8 48 31 9 14 II. E. 1  Page 23 of 37 Average Days Between Applications Region Scenario_ NMC Apps / Yr NHH PCT 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 US Total Carbaryl_ TreeHES 6 1 2.8 30 24 22 10 28 US Total Carbaryl_ TreeHES 7 1 2.8 6 24 8 21 11 24 US Total Carbaryl_ TreeHES 8 1 2.8 17 14 18 15 7 12 58 US Total Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 1 28 40.6 US Total Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 2 13 18.8 76 US Total Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 3 7 10.1 46 72 US Total Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 4 5 7.2 70 14 74 US Total Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 5 3 4.3 2 49 21 5 US Total Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 7 2 2.9 69 39 21 17 25 20 US Total Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 8 1 1.4 24 5 45 46 10 29 26 US Total Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 9 3 4.3 14 15 19 31 11 6 10 39 US Total Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 11 1 1.4 6 70 2 3 2 8 2 2 3 2 US Total Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 12 1 1.4 4 23 40 24 168 5 3 6 10 12 6 US Total Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 14 1 1.4 9 80 13 18 30 1 18 1 20 24 17 16 69 US Total Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 22 1 1.4 5 4 4 2 4 4 4 96 8 6 5 2 67 4 3 7 1 1 1 5 1 US Total Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 28 1 1.4 45 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 16 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 2 1 2 1 7 7 1 1 US Total Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 30 1 1.4 12 9 2 4 3 19 4 4 28 33 17 11 13 3 35 2 8 36 1 4 5 14 8 14 10 22 10 8 13 US Total Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 31 1 1.4 1 3 1 2 94 10 2 5 3 3 4 2 2 1 1 19 5 9 3 6 6 2 23 8 2 3 3 1 2 5 US Total Propoxur_ PetCollar 1 1 33.3 US Total Propoxur_ PetCollar 2 1 33.3 40 US Total Propoxur_ PetCollar 6 1 33.3 31 30 31 31 30 II. E. 1  Page 24 of 37 Table II. E. 1 8: Market Shares for each CARES' Scenario, By NMC Scenario Total Number of Applications ( 1217 HHs) Market Share Applications ( 1217 HHs)

Scenario_ NMC US East Midwest South West US East Midwest South West Carbaryl_ GardenDust 204 15 77 90 22 69% 45% 88% 62% 73%

Carbaryl_ GardenHES 69 15 7 39 8 23% 45% 8% 27% 27%

Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 24 3 4 17 8% 9% 5% 12% 0%

Carbaryl_ LawnDust 45 2 2 41 58% 25% 13% 79% 0%

Carbaryl_ LawnGPS 2 2 3% 0% 13% 0% 0%

Carbaryl_ LawnHES 31 6 11 11 3 40% 75% 73% 21% 100%

Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 157 5 41 84 27 59% 31% 69% 59% 56%

Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 66 7 15 28 16 25% 44% 25% 20% 33%

Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 43 4 3 31 5 16% 25% 5% 22% 10%

Carbaryl_ PetCollar 24 1 15* 8 73% 0% 100% 100% 100%

Carbaryl_ TreeHES 82 22 12 40 8 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 307 90 28 121 68 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Propoxur_ PetCollar 9 9 27% 100% 0% 0% 0%

Total Applications 1406 240 247 656 263 The total number of applications ( N= 1406) is based on the 1217 households that provided 12 months of pesticide use diaries; the households that provided less than 12 months of pesticide use diaries made a total of N= 1190. The total number of applications ( By Scenario_ NMC) is still less than the number suggested in Table B. 1.2 ( N= 3307); since an application to multiple REJV sites within a NMC Scenario group is considered one application to that site ( per discussion above); e. g., someone treating both ornamental flowers, and shrubs/ bushes on a single day is considered to have made one application to ` Ornamental' plants. II. E. 1  Page 25 of 37 Table II. E. 9 Average Number of Applications/ Year & Interval Between Applications Average Number of Applications/ Yr/ HH Average Days Between Applications Scenario_ NMC East Midwest South West US Total East Midwest South West US Total Garden All Scenarios 2 3 3 2 3 16 14 17 25 17 Carbaryl_ GardenDust 2 3 2 2 2 11 14 18 24 16 Carbaryl_ GardenHES 4 2 3 2 3 20 24 14 28 17 Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 2 1.3 3 2 8 6 16 15 Lawn All Scenarios 2 2 2 2 2 23 13 26 47 24 Carbaryl_ LawnDust 1.0 2 3 3 3 21 20 Carbaryl_ LawnGPS 1.0 1.0 Carbaryl_ LawnHES 3 3 1.4 2 2 23 14 72 47 30 Ornamental All Scenarios 2 2 3 2 2 32 17 24 35 25 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 2 2 2 2 2 22 20 26 44 28 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 2 3 3 3 3 48 12 28 15 22 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 2 1.0 3 1.3 2 18 17 109 21 Carbaryl_ TreeHES 3 2 2 2 2 27 10 21 42 23 Pet All Scenarios 3 1.0 2 3 2 32 22 46 32 Carbaryl_ PetCollar 1.0 2 3 2 22 46 32 Propoxur_ PetCollar 3 3 32 32 Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 6 3 5 4 4 18 32 27 21 23 II. E. 1  Page 26 of 37 Table II. E. 1 10: Distribution of All Applications, by Day of Week Distribution of All Applications ( Pct), By DayOfWeek Region NMC Scenario Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat East Carbaryl_ GardenDust 10 21 3 21 21 10 14 East Carbaryl_ GardenHES 9 11 18 16 9 7 30 East Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 14 14 29 14 29 East Carbaryl_ LawnDust 33 67 East Carbaryl_ LawnGPS 100 East Carbaryl_ LawnHES 20 10 30 40 East Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 22 13 9 9 17 9 22 East Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 5 16 21 21 16 21 East Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 50 7 7 14 7 14 East Carbaryl_ PetCollar 100 East Carbaryl_ TreeHES 11 9 26 15 13 9 17 East Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 13 12 17 12 9 13 25 East Propoxur_ PetCollar 18 9 9 9 9 27 18 Midwest Carbaryl_ GardenDust 12 12 15 16 18 10 17 Midwest Carbaryl_ GardenHES 11 11 21 32 16 11 Midwest Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 25 13 13 25 13 13 Midwest Carbaryl_ LawnDust 33 33 33 Midwest Carbaryl_ LawnGPS 33 33 33 Midwest Carbaryl_ LawnHES 19 19 6 25 19 13 Midwest Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 17 11 12 16 16 9 17 Midwest Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 20 10 7 13 23 13 13 Midwest Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 10 20 20 10 40 Midwest Carbaryl_ PetCollar 29 43 29 Midwest Carbaryl_ TreeHES 9 11 9 16 27 14 14 Midwest Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 14 17 19 21 7 12 10 South Carbaryl_ GardenDust 13 13 18 13 14 11 19 South Carbaryl_ GardenHES 4 22 10 13 17 14 21 South Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 13 10 13 19 13 16 16 South Carbaryl_ LawnDust 20 14 8 14 10 24 10 South Carbaryl_ LawnGPS 50 50 South Carbaryl_ LawnHES 10 5 19 5 19 24 19 South Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 16 14 10 14 15 14 18 South Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 4 10 19 8 13 15 31 South Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 14 8 14 15 14 22 14 South Carbaryl_ PetCollar 16 7 3 27 13 7 27 II. E. 1  Page 27 of 37 Distribution of All Applications ( Pct), By DayOfWeek Region NMC Scenario Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat South Carbaryl_ TreeHES 9 14 14 14 8 22 20 South Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 13 14 17 13 16 11 16 West Carbaryl_ GardenDust 12 12 22 16 9 20 8 West Carbaryl_ GardenHES 30 10 20 20 20 West Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 100 West Carbaryl_ LawnDust 60 20 20 West Carbaryl_ LawnGPS 67 33 West Carbaryl_ LawnHES 40 20 40 West Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 14 13 17 14 10 17 13 West Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 33 11 17 11 11 17 West Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 29 14 43 14 West Carbaryl_ PetCollar 11 11 22 22 33 West Carbaryl_ TreeHES 35 18 12 12 6 18 West Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 15 11 17 12 12 20 13 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenDust 12 13 17 15 15 12 16 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenHES 8 17 13 17 11 12 22 US Total Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 10 10 13 19 15 17 17 US Total Carbaryl_ LawnDust 23 13 6 11 10 24 13 US Total Carbaryl_ LawnGPS 22 33 11 22 11 US Total Carbaryl_ LawnHES 17 10 17 10 8 15 23 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 17 13 12 14 14 13 17 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 13 11 13 13 13 14 23 US Total Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 12 17 10 17 12 17 16 US Total Carbaryl_ PetCollar 15 11 4 23 13 11 23 US Total Carbaryl_ TreeHES 12 12 14 14 14 15 18 US Total Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 14 13 17 14 12 14 16 US Total Propoxur_ PetCollar 18 9 9 9 9 27 18 II. E. 1  Page 28 of 37 Table II. E. 1 11: Distribution of All Applications, by Month Scenario REGION Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Carbaryl_ GardenDust East 0 0 0 0 5 13 6 4 1 0 0 0 29 Carbaryl_ GardenDust Midwest 0 0 0 0 25 37 39 17 9 3 0 0 130 Carbaryl_ GardenDust South 0 1 0 6 64 47 37 18 7 1 1 2 184 Carbaryl_ GardenDust West 1 0 0 2 24 16 13 8 8 2 0 0 74 Carbaryl_ GardenDust Total 1 1 0 8 118 113 95 47 25 6 1 2 417 Carbaryl_ GardenDust Total Pct 0.2% 0.2% 0% 2% 28% 27% 23% 11% 6% 1% 0.2% 0.5% 100%

Carbaryl_ GardenHES East 0 0 0 0 3 15 17 7 2 0 0 0 44 Carbaryl_ GardenHES Midwest 0 0 0 0 5 6 5 3 0 0 0 0 19 Carbaryl_ GardenHES South 0 0 0 2 20 18 20 7 4 1 0 0 72 Carbaryl_ GardenHES West 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 3 1 0 0 0 10 Carbaryl_ GardenHES Total 0 0 0 2 30 42 43 20 7 1 0 0 145 Carbaryl_ GardenHES Total Pct 0% 0% 0% 1% 21% 29% 30% 14% 5% 1% 0% 0% 100%

Carbaryl_ GardenRTU East 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 7 Carbaryl_ GardenRTU Midwest 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 1 0 0 0 8 Carbaryl_ GardenRTU South 0 0 0 2 6 12 9 2 0 0 0 0 31 Carbaryl_ GardenRTU West 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Carbaryl_ GardenRTU Total 0 0 0 2 8 17 16 2 3 0 0 0 48 Carbaryl_ GardenRTU Total Pct 0% 0% 0% 4% 17% 35% 33% 4% 6% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Carbaryl_ LawnDust East 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 Carbaryl_ LawnDust Midwest 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Carbaryl_ LawnDust South 1 1 6 9 8 3 2 5 6 3 4 3 51 Carbaryl_ LawnDust South 2% 2% 12% 17% 16% 6% 4% 10% 12% 6% 8% 6% 100%

Carbaryl_ LawnDust West 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Carbaryl_ LawnDust Total 1 1 6 9 11 9 3 6 6 3 4 3 62 Carbaryl_ LawnDust Total Pct 2% 2% 10% 15% 18% 15% 5% 10% 10% 5% 6% 5% 100%

Carbaryl_ LawnGPS East 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Carbaryl_ LawnGPS Midwest 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 Carbaryl_ LawnGPS South 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Carbaryl_ LawnGPS West 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 Carbaryl_ LawnGPS Total 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 9 Carbaryl_ LawnGPS Total Pct 11% 0% 0% 22% 11% 11% 11% 0% 11% 22% 0% 0% 100%

Carbaryl_ LawnHES East 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 1 0 1 0 0 10 Carbaryl_ LawnHES Midwest 0 0 0 1 2 4 4 5 0 0 0 0 16 Carbaryl_ LawnHES South 0 0 1 2 8 1 4 3 0 1 1 0 21 Carbaryl_ LawnHES West 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 5 Carbaryl_ LawnHES Total 0 0 1 3 11 12 11 10 0 3 1 0 52 II. E. 1  Page 29 of 37 Scenario REGION Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Carbaryl_ LawnHES Total Pct 0% 0% 2% 6% 21% 23% 21% 19% 0% 6% 2% 0% 100%

Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust East 0 0 0 0 8 7 4 2 2 0 0 0 23 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust Midwest 0 0 0 1 19 29 29 14 4 2 0 0 98 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust South 1 0 4 1 66 27 27 19 6 3 0 1 155 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust West 1 2 3 6 22 9 10 9 4 1 1 1 69 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust Total 2 2 7 8 115 72 70 44 16 6 1 2 345 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust Total Pct 1% 1% 2% 2% 33% 21% 20% 13% 5% 2% 0% 1% 100%

Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES East 0 0 0 1 3 5 5 3 1 1 0 0 19 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES Midwest 0 0 0 0 8 3 14 5 0 0 0 0 30 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES South 0 1 1 2 15 13 9 3 4 0 0 0 48 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES West 0 0 0 0 0 9 6 2 1 0 0 0 18 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES Total 0 1 1 3 26 30 34 13 6 1 0 0 115 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES Total Pct 0% 1% 1% 3% 23% 26% 30% 11% 5% 1% 0% 0% 100%

Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU East 0 0 0 0 1 6 1 5 0 1 0 0 14 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU Midwest 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 4 1 0 0 0 10 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU South 0 0 0 2 9 14 17 10 4 2 1 0 59 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU West 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 7 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU Total 0 0 0 2 14 23 22 19 6 3 1 0 90 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU Total Pct 0% 0% 0% 2% 16% 26% 24% 21% 7% 3% 1% 0% 100%

Carbaryl_ PetCollar East 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Carbaryl_ PetCollar Midwest 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 Carbaryl_ PetCollar South 0 0 0 2 10 9 3 3 1 2 0 0 30 Carbaryl_ PetCollar South 0% 0% 0% 7% 33% 30% 10% 10% 3% 7% 0% 0% 100%

Carbaryl_ PetCollar West 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 9 Carbaryl_ PetCollar Total 0 1 1 3 16 11 5 4 1 5 0 0 47 Carbaryl_ PetCollar Total Pct 0% 2% 2% 6% 34% 23% 11% 9% 2% 11% 0% 0% 100%

Carbaryl_ TreeHES East 0 0 0 2 11 10 13 7 2 1 0 0 46 Carbaryl_ TreeHES Midwest 0 0 0 3 9 12 12 4 2 2 0 0 44 Carbaryl_ TreeHES South 0 0 0 8 23 19 15 5 4 0 0 0 74 Carbaryl_ TreeHES West 0 0 0 1 6 2 2 3 1 0 2 0 17 Carbaryl_ TreeHES Total 0 0 0 14 49 43 42 19 9 3 2 0 181 Carbaryl_ TreeHES Total Pct 0% 0% 0% 8% 27% 24% 23% 10% 5% 2% 1% 0% 100%

Propoxur_ IndoorC& C East 4 9 4 4 21 17 13 10 10 0 8 2 102 Propoxur_ IndoorC& C Midwest 0 1 4 9 13 9 8 5 4 1 4 0 58 Propoxur_ IndoorC& C South 13 6 6 12 49 16 20 18 10 6 4 7 167 Propoxur_ IndoorC& C South 8% 4% 4% 7% 28% 10% 12% 11% 6% 4% 2% 4% 100%

Propoxur_ IndoorC& C West 1 0 2 1 24 12 29 33 23 8 4 0 137 II. E. 1  Page 30 of 37 Scenario REGION Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Propoxur_ IndoorC& C Total 18 16 16 26 107 54 70 66 47 15 20 9 464 Propoxur_ IndoorC& C Total Pct 4% 3% 3% 6% 23% 12% 15% 14% 10% 3% 4% 2% 100%

Propoxur_ PetCollar East 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 2 1 1 0 0 11 Propoxur_ PetCollar Total 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 2 1 1 0 0 11 Propoxur_ PetCollar Total Pct 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 36% 18% 18% 9% 9% 0% 0% 100% II. E. 1  Page 31 of 37 Table II. E. 1 12: Calendex Links to Account for Co occurrence Use Across Scenarios1 Baseline Assumptions Alternative Assumption Index Scenario_ NMC Link Type Link Type Link Percent 1 Carbaryl_ LawnDust 2 Carbaryl_ GardenDust 4 25%

3 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 4 25%

4 Carbaryl_ LawnHES 5 Carbaryl_ GardenHES 4 25%

6 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 4 25%

7 Carbaryl_ TreeHES 4 25%

8 Carbaryl_ LawnGPS 9 Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 10 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 4 25%

11 Methiocarb_ OrnamentalDust 12 Carbaryl_ PetCollar A A 13 Propoxur_ PetCollar A A 14 Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 1 Co occurrence across scenarios was not incorporated into the current assessment. II. E. 1  Page 32 of 37 Table II. E. 1 13a: Total Applications on a Given Date, By Site Total Number of Applications Garden Ornamental Lawn Pet IndoorC&

C Tree Lawn_

LCO IndoorC&

C_

PCO Diag Garden 297 69 6 4 0 26 4 6 297 Ornamental 69 271 28 1 3 27 2 7 271 Lawn 6 28 78 0 0 7 1 2 78 Pet 4 1 0 33 1 1 0 0 33 IndoorC& C 0 3 0 1 307 0 3 6 307 Tree 26 27 7 1 0 82 0 1 82 Lawn_ LCO 4 2 1 0 3 0 15 1 15 IndoorC& C_ PCO 6 7 2 0 6 1 1 17 17 Null 297 271 78 33 307 82 15 17 Table II. E. 1 13b: Co occurrence Matrix, By Site Scenario_ NMC Garden Ornamental Lawn Pet IndoorC&

C Tree Lawn_

LCO IndoorC&

C_

PCO Garden 1.00 0.23 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.02 Ornamental 0.25 1.00 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.03 Lawn 0.08 0.36 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.03 Pet 0.12 0.03 0.00 1.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 IndoorC& C 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.003 1.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 Tree 0.32 0.33 0.09 0.01 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.01 Lawn_ LCO 0.27 0.13 0.07 0.00 0.20 0.00 1.00 0.07 IndoorC& C_ PCO 0.35 0.41 0.12 0.00 0.35 0.06 0.06 1.00 II. E. 1  Page 33 of 37 Table II. E. 1 14a: Total Number of Application Events, By Scenario_ NMC Scenario_ NMC Carbaryl_

GardenDust Carbaryl_

GardenHES Carbaryl_

GardenRTU Carbaryl_

LawnDust Carbaryl_

LawnGPS Carbaryl_

LawnHES Carbaryl_

OrnamentalDust Carbaryl_

OrnamentalHES Carbaryl_

OrnamentalRTU Carbaryl_

PetCollar Carbaryl_

TreeHES Propoxur_

IndoorC&

C Propoxur_

PetCollar Carbaryl_

LawnHES_

LCO Propoxur_

IndoorC&

C_

PCO Methiocarb_

OrnamentalDust Diag Carbaryl_ GardenDust 204 0 0 4 0 0 45 1 0 3 6 0 0 3 4 0 204 Carbaryl_ GardenHES 0 69 0 0 0 2 0 17 0 0 14 0 0 1 0 1 69 Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 6 0 0 0 2 0 24 Carbaryl_ LawnDust 4 0 0 45 0 0 8 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 45 Carbaryl_ LawnGPS 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Carbaryl_ LawnHES 0 2 0 0 0 31 0 18 2 0 5 0 0 1 2 0 31 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 45 0 0 8 0 0 157 1 0 1 5 0 0 2 4 2 157 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 1 17 0 0 0 18 1 66 0 0 19 0 0 0 2 0 66 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 43 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 43 Carbaryl_ PetCollar 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 24 1 0 0 0 0 0 24 Carbaryl_ TreeHES 6 14 6 2 0 5 5 19 3 1 82 0 0 0 1 0 82 Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 307 1 3 6 3 307 Propoxur_ PetCollar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 9 Carbaryl_ LawnHES_ LCO 3 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 15 1 0 15 Propoxur_ IndoorC& C_ PCO 4 0 2 0 0 2 4 2 1 0 1 6 0 1 17 0 17 Methiocarb_ OrnamentalDust 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 8 8 II. E. 1  Page 34 of 37 Table II. E. 1 14. b Co occurrence Matrix, By Scenario_ NMC Scenario_ NMC Carbaryl_

GardenDust Carbaryl_

GardenHES Carbaryl_

GardenRTU Carbaryl_

LawnDust Carbaryl_

LawnGPS Carbaryl_

LawnHES Carbaryl_

OrnamentalDust Carbaryl_

OrnamentalHES Carbaryl_

OrnamentalRTU Carbaryl_

PetCollar Carbaryl_

TreeHES Propoxur_

IndoorC&

C Propoxur_

PetCollar Carbaryl_

LawnHES_

LCO Propoxur_

IndoorC&

C_

PCO Methiocarb_

OrnamentalDust Carbaryl_ GardenDust 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 Carbaryl_ GardenHES 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Carbaryl_ GardenRTU 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.04 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 Carbaryl_ LawnDust 0.09 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Carbaryl_ LawnGPS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Carbaryl_ LawnHES 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.58 0.06 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.00 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalDust 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.01 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalHES 0.02 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.02 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 Carbaryl_ OrnamentalRTU 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 Carbaryl_ PetCollar 0.13 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Carbaryl_ TreeHES 0.07 0.17 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.23 0.04 0.01 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 Propoxur_ IndoorC& C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 Propoxur_ PetCollar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Carbaryl_ LawnHES_ LCO 0.20 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 1.00 0.07 0.00 Propoxur_ IndoorC& C_ PCO 0.24 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.24 0.12 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.35 0.00 0.06 1.00 0.00 Methiocarb_ OrnamentalDust 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 II. E. 1  Page 35 of 37 Table II. E. 1 15 Lifeline Target Pests Use Factors Chemical/ Site Carbaryl Carbaryl Carbaryl Carbaryl Propoxur Propoxur Methiocarb PESTNAME Lawn Garden Orn / Tree Pet Indoor Pet Orn / Tree ANY OTHER ANTS 1.2% 23.9% 6.7% 15.7% 29.6%

BEES, HORNETS, WASPS 2.3% 15.7% 9.6%

BROADLEAF WEEDS 8.7% 5.0%

COCKROACHES 12.1% 14.4%

FABRIC INSECT PESTS 2.9%

FIRE ANTS 3.1% 34.4% 15.3% 13.6%

FLEAS 6.7% 63.7% 24.7% 6.5% 1.8% 1.8%

FLIES, GNATS, WIDGETS 2.8% 4.4% 2.3%

GRASS LIKE WEEDS 16.4% 5.4% 18.0%

MICE, RATS 2.9%

MILDEW, MOLD, BACTERIS, VIRUS 3.9% 0.0% 1.4%

MOSQUITOES 1.8% 4.1%

OTHER MAMMALS 50.1%

OTHER PEST 7.0%

OTHER WOOD DESTROYING INSECTS 24.6% 13.6% 29.1%

PLANT DISEASES 5.5% 7.3% 8.0% 5.6%

PLANT CHEWING INSECTS 8.6% 24.3% 19.6% 100% 7.0%

PLANT CHEWING OR PLANT SUCKING INSECTS 4.8% 32.4% 8.4% 75.2%

PLANT SUCKING INSECTS AND MITES 6.7% 18.8% 11.3% 34.7% 1.6% 17.2%

SLUGS, SNAILS 13.4% 9.2% 15.8% 4.6%

SOIL DWELLING INSECTS, NEMATODES 1.3% 13.1% 13.8%

SPIDERS, CRICKETS, SOWBUGS/ PILLBUGS, MILLIPIDES,

CENTIPIDES 4.1% 29.3% 6.5% 10.6% 6.5%

STORED FOOD INSECT PESTS 10.2%

TERMITES 5.9%

TICKS, CHIGGERS 5.5% 8.1% 2.2% 1.9% II. E. 1  Page 36 of 37 Table II. E. 1 16 Estimated Carbaryl Usage on Golf Courses Statistic National Northeast South West Midwest Percent of Golf Courses Using Carbaryl 10%  15% 10%  15% 15%  25% 1%  5% 5%  15%

Pounds of Carbaryl Applied 90,000 lbs   280,000 lbs 15,000 lbs   30,000 lbs 50,000 lbs   225,000 lbs < 500 lbs   5,000 lbs 15,000 lbs   75,000 lbs / 1 Three year average based on EPA proprietary data ( 1998, 1999, 2001). II. E. 1  Page 37 of 37 Table II. E. 1 16 presents the estimated percent of golf courses that applied carbaryl. As the table indicates, golf courses in the Southern states account for most of the estimated total use of carbaryl  many as 25% of all golf courses in the South applied between 50,000 lbs ai and 225,000 lbs ai of carbaryl per year.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34093-34096]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11317]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0261; FRL-10932-01-R9]

Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plan
Submissions for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards; California; Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to find that California has failed to submit state
implementation plan (SIP) elements required under the Clean Air Act
(CAA or ``Act'') to implement the 2012 national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in the
Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin (``South Coast''). California was
required to submit by June 9, 2022, a SIP submission that meets the
Serious area plan requirements for a base year emissions inventory and
best available control measures (BACM). The State submitted the
required SIP elements, but subsequently withdrew its submission. If the
EPA has not affirmatively found that the State has submitted a complete
SIP to correct these deficiencies within 18 months of this finding, the
offset sanction will apply in the area. If within six additional months
the EPA has still not affirmatively determined that the State has
submitted a complete SIP to correct the deficiencies, the highway
funding sanction will apply in the area. No later than two years after
the EPA makes this finding, if the State has not submitted and the EPA
has not approved each of the required SIP elements, the EPA must
promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) to address the remaining
requirements.

DATES: The effective date of this action is June 26, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-0261. All documents in the docket are listed
on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with a disability
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA

94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA), U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that an agency may issue a rule
without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment when
that agency finds for good cause that notice and public procedure are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to public interest. The EPA has
determined that there is a good cause for issuing this finding without
prior proposal and opportunity for comment because there is little or
no judgment involved for the EPA to make a finding of failure to submit
SIPs or elements of SIPs required by the CAA, where states have not
submitted a required SIP revision by the date specified by the statute,
made incomplete submissions, or, as in this case, withdrawn an existing
submission. In such circumstances, the EPA finds that notice and public
procedures are unnecessary and that this constitutes good cause under 5
U.S.C 553(b)(B).
    Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the
EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Consequences of Findings of Failure To Submit
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Airborne particulate matter (PM) can be composed of a complex
mixture of particles in both solid and liquid form. Particulate matter
can be of different sizes, commonly referred to as ``coarse'' and
``fine'' particles. Fine particles, in general terms, are PM with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers.
For this reason, particles of this size are referred to as
PM2.5.
    The EPA first promulgated annual and 24-hour NAAQS for
PM2.5 in July 1997 \1\ and then revised the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in October 2006.\2\ Most recently, on December
14, 2012, the EPA revised the primary annual PM2.5 standard
by lowering the level from 15.0 to 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter of
air ([mu]g/m\3\) to provide increased protection against health effects
associated with long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures. The
EPA did not revise the secondary annual PM2.5 standard,
which remains at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\.\3\ In addition, the EPA retained the
level and form of the primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5
standards to continue to provide supplemental protection against health
and welfare effects associated with short-term PM2.5
exposures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 38652 (July 18, 1997).
    \2\ 71 FR 61143 (October 17, 2006).
    \3\ 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Promulgation of a revised NAAQS triggers a requirement for the EPA
to designate areas of the country as nonattainment, attainment, or
unclassifiable for the standards. As prescribed by CAA section 188(a),
areas designated as nonattainment for a PM2.5 NAAQS are
initially classified as Moderate. The designation and initial
classification for the South Coast as Moderate nonattainment for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS became effective on April 15, 2015.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 80 FR 2206 (January 15, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonattainment areas for PM2.5 are subject to the general
nonattainment area planning requirements of CAA section 172 and to the
PM-specific planning requirements of CAA sections 188-189. On August
24, 2016, the EPA established a final implementation rule
(``PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule'') outlining the attainment
planning and control requirements for current and future
PM2.5 NAAQS.\5\ The PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule
also established the due date for Moderate area PM2.5 SIP
submissions as no later than 18 months from the effective date of area
designations.\6\ Accordingly, the areas designated as nonattainment for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (with an effective date of April 15,
2015) were required to submit Moderate area attainment plans to EPA no
later than October 15, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements; Final rule; 81 FR
58009 (August 24, 2016).
    \6\ 40 CFR 51.1003(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 27, 2017, California submitted the ``Final 2016 Air
Quality Management Plan'' (``2016 Plan''), as adopted on March 3, 2017
by the Governing Board for the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD or ``District'') to the EPA to address CAA
requirements associated with the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.\7\ The
2016 Plan included a demonstration, consistent with the requirements of
CAA section 189(a)(1)(B), that attainment of the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS by the December 31, 2021 Moderate area attainment date was
impracticable, despite the implementation of required control
measures.\8\ The 2016 Plan also included a request that the EPA
reclassify the nonattainment area from Moderate to Serious, and
included a Serious area attainment demonstration, an emission
inventory, attainment related plan elements, and control measure
provisions.\9\ Effective December 9, 2020, we approved or conditionally
approved the portions of the 2016 Plan that addressed the CAA Moderate
area requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South
Coast nonattainment area and reclassified the South Coast as a Serious
nonattainment area under CAA section 188(b)(1).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 85 FR 71264 (November 9, 2020). For additional background,
see the associated proposed rulemaking at 85 FR 40026 (July 2,
2020).
    \8\ 85 FR 71264, 71266.
    \9\ 85 FR 71264, 71268.
    \10\ 85 FR 71264.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our final action on the 2016 Plan's Moderate area requirements and
reclassification of the nonattainment area to Serious also noted that
the submitted 2016 Plan included Serious area planning elements for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and stated that we would evaluate and act
on them through subsequent rulemakings as appropriate.\11\ At the same
time, our final action explained that our reclassification of the South
Coast nonattainment area from Moderate to Serious for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS triggered statutory and regulatory timelines for
submittal of Serious area planning elements. Specifically, we stated
that section 189(b)(2) of the CAA requires a state to submit the
required BACM provisions no later than 18 months after the effective
date of final reclassification (i.e., June 9, 2022). Because an
effective BACM evaluation requires in up-to-date emissions inventory
and an evaluation of the precursor pollutants that must be controlled
to provide for expeditious attainment, we also required the State to
submit the emissions inventory required under CAA section 172(c)(3) and
any optional precursor demonstrations by this same date. In addition,
we established a deadline of December 31, 2023, for the submittal of
the attainment demonstration and all other attainment-related plan
elements.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 85 FR 71264, 71268.
    \12\ 85 FR 71268. The Serious area SIP elements for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS include provisions to assure that best
available control measures (including best available control
technology) shall be implemented no later than four years after the
area is reclassified, a base year emissions inventory, an attainment
projected emissions inventory, an attainment demonstration with air
quality modeling, a reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration,
quantitative milestones, contingency measures, and a nonattainment
new source review (NNSR) program with the major source threshold set
at 70 tons per year. CAA section 189(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 29, 2023, the State of California and the District
notified the EPA of their determination that the portions of the 2016
Plan relating to Serious area planning elements for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS were no longer appropriate for inclusion in the
SIP and

requested that those portions of the submittal be considered
withdrawn.13 14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Letter dated March 8, 2023, from Sarah Rees, Ph.D., Deputy
Executive Officer, Planning, Rule Development & Implementation,
South Coast Air Quality Management District to Michael Benjamin, D.
Env., Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, California
Air Resources Board.
    \14\ Letter dated March 29, 2023, from Michael Benjamin, Chief,
Air Quality Planning and Science Division, California Air Resources
Board to Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Consequences of Findings of Failure To Submit

    For plan requirements under part D, title I of the CAA, such as
those for PM2.5 nonattainment areas, if the EPA finds that a
state has failed to make the required SIP submission, then CAA section
179 establishes specific consequences, including the eventual
imposition of mandatory sanctions for the affected area. Additionally,
such a finding triggers an obligation under CAA section 110(c) for the
EPA to promulgate a FIP no later than two years from the effective date
of the finding, if the affected state has not submitted, and the EPA
has not approved, the required SIP submissions.
    If the EPA has not affirmatively determined that a state has
submitted a complete SIP addressing the deficiency that is the basis
for these findings within 18 months of the effective date of this
rulemaking, or the submission has not become complete by operation of
law six months after submission, then, pursuant to CAA sections 179(a)
and (b) and 40 CFR 52.31, the emissions offset sanction identified in
CAA section 179(b)(2) will apply to the affected nonattainment area. If
the EPA has not affirmatively determined that the state has submitted a
SIP addressing the deficiencies that are a basis for these findings
within six months after the offset sanction is imposed, or the
submission has not become complete by operation of law six months after
submission, then the highway funding sanction will apply in the
affected nonattainment area, in accordance with CAA section 179(b)(1)
and 40 CFR 52.31. The State must make the required SIP submission and
the EPA must take final action to approve the submission within two
years of the effective date of these finding; otherwise, the EPA is
required to promulgate a FIP to address the relevant requirements. This
is required pursuant to CAA section 110(c) for the affected
nonattainment area.
    Based upon the withdrawal of the Serious area plan elements
submitted with the 2016 Plan as described in Section I of this
rulemaking, the EPA is finding that California has failed to make
required base year emissions inventory and BACM submittals for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS for the South Coast nonattainment area. The
remaining required elements of the Serious area plan for the 2012
p.m.2.5 NAAQS are not due until December 31, 2023; therefore, this
finding applies only to the required base year emission inventory and
BACM submittals that were due no later than June 9, 2022. With this
finding, section 179 of the CAA starts sanctions clocks and a FIP
clock. California may avoid these sanctions by taking timely action to
remedy this finding. The 18-month clock governing the CAA's imposition
of sanctions for these areas will stop and sanctions will not take
effect if the EPA finds that the State has made a complete SIP
submission addressing the BACM and emissions inventory requirements for
this area within 18 months of the date of this finding. Similarly, the
EPA is not required to promulgate a FIP if California makes the
required SIP submissions and the EPA takes final action to approve the
submissions within two years of this finding of failure to submit a
required SIP. In sum, the CAA does not require sanctions or a FIP if
the State and the EPA take timely action to remedy this finding.

III. Final Action

    In this action, the EPA is finding that California has failed to
submit certain Serious area SIP elements for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS required under subpart 4 of part D of title I of the CAA.
Specifically, California has failed to submit the base year emissions
inventory and BACM elements that were due no later than June 9, 2022.
The consequences of this finding are discussed in Section II of this
action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov//laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.gov.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the PRA because it does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by state law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or Tribal Governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of Government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because this action does not apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on Tribal Governments or preempt
tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rule does not involve technical standards.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in
this action. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action
because the EPA is performing a non-discretionary duty to find that a
required State submission was not timely submitted, and there is no
information in the record inconsistent with the stated goals of E.O.
12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-
income populations, and indigenous peoples.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 25, 2023. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Approval and promulgation of implementation
plans, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate matter, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 19, 2023.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2023-11317 Filed 5-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 20, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28006-28007]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12780]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0532]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Back River, Barter's Island, ME

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Maine Department of Transportation
(Barter's Island) Highway Bridge over the Back River, mile 4.6, between
Barter's Island and Hodgdon Island, Maine. This deviation is necessary
to conduct geotechnical borings needed to design a new bridge. This
deviation allows the bridge to be closed to vessel traffic for three
days.

DATES:  This deviation is effective without actual notice from June 20,
2017 through 5:30 p.m. on June 14, 2017. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from June 15, 2017, until June
20, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0532, is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Jeffrey Stieb; Bridge Management
Specialist, First Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The bridge owner, State of Maine Department of Transportation
(Maine DOT), requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating
schedule of the Maine Department of Transportation (Barter's Island)
Highway Bridge, mile 4.6, across the Back River between Barter's Island
and Hodgdon Island, Maine. The drawbridge navigation span has a
vertical clearance of six feet at mean high water in the closed
position. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR
117.523. The approved temporary deviation allows the bridge to remain
closed for vessel traffic between the hours of 7 a.m. through 5:30 p.m.
from June 12 through June 14.
    The waterway is transited by fishing and sailing vessels of various
sizes. For the last three years, the bridge averaged less than three
openings a day during the month of June. Maine DOT contacted the
primary stakeholders, none of which objected to the deviation. Vessels
able to pass through the bridge

in the closed position may continue to do so at any time. Vessels have
the option of going around the North Side of Barter's Island to reach
the Sheepscot River. During the hours of deviation the bridge will not
be able to open for emergencies.
    The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway through our
Local Notice and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in
operating schedule so that vessel operators can arrange their transits
to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations
is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 15, 2017.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-12780 Filed 6-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P