                Summary of Meeting with Pyrethroid Work Group
               To Discuss Pyrethroid Ecological Risk Assessment
                                 March 4, 2013

Attendees

Pyrethroid Work Group (PWG):
Dave Haughey (BASF Corporation)
Annette Bloomberg (Bayer CropScience)
Michael Dobbs (Bayer CropScience)
Ann Orth (FMC Corporation)
Richard Allen (Valent BioSciences)
Dick Collier (Landis International)
Robert Morris (FMC Corporation, via Teleconference)
Gary Mitchell (FMC Corporation, via Teleconference)
Jeff Giddings (Compliance Services International, via Teleconference)
Alex Porges (Landis International, via Teleconference)
Paul Hendley (Phasera Limited, via Teleconference)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency):
Environmental Fate and Effects Division
Don Brady
Mah Shamim
James Wolf
Melissa Panger
Reuben Baris
Steve Wente
Rosanna Louie-Juzwiak
Dana Spatz
Jose Melendez (via teleconference)
Keith Sappington (via teleconference)
Donna Judkins (via teleconference)

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division
Rick Keigwin
Patty Parrott
Monica Wait
Molly Clayton
Tracy Perry

Purpose

The purpose of the meeting was for the PWG to meet with members of the EPA's Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (PRD) and the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) to discuss PWG's plans for conducting "unified" pyrethroid risk assessments, including an explanation of what a unified approach entails, progress to date, and other information PWG may be able to provide to EPA to inform the ecological risk assessments for the pyrethroid class of insecticides that EPA will be conducting during registration review.

Presentation

PWG's presentation covered:
   * Concept for a unified higher tier pyrethroid ecological assessment
   * Current status of PWG risk assessment
   * Proposal to collaborate with EPA through future meetings

Discussion

Explanation of Unified Approach

PWG explains that it is proposing conducting nine separate, higher tier risk assessments for the active ingredients (ai's) represented by the PWG (bifenthrin, cyfluthrins, cypermethrin, cyahalothrins, deltamethrin, esfenvalerate, fenpropathrin, permethrin, tefluthrin, and zeta-cypermethrin), unified by a common approach to risk assessment and management, i.e., employing the same assessment methodologies for each and implementing similar mitigation/label changes as necessary.

EPA Feedback

EPA currently employs a consistent approach in its ecological risk assessments, particularly in assessments conducted for various ai's within a chemical class such as the pyrethroids.

Based on this meeting and previous conversations,  EPA believes PWG's approach is similar to a pyrethroid ecological risk assessment conducted by industry and considered by a Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) in 1999.  The 1999 assessment employed a probabilistic landscape analysis, which the SAP found to be flawed.  The landscape approach used a Mississippi watershed for cotton, and concluded from modeling this scenario that drift from pyrethroid applications does not reach water bodies.  This conclusion was based on the topography of the Mississippi site, and on the local distance from fields to water bodies.  This Mississippi watershed cannot be extrapolated to the entire U.S.  Furthermore, PWG's modeling can not negate the large amount of monitoring data collected by California and others which does show that pyrethroids reach water bodies.

In 2000, EFED provided extensive comments on this risk assessment methodology, and EPA is unclear if or how those comments will be addressed in the new pyrethroid risk assessments proposed by the PWG.  EPA asks PWG to submit a brief paper describing the PWG's planned approach, and to the extent that it is similar to the approaches previously considered by EPA and the SAP, PWG should address the previous comments. EPA does not advise PWG to expend resources pursuing a new pyrethroid risk assessment which is based on similar methodology to that which was previously found to be deficient.

Any drastic change to EPA's risk assessment methodology would need to undergo extensive peer review, and EPA must consider the timeframe allowed for pyrethroid risk assessments during registration review.  Therefore, EPA anticipates conducting risk assessments for all pyrethroid active ingredients following the Agency's standard policies and procedures.  Rather than conducting alternative assessments, PWG may be able to provide other information, such as monitoring data and use information, which could potentially help inform the Agency's ecological pyrethroid risk assessments.

Additional Information Requested by EPA

EPA requests that PWG continue to submit the following: data generated on runoff from impervious surfaces, California monitoring data, and additional data from other PWG studies that have been submitted to California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR).

EPA requests crop and urban use pattern information, specifically information that is generally not included on product labels. This includes non-agricultural label application rates (maximum single application rate, number of applications per year, retreatment intervals, etc.) with the understanding that ambiguous use instructions on labels may necessitate that the Agency make conservative assumptions in its upcoming registration review ecological risk assessments.

PWG indicated during the meeting it will soon initiate a survey to determine urban outdoor use patterns (Kline survey).  The survey will focus on typical use patterns around the country, including worst case scenario outdoor uses.   PWG requested EPA input on the proposed survey prior to initiation. The survey would take approximately one month to conduct.  EPA agrees to review survey design.

Action Items

PWG will prepare a white paper describing the unified risk assessment approach, including the basic concepts, proposals, and progress, by end of April 2013.  PWG will address EPA's comments on previous, similar risk assessments.

PWG will perform a review of current pyrethroid end use product labels to determine actual and intended use patterns.

PWG will continue to submit data it has generated on runoff from impervious surfaces, California monitoring data, and additional data from other PWG studies that have been submitted to CDPR.

PWG will submit to EPA its plans for the urban outdoor use pattern survey by end of April 2013.

 Next Steps

EPA and PWG will schedule another meeting to discuss PWG's plans for unified assessments once the white paper describing the assessments has been submitted and EPA has completed its review. If PWG submits the white paper in April, this meeting could take place in early June.

EPA plans to complete the first of the planned pyrethroid ecological risk assessments for registration review in 2015 and post them for public comment in the docket.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34330-34332]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14286]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-2134; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-012-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; B/E Aerospace Protective Breathing
Equipment Part Number 119003-11

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain B/E Aerospace protective breathing equipment (PBE) that is
installed on airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of a
compromise in the vacuum seal of the pouch that contains the PBE. This
proposed AD would require inspecting the PBE to determine if the pouch
has the proper vacuum seal. We are proposing this AD to correct the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 31, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact B/E
Aerospace, Inc., Commercial Aircraft Products Group, 10800 Pflumm Road,
Lenexa, Kansas 66215; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Internet: www.beaerospace.com. You may review this referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2015-2134.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
2134; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Enns, Aerospace Engineer,
Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1801 S. Airport Road, Room
100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-2134;
Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-012-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received a report of B/E Aerospace protective breathing
equipment (PBE), part number 119003-11, catching fire when activated by
a crew member during taxi aboard an Emirates Airline airplane.
    Following the PBE fire event and during the initial investigation,
it was determined that a number of pouches containing the PBE that were
installed in various airplanes had a compromised vacuum seal. A
compromised seal in the pouch of a PBE results in degradation and
possible contamination of the chemicals that provide oxygen during use.

    The PBE utilizes an igniter candle to provide the user with initial
oxygen. This candle uses a chemical reaction that produces high heat
and a high flow of oxygen. A compromised vacuum seal can lead to
degradation or contamination of the candle materials. This possible
contamination of the candle can change the chemical reaction leading to
a breach of the filter in the candle assembly allowing hot particles
from the igniter candle to enter the oxygen rich environment of the PBE
hood. The compromised seal also allows moisture to be drawn into the
pouch containing the PBE, which affects the chemical composition of the
breathing canister so that it may not meet its performance
requirements.
    The cause of the compromised vacuum seal of the pouch containing
the PBE is unknown at this time. This condition, if not corrected,
could result in the PBE not providing the necessary oxygen when needed.
Also, the degradation of the chemicals within the igniter candle could
increase the likelihood of hot particles to be ejected into the oxygen
rich environment and result in fire in the PBE hood.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin No. 119003-35-011, Rev.
000, dated February 4, 2015. The B/E Aerospace service bulletin
describes procedures for inspecting the PBE to determine if the vacuum
seal of the pouch containing the PBE is compromised. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The service bulletin applies to all PBE with part number 119003-11
and part number 119003-21. We have determined that this proposed AD
would apply only to a PBE with part number 119003-11.

Interim Action

    We consider this proposed AD interim action. The FAA investigation
is ongoing. If final termination action is later identified, we may
consider further rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 9,000 products installed
on airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                  Labor cost          Parts cost        Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspecting the pouch containing  .5 work-hour x $85  Not applicable....  $42.50 per           $382,500 per
 the PBE for proper vacuum seal.  per hour = $42.50                       inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                  per inspection
                                  cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need
this replacement:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                   Labor cost                Parts cost      product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace the PBE that has a compromised vacuum  .5 work-hour x $85 per hour = $42.50.       $1,510     $1,552.50
 sealed pouch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

B/E Aerospace: Docket No. FAA-2015-2134; Directorate Identifier
2015-CE-012-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 31, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to B/E Aerospace Protective Breathing Equipment
(PBE), part number 119003-11, that is installed on airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 35; Oxygen.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of a compromise in the vacuum
seal of the pouch that contains the PBE. We are issuing this AD to
correct the unsafe condition on these products.

(f) Compliance

    Unless already done, comply with paragraphs (g) through (h) of
this AD.

(g) Inspection

    (1) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, while
still in the stowage box, physically inspect the PBE pouch to
determine if it has an intact vacuum seal. Repetitively thereafter,
inspect every 12 months. Do these inspections following paragraph
III.A.1. of the Accomplishment Instructions in B/E Aerospace Service
Bulletin No. 119003-35-011. Rev. 000, dated February 4, 2015.
    (2) Within 36 months after the first inspection required in
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, remove the PBE pouch from the stowage
box and physically inspect the PBE pouch to determine if it has an
intact vacuum seal. Repetitively thereafter, inspect every 36
months. Do these inspections following paragraph III.A.2. of the
Accomplishment Instructions in B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin No.
119003-35-011, Rev. 000, dated February 4, 2015.

(h) Replacement

    If a PBE pouch is found that does not have an intact vacuum seal
during any inspection required in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of
this AD, before further flight, replace the PBE with an FAA-approved
PBE contained in a vacuum sealed pouch. After the replacement,
continue with the inspections required in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact David Enns,
Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO, FAA, 1801 S. Airport Road, Room
100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (316) 946-
4107; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact B/E
Aerospace, Inc., 10800 Pflumm Road, Commercial Aircraft Products
Group, Lenexa, Kansas 66215; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (913)
338-8419; Internet: www.beaerospace.com. You may review this
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 5, 2015.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-14286 Filed 6-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2734-2735]
[FR Doc No: 2011-665]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63663; File No. SR-BATS-2011-001]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.

January 6, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 4, 2011, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BATS'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated
the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing a member due,
fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule applicable to
Members \5\ of the Exchange pursuant to BATS Rules 15.1(a) and (c).
Changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective
upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule applicable to use
of the Exchange effective January 4, 2011, in order to: (i) Amend the
fees for certain routing strategies based on a change of fees at the
New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE''); and (ii) remove reference to a
routing strategy called ``Dark Scan'' that the Exchange has ceased
offering.

    (i) One Under Pricing for Certain Orders Executed at NYSE
    The Exchange has previously provided a discounted price fee for
Destination Specific Orders routed to certain of the largest market
centers measured by volume (NYSE, NYSE Arca and NASDAQ), which, in each
instance has been $0.0001 less per share for orders routed to such
market centers by the Exchange than such market centers currently
charge for removing liquidity (referred to by the Exchange as ``One
Under'' pricing). Based on changes in pricing at NYSE, BATS is
proposing to increase its fee for a Destination Specific Orders
executed at NYSE to align its fees so that the fee remains $0.0001 less
per share for orders routed to NYSE. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to increase the fee charged for BATS + NYSE Destination
Specific Orders executed at NYSE from $0.0020 per share to $0.0022 per
share. In addition, the Exchange offers a variety of routing
strategies, including ``SLIM'' and ``TRIM,'' each of which has a
specific fee for an execution that occurs at NYSE.
    (ii) Elimination of Dark Scan
    The Exchange has discontinued functionality that allowed a User to
send an order that routes to certain dark liquidity venues prior to
exposing the order to the Exchange's order book (referred to by the
Exchange as a ``Dark Scan'' order). Accordingly, the Exchange proposes
to remove reference to Dark Scan orders from its fee schedule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\6\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. The Exchange believes that its fees
and credits are competitive with those charged by other venues.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rates are equitable in
that they apply uniformly to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\9\ the Exchange has designated this proposal as
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge applicable to its
members, which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2011-001 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2011-001. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-BATS-2011-001 and should be
submitted on or before February 4, 2011 in the Federal Register.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-665 Filed 1-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                                                                      OFFICE OF
                                                            CHEMICAL SAFETY AND
\* MERGEFORMAT
                                                           POLLUTION PREVENTION

MEMORANDUM

Date: February 23, 2012

SUBJECT:	Quizalofop-P-ethyl:  Amendment to the Human Health Risk Assessment and Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data for New Uses on Sorghum, Rapeseed Crop Group 20 A, and Field Corn

PC Code:  128709
DP Barcode:   D398731
Decision No.: 441518 and 443799
Registration No.: 352-541 and 352-542
Petition No.: 0E7802 and 1F7822
Regulatory Action: Tolerance Petition
Risk Assessment Type: NA
Case No.: NA
TXR No.: NA
CAS No.: 100646-51-3
MRID No.: NA
40 CFR: § 180.441

FROM:		Ideliz Negrón-Encarnación, Ph.D., Risk Assessor
		Risk Assessment Branch V
		Health Effects Division (7509P)
		Office of Pesticide Programs

THROUGH:	William Donovan, Ph.D., Chemist
		Michael Metzger, Branch Chief
		Risk Assessment Branch V
		Health Effects Division (7509P)
		Office of Pesticide Programs

TO:		Laura Nollen, Risk Manager
		Risk Management Division (RM 5; 7508 P)

			and

		Mindy Ondish, Risk Manager
		Risk Management Division (RM 25; 7508P)

An amendment to the Human Health Risk Assessment (D384660 and D386678) and the Summary of Analytical and Residue Data (D395630) for new uses of quizalofop-P-ethyl was required to address changes in the commodity definition of feedstuff commodities, grazing restrictions and adjuvant specifications.  In addition, clarification on the decision for the storage stability studies of field corn was needed.  The registrant is undergoing a storage stability study with field corn which will be further evaluated; however, storage stability was proven for wheat which is tentatively used to cover that of the field corn samples.  Based on this, HED understands that a conditional registration is not necessary for this case.
   1. Tolerances for meal commodities
   RAB V recommended the creation of the rapeseed, subgroup 20A, meal, except flax, meal to propose tolerances for the meal commodities under the rapeseed, subgroup 20A, seed, except flaxseed.  OPP further evaluated the proposal and considered that the registrant proposal was adequate for this case.  In addition, the preferred commodity term for canola is rapeseed.  Therefore, recommended commodity definitions and tolerances for the meal commodities are:
         gold of pleasure, meal		2.0 ppm
         crambe, meal			2.0 ppm
	rapeseed, meal			2.0 ppm

   2. Grazing restrictions
   The Section (3) label of Assure II (EPA Reg. No. 352-541) indicates that grazing of livestock is prohibited in treated areas.  This restriction is not considered practical and should be removed.  However, the grazing interval established in the supplemental labels for use in field corn containing DAS-40278-9 and sorghum containing the INZEN AII herbicide tolerant trait are considered appropriate because they match the PHIs established in the label.  Therefore, the following directions should be kept in the supplemental labels.
      * Field corn containing DAS-40278-9:  "Do not allow grazing on treated corn within 30 days of application."
      * Sorghum containing the INZEN AII herbicide tolerant trait:  "Do not graze livestock in treated areas or feed treated grain, forage, fodder, straw, or hay to livestock within 45 days of Assure II application."

   3. Adjuvant specifications
   It was noted that the use of adjuvants established in the supplemental label for sorghum need to be modified to reflect the conditions of the field trials.  The adjuvant concentration was 1% (v/v) of the COC in all trials except one in which they used 0.25 % (v/v) of the NIS.  The residue data only supports 1% of the COC or 0.25% of the NIS.  Therefore, the label should be modified accordingly since in the draft label up to 2% COC and 0.5% NIS is recommended.


[Federal Register: July 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 141)]
[Notices]
[Page 41792]
[DOCID:fr24jy06-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-430-000]

Midwestern Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes
in FERC Gas Tariff

July 14, 2006.
    Take notice that on July 10, 2006, Midwestern Gas Transmission
Company (Midwestern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1 (Tariff), the following tariff
sheets to become effective August 9, 2006:

Title Page

First Revised Sheet No. 270.4
Ninth Revised Sheet No. 7
First Revised Sheet No. 55
Second Revised Sheet No. 79
First Revised Sheet No. 246C
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 247
First Revised Sheet No. 247A
Second Revised Sheet No. 267
Thirteenth Revised Sheet No. 273
Third Revised Sheet No. 408
Third Revised Sheet No. 418
Second Revised Sheet No. 426
Second Revised Sheet No. 493
Second Revised Sheet No. 494
 Sixth Revised Sheet No. 495

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-11668 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


A B C D E = A* B* C* D F G = A* B* F H = E+ G I = A* B* C CWSs   100 142 26 0.5 24.96 $ 45,977 $ 529.50 $ 1,950,700 $ 1,996,677 $ 1,842 101 500 247 26 0.5 24.96 80,131 529.50 3,399,775 3,479,906 3,210 501 1,000 129 26 0.5 24.96 41,882 529.50 1,776,975 1,818,858 1,678 1,001 3,300 324 26 0.5 24.96 105,150 529.50 4,461,313 4,566,464 4,213 3,301 10,000 364 26 0.5 24.96 118,055 529.50 5,008,819 5,126,874 4,730 10,001 50,000 751 26 0.5 24.96 243,758 529.50 10,342,120 10,585,878 9,766 50,001 100,000 247 26 0.5 24.96 80,274 529.50 3,405,870 3,486,145 3,216 100,001 1 Million 239 26 0.5 24.96 77,396 529.50 3,283,760 3,361,156 3,101 > 1 Million 26 26 0.5 24.96 8,589 529.50 364,417 373,006 344 National Totals 2,469 801,212 $ 33,993,751 $ 34,794,964 $ 32,100 NTNCWSs   100 54 26 0.5 24.96 $ 17,523 $ 529.50 $ 743,474 $ 760,998 $ 702 101 500 70 26 0.5 24.96 22,710 529.50 963,549 986,259 910 501 1000 24 26 0.5 24.96 7,715 529.50 327,338 335,053 309 1001 3,300 16 26 0.5 24.96 5,320 529.50 225,733 231,054 213 3,301 10,000 4 26 0.5 24.96 1,258 529.50 53,355 54,613 50 10,001 50,000 2 26 0.5 24.96 689 529.50 29,228 29,917 28 50,001 100,000  26 0.5 24.96  529.50    100,001 1 Million  26 0.5 24.96  529.50    > 1 Million  26 0.5 24.96  529.50    National Totals 170 55,216 $ 2,342,677 $ 2,397,892 $ 2,212 TNCWSs   100 241 26 0.5 24.96 $ 78,211 $ 529.50 $ 3,318,340 $ 3,396,551 $ 3,133 101 500 125 26 0.5 24.96 40,663 529.50 1,725,232 1,765,895 1,629 501 1000 18 26 0.5 24.96 5,810 529.50 246,496 252,306 233 1001 3,300 17 26 0.5 24.96 5,391 529.50 228,719 234,110 216 3,301 10,000 8 26 0.5 24.96 2,540 529.50 107,773 110,313 102 10,001 50,000 5 26 0.5 24.96 1,764 529.50 74,851 76,615 71 50,001 100,000 2 26 0.5 24.96 706 529.50 29,940 30,646 28 100,001 1 Million  26 0.5 24.96  529.50    > 1 Million  26 0.5 24.96  529.50    National Totals 416 135,085 $ 5,731,352 $ 5,866,436 $ 5,412 Grand Totals 3,056 991,513 $ 42,067,780 $ 43,059,292 $ 39,724 Notes:

( A) Taken from Exhibit B. 1, column J.

( C) Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion. ( D) All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $ 24.96/ hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates. ( B) Semimonthly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems, plus two matrix spike samples.

( F) Cost per sample includes $ 403 in lab costs, $ 88.70 for shipping, and $ 37.80 in additional costs. Assumes all plants must ship samples to private lab for Cryptosporidium analysis. Samples must be shipped overnight to meet 24 hour holding time requirements. Costs based on FedEx priority overnight rates for 10 L sample ( 22 lb.) shipped in a 34 quart polyethylene cooler packed with wet ice, median cost for all zones. Samples generating a pellet volume of > 0.5 ml require multiple subsample processing at a cost of $ 140 each. During the ICR Supplemental Survey, approximately 27 percent of field samples required analysis of multiple subsamples, resulting in an additional per plant charge of $ 38 ($ 140 x 0.27). Exhibit B. 14 Burden and Cost to Plants Associated with Cryptosporidium Monitoring for Bin Reclassification Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding. System Size ( Population Served) Baseline # of Plants Conducting Cryptosporidium Monitoring Total Cost Total Burden ( Hours) ICR for LT2ESWTR Proposal 52 June 2003 System Size ( Population Served) Hours per Plant Cost per Labor Hour Baseline # of Plants Reporting Total Cost Total Burden ( Hours) A B C D = A* B* C E = A* C CWSs   100 6.5 24.96 $ 407 66,059 $ 2,647 101 500 6.5 24.96 710 115,130 4,613 501 1000 6.5 28.95 371 69,795 2,411 1001 3,300 6.5 28.95 931 175,229 6,053 3,301 10,000 6.5 28.95 1,045 196,734 6,796 10,001 50,000 6 28.95 751 130,488 4,507 50,001 100,000 6 28.95 247 42,972 1,484 100,001 1 Million 6 28.95 239 41,432 1,431 > 1 Million 6 28.95 26 4,598 159 National Totals 4,728 842,436 $ 30,100 NTNCWSs   100 6.5 24.96 $ 155 25,177 $ 1,009 101 500 6.5 24.96 201 32,630 1,307 501 1000 6.5 28.95 68 12,857 444 1001 3,300 6.5 28.95 47 8,866 306 3,301 10,000 6.5 28.95 11 2,096 72 10,001 50,000 6 28.95 2 369 13 50,001 100,000 6 28.95    100,001 1 Million 6 28.95    > 1 Million 6 28.95    National Totals 485 81,994 $ 3,151 TCWSs   100 6.5 24.96 $ 693 112,373 $ 4,502 101 500 6.5 24.96 360 58,423 2,341 501 1000 6.5 28.95 51 9,682 334 1001 3,300 6.5 28.95 48 8,984 310 3,301 10,000 6.5 28.95 22 4,233 146 10,001 50,000 6 28.95 5 944 33 50,001 100,000 6 28.95 2 378 13 100,001 1 Million 6 28.95    > 1 Million 6 28.95    National Totals 1,182 195,016 $ 7,679 Grand Totals 6,395 1,119,447 $ 40,931 Sources Exhibit B. 15 Burden and Cost to Plants Associated with Reporting for Bin Re Classification Monitoring ( A) Hours per plant reporting to the State/ Primacy Agency for bin classification exemption and to report E. coli and Cryptosporidium monitoring data and bin classification. Assumes 15 minutes per sample. Based on 24 monthly E. coli and Cryptosporidium samples for medium and large systems and 26 biweekly E. coli and 24 semimonthly Cryptosporidium samples for small systems. Although small systems will not report E. coli and Cryptosporidium results at the same time, the additional reporting burden is assumed to be negligible. The decrease in burden for small plants that report E. coli but are exempt from Cryptosporidium monitoring is also assumed to be negligible.

( B) For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($ 24.96/ hour) was applied. For plants serving more than 500 people, costs are based on an 80%/ 20% split between technical and managerial ($ 44.91/ hour) rates. Rates are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data. ( C) Taken from Exhibit B. 1, column I. ICR for LT2ESWTR Proposal 53 June 2003 Appendix C Summary Exhibits for Full Implementation of the Rule Exhibit C. 1 12 Year Summary of Burden Associated with Implementing the LT2ESWTR Exhibit C. 2 12 Year Summary of Cost Associated with Implementing the LT2ESWTR Exhibit C. 3 Implementation Timeline for the Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR ICR for LT2ESWTR Proposal 54 June 2003 Exhibit C. 1 12 Year Summary of Burden Associated with Implementing the LT2ESWTR ( Hours)

Activity Source Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 CWSs Start up [ 1] Exhibit B. 2, Column G 11,371 30,776 Assessment for Binning [ 2]

E. coli Monitoring Exhibit B. 4, Column N 6,873 13,746 26,264 19,391 Cryptosporidium Monitoring Exhibit B. 5, Column I 5,721 11,441 5,721 17,994 Reporting Exhibit B. 6, Column E 2,640 5,281 9,104 6,464 12,927 Technology Reporting [ 3] Exhibit B. 9, Column G & Exhibit 10, Column E 22,086 22,086 31,930 41,774 41,774 41,774 Disinfection Benchmarking [ 4] Exhibit B. 11, Column H 2,824 1,472 Assessment for Bin Reclassification [ 5]

E. coli Monitoring Exhibit B. 13, Column N 4,937 9,875 21,826 16,889 Cryptosporidium Monitoring Exhibit B. 14, Column I 4,107 8,213 4,107 Reporting Exhibit B. 15, Column E 1,895 3,791 7,525 5,630 Yearly Total 26,605 30,468 71,864 28,678 30,922 1,472 22,086 22,086 42,870 63,653 75,232 64,292 NTNCWSs Start up [ 1] Exhibit B. 2, Column G 24 4,720 Assessment for Binning [ 2]

E. coli Monitoring Exhibit B. 4, Column N 11 22 2,784 2,773 Cryptosporidium Monitoring Exhibit B. 5, Column I 10 19 10 2,573 Reporting Exhibit B. 6, Column E 4 9 929 924 1,848 Technology Reporting [ 3] Exhibit B. 9, Column G 103 103 2,198 4,292 4,292 4,292 Disinfection Benchmarking [ 4] Exhibit B. 11, Column H 13 180 Assessment for Bin Reclassification [ 5]

E. coli Monitoring Exhibit B. 13, Column N 8 16 2,362 2,354 Cryptosporidium Monitoring Exhibit B. 14, Column I 7 14 7 Reporting Exhibit B. 15, Column E 3 6 788 785 Yearly Totals 49 51 8,442 3,710 4,422 180 103 103 2,216 4,328 7,449 7,431 ICR for LT2ESWTR Proposal 55 June 2003 TNCWSs Start up [ 1] Exhibit B. 2, Column G 87 9,963 Assessment for B inning [ 2]

E . coli Monitoring Exhibit B. 4, Column N 39 79 6,111 6,071 Cryptosporidium Monitoring Exhibit B. 5, Column I 34 68 34 5,634 Reporting Exhibit B. 6, Column E 16 32 2,040 2,024 4,048 Technology Reporting [ 3] Exhibit B. 9, Column G 130 130 2,060 3,990 3,990 3,990 Disinfec tion B enchmarking [ 4] Exhibit B. 11, Column H 17 432 Assessment for B in Reclassification [ 5]

E . coli Monitoring Exhibit B. 13, Column N 29 57 5,754 5,725 Cryptosporidium Monitoring Exhibit B. 14, Column I 50 100 50 Reporting Exhibit B. 15, Column E 11 23 1,920 1,908 Ye a rly Tota ls 176 179 18,148 8,113 9,682 432 130 130 2,150 4,170 11,714 11,624 Sta tes a nd Territories Start up [ 6] Exhibit B. 3, Column C 45,267 185,925 Bin Determination and Reviewing Monitoring Data[ 7] Exhibit B. 7, Column F ( Initial) & Column H ( Future) 50,388 50,388 77,064 13,338 26,676 51,870 38,532 Technology Reporting [ 8] Exhibit B. 8, Column G 3,720 3,720 6,031 8,343 8,343 8,343 Disinfec tion B enchmarking [ 9] Exhibit B. 12, Column H 1,427 1042 Ye a rly Tota ls 45,267 0 236,313 51,815 77,064 1,042 3,720 3,720 19,369 35,019 60,213 46,875 Grand Tota ls 72,098 30,698 334,767 92,315 122,089 3,127 26,039 26,039 66,605 107,170 154,608 130,222 Notes :

( 1) Rule s tart up: All activities for m edium/ large s ystems will oc cur in Year 1. Small sy stems will complete rule s tart up activities in Year 3.

( 9) S tate activities will parallel system activities.

( 8) S tate activities will parallel system activities.

( 3) M edium and large sy stems m ust begin to demons trate compliance with tec hnologies within 72 months ( 6 years) after promulgation. Small sy stems must begin to demons trate compliance within 102 m onths ( 8.5 years ) after promulgation.

( 2) A ss essments for binning: medium/ large sy stems will begin E. coli and Cryptosporidium m onitoring in Year 1, 6 months after rule promulgation.

This monitoring will be completed 24 months later, in Y ear 3. Small systems will begin 1 year of E. coli monitoring 6 months into Year 3; small sy stems that are triggered into Cryptosporidium monitoring will begin this 6 months into Year 5.

( 5) A ss essments for re binning: A sec ond round of E. coli and Cryptosporidium monitoring for re binning will tak e plac e starting 6 years after the completion of initial m onitoring.

( 6) S tate rule s tart up activities: S tate ac tivities will parallel s ystem activities. Thus , 20 perc ent ( the relative proportion of sys tems that are large/ medium s ized) of this work will be done in Year 1, as these s ystems do rule training, and the remaining 80 perc ent will be done in Y ears 3 and 4.

( 7) EPA will perform these activities for medium and large sy stems ; S tates will perform these activities for small systems while small systems monitor, in Year 5.

( 4) M edium and large sy stems m ust complete disinfection profiling 36 months after promulgation; small sys tems must complete profiling by 66 months ( 5.5 years ) after promulgation ( some small sy stems are required to complete profiling within 54 months ( 4.5 years) based on disinfection by product levels , however, for s implicity all small sys tems are assumed to meet the 66 month deadline). The burden for profiling is assumed to be negligible; however, sometime after the profiling deadline, systems mus t prepare a report and consult with the state regarding proposed c hanges in disinfection. Exhibit C. 1 12 Year Summary of Burden Associated with Implementing the LT2ESWTR ( Hours) ( continued) ICR for LT2ESWTR Proposal 56 June 2003 Exhibit C. 2 12 Year Summary of Cost Associated with Implementing the LT2ESWTR Activity Source Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 CWSs Start up [ 1] Exhibit B. 2, Column F $ 329,190 $ 849,884 Assessment for Binning [ 2]

E. coli Monitoring Exhibit B. 4, Column M 390,383 $ 780,767 $ 3,699,196 $ 3,308,813 $

Cryptosporidium Monitoring Exhibit B. 5, Column H 6,201,056 $ 12,402,113 $ 6,201,056 $ 19,505,300 $

Reporting Exhibit B. 6, Column D 76,438 $ 152,876 $ 255,040 $ 178,602 $ 357,204 $

Technology Reporting [ 3] Exhibit B. 9, Column H & Exhibit B. 10, Column F 639,404 $ 639,404 $ 910,534 $ 1,181,665 $ 1,181,665 $

Disinfection Benchmarking [ 4] Exhibit B. 11, Column I 81,745 $ 41,521 $

Assessment for Bin Reclassification [ 5]

E. coli Monitoring Exhibit B. 13, Column 279,924 $ 559,847 $ 3,161,842 $

Cryptosporidium Monitoring Exhibit B. 14, Column H 4,451,546 $ 8,903,093 $ 4,451,546 $

Reporting Exhibit B. 15, Column D 54,872 $ 109,745 $ 210,609 $

Yearly Total 6,997,068 $ 13,335,755 $ 11,005,177 $ 3,569,160 $ 19,862,504 $ 41,521 $ 639,404 $ 639,404 $ 5,696,877 $ 10,754,350 $ 9,005,663 $

NTNCWSs Start up [ 1] Exhibit B. 2, Column F $ 695 $ 122,663 Assessment for Binning [ 2]

E. coli Monitoring Exhibit B. 4, Column M 708 $ 1,416 $ 473,843 $ 473,134 $

Cryptosporidium Monitoring Exhibit B. 5, Column H 10,530 $ 21,060 $ 10,530 $ 2,789,105 $

Reporting Exhibit B. 6, Column D 130 $ 260 $ 24,149 $ 24,019 $ 48,038 $

Technology Reporting [ 3] Exhibit B. 9, Column H 2,976 $ 2,976 $ 57,119 $ 111,262 $ 111,262 $

Disinfection Benchmarking [ 4] Exhibit B. 11, Column I 377 $ 4,791 $

Assessment for Bin Reclassification [ 5]

E. coli Monitoring Exhibit B. 13, Column M 503 $ 1,006 $ 402,198 $

Cryptosporidium Monitoring Exhibit B. 14, Column H 7,479 $ 14,958 $ 7,479 $

Reporting Exhibit B. 15, Column D 92 $ 184 $ 20,499 $

Yearly Totals 12,063 $ 22,736 $ 631,184 $ 497,530 $ 2,837,143 $ 4,791 $ 2,976 $ 2,976 $ 65,194 $ 127,411 $ 541,438 $ ICR for LT2ESWTR Proposal 57 June 2003 TNCWSs Start up [ 1] Exhibit B. 2, Column F $ 2,519 $ 252,968 Assessment for Binning [ 2]

E. coli Monitoring Exhibit B. 4, Column M 2,488 $ 4,976 $ 1,038,518 $ 1,036,030 $

Cryptosporidium Monitoring Exhibit B. 5, Column H 36,990 $ 73,980 $ 36,990 $ 6,107,350 $

Reporting Exhibit B. 6, Column D 456 $ 912 $ 51,840 $ 51,384 $ 102,768 $

Technology Reporting [ 3] Exhibit B. 9, Column H 3,759 $ 3,759 $ 53,131 $ 102,503 $ 102,503 $

Disinfection Benchmarking [ 4] Exhibit B. 11, Column I 500 $ 11,068 $

Assessment for Bin Reclassification [ 5]

E. coli Monitoring Exhibit B. 13, Column M 1,804 $ 3,607 $ 978,771 $

Cryptosporidium Monitoring Exhibit B. 14, Column H 54,393 $ 108,787 $ 54,393 $

Reporting Exhibit B. 15, Column D 331 $ 661 $ 48,754 $

Yearly Totals 42,453 $ 79,868 $ 1,380,317 $ 1,087,914 $ 6,210,118 $ 11,068 $ 3,759 $ 3,759 $ 109,659 $ 215,558 $ 1,184,421 $

States and Territories Start up [ 6] Exhibit B. 3, Column D 1,307,768 $ 5,371,369 $

Bin Determination and Reviewing Monitoring Data [ 7] Exhibit B. 7, Column H ( Initial) & Column J ( Future) 1,455,709 $ 1,455,709 $ 2,226,379 $ 385,335 $ 770,670 $ 1,498,524 $

Technology Reporting [ 8] Exhibit B. 8, Column I 107,467 $ 107,467 $ 174,244 $ 241,022 $ 241,022 $

Disinfection Benchmarking [ 9] Exhibit B. 12, Column I 41,225 $ 30,116 $

Yearly Totals 1,307,768 $

$ 6,827,079 $ 1,496,935 $ 2,226,379 $ 30,116 $ 107,467 $ 107,467 $ 559,579 $ 1,011,691 $ 1,739,546 $

Grand Totals 8,359,351 $ 13,438,359 $ 19,843,756 $ 6,651,539 $ 31,136,144 $ 87,497 $ 753,606 $ 753,606 $ 6,431,308 $ 12,109,010 $ 12,471,068 $

Notes:

( 1) Rule start up: All ac tivities for medium/ large systems will occur in Year 1. Small systems will complete rule start up activities in Year 3.

( 8) State activities will parallel system activities.

( 9) State activities will parallel system activities.

( 7) EPA will perform these activities for medium and large systems; States will perform these activities for small systems while small systems monitor, in Year 5.

( 4) Medium and large systems must complete disinfection profiling 36 months after promulgation; small systems must complete profiling by 66 months ( 5.5 years) after promulgation ( some small systems are required to complete profiling within 54 months ( 4.5 years) based on disinfection byproduct levels, however, for simplicity all small systems are assumed to meet the 66 month deadline). The burden for profiling is assumed to be negligible; however, sometime after the profiling deadline, systems must prepare a report and consult with the state regarding proposed changes in disinfection.

( 2) Assessments for binning: medium/ large systems will begin E. coli and Cryptosporidium monitoring in Year 1, 6 months after rule promulgation. This monitoring will be completed 24 months later, in Year 3. Small systems will begin 1 year of E. coli monitoring 6 months into Year 3; small systems that are triggered into Cryptosporidium monitoring will begin this in Year 5.

( 5) Assessments for re binning: A second round of E. coli and Cryptosporidium monitoring for re binning will take plac e starting 6 years after completion of initial monitoring.

( 6) S tate rule start up activities: State activities will parallel system activities. Thus, 20 percent ( the relative proportion of sy stems that are large/ medium sized) of this work will be done in Year 1, as these systems do rule training, and the remaining 80 percent will be done in Years 3 and 4.

( 3) Medium and large systems must begin to demonstrate compliance with technologies within 72 months ( 6 years) after promulgation. Small systems must begin to demonstrate compliance within 102 months ( 8.5 years) after promulgation.

Exhibit C. 2 12 Year Summary of Cost Associated with Implementing the LT2ESWTR ( continued) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Final Rules Proposed Rule State Primacy Process Large and Medium Systems ( Serving > 10,000 People)

LT2ESWTR Requirements Crypto Startup Crypto Monitoring Treatment Installation Possible Extens ions Bin Determination Crypto & 80/ 60 LRAA Compliance Stage 2 DBPR Requirements Submit IDSE Systems Mus t Comply with Phase 1 Possible Extens ions Phase 2 Compliance Crypto & Phase 2 Compliance For Those Receiving Extensions Small Systems ( Serving < 10,000 People) Crypto Monitoring LT2ESWTR Requirements E. coli Monitoring Treatment Installation Possible Extensions Crypto Start Up Bin Determination Crypto & 80/ 60 LRAA Compliance Stage 2 DBPR Requirements for Systems Conducting Crypto Monitoring Submit IDSE Systems Must Comply with Phase 1 Pos sible Extensions Phas e 2 Compliance Crypto & 80/ 60 LRAA Complianc For Those Receiving Extensions Stage 2 DBPR Requirements for Systems Not Conducting Crypto Monitoring Submit IDSE Systems Must Comply with Phase 1 Possible Extensions Phase 2 Compliance 80/ 60 LRAA Compliance For Those Receiving Extensions Exhibit C. 3 Implementation Timeline for the Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 239 (Thursday, December 13, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64056-64059]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26924]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0741; FRL-9987-73-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Revisions to Part 1 General
Provisions Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a request submitted by the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ) on December 12, 2017, and supplemented on August 9,
2018, as a revision to Michigan's state implementation plan (SIP). The
SIP submission incorporates several revisions to Michigan's Air
Pollution Control Rules entitled ``Part 1--General Provisions.'' The
revisions include

administrative changes to the existing rule.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 14, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2017-0741 at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What are the State rule revisions?
II. What is EPA's analysis of the State's submittal?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What are the State rule revisions?

    On December 12, 2017, and August 9, 2018, MDEQ submitted a request
to EPA to incorporate revisions to Michigan's Air Pollution Control
Rules entitled Part 1--General Provisions (Part 1). The submission
revises the following Michigan's Air Pollution Control rules: R
336.1101 to 1103, R 336.1106 to 1109, R 336.1112 to 1116, and R
336.1118 to 1123. The revisions are primarily administrative changes.
    In the August 9, 2018, submission, MDEQ rescinded its request to
modify Part 1 for the following definitions: R336.1101(a) ``Act,''
R336.1101(h) ``Air pollution,'' R336.1101(q) ``Aqueous based parts
washer,'' and R336.1103(aa) ``Cold cleaner.''

II. What is EPA's analysis of the State's submittal?

Rule Revisions for Which EPA Is Proposing To Approve

    Part 1 is a compilation of the definitions used in Michigan's
rules. The revisions to Part 1 include a range of administrative
changes, from grammatical corrections to language updates. Examples of
these revisions include changing terminology such as ``which'' to
``that,'' or ``commission'' to ``department.''
    MDEQ revised the language in several rules to be consistent with
rule R 336.1902, namely, requiring all of the ``Adoption by reference''
for various test methods be located in R 336.1902. For example, the
definitions of ``Heavy liquids,'' ``PM-10,'' ``PM 2.5,'' ``Reid vapor
pressure,'' ``True vapor pressure,'' and ``Waxy, heavy pour crude
oil,'' the revised rule language shows that the applicable test method
adopted by reference is in R 336.1902.
    In rule R 336.1122(f) MDEQ updated the definition of ``Volatile
organic compound'' (VOC) to reflect revisions made to the Federal
definition at 40 CFR 51.100(s). MDEQ amended the list of compounds
excluded from the definition of VOC to add the following six compounds:
(1.) HCF2OCF2H (HFE-134), (2.)
HCF2OCF2OCF2H (HFE-236cal2), (3.)
HCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (HFE-
338pcc13), (4.)
HCF2OCF2OCF2CF2OCF2
H (H-Galden 1040X or H-Galden ZT 130 (or 150 or 180)), (5.) Trans 1-
chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (Solstice \TM\ 1233zd(E)), and (6.) 2-
amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP). These additional compounds were
determined by EPA to have negligible photochemical reactivity, and
therefore, EPA does not expect them to make a significant contribution
to ozone formation.\1\ MDEQ also updated an existing exemption for the
compound t-butyl acetate to be consistent with EPA's removal of the
recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling
and inventory requirements related to the use of t-butyl acetate as a
VOC. See 81 FR 9339 (February 25, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 78 FR 9823, February 12, 2013; 78 FR 53029, August 28,
2013; 79 FR 17037, March 27, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Last, other modifications to Part 1 include the deletion and
addition of several definitions. MDEQ revised Part 1 to remove
definitions that are unclear, incorrect, redundant, or no longer used
in Michigan's rules. MDEQ removed ``Allowed emissions,'' ``Federal land
manager,'' ``Linearized multistage computer model,'' ``Offset ratio,''
and ``Very large precipitator.'' In like manner, MDEQ revised Part 1 by
adding the following definitions: ``Adhesion prime,'' ``Air pollution
control equipment,'' ``Applicant,'' ``Federally enforceable,'' ``Field
gas,'' ``Field testing,'' ``Flexible coating,'' and ``Fog coat,''
``Organic resin,'' ``Secondary emissions,'' ``Significant,'' ``Stencil
coat,'' ``Styrene devolatilizer unit,'' ``Styrene recovery unit,''
``Synthetic natural gas,'' ``Synthetic organic chemical and polymer
manufacturing plant,'' ``Synthetic organic chemical and polymer
manufacturing process unit,'' ``Used oil,'' and ``Wayne county
permit.''
    EPA finds these changes are acceptable and thus is proposing their
approval into the Michigan SIP.

Rule Revision for Which EPA Is Taking No Action

R 336.1103 Definitions; C
    In rule R 336.1103, MDEQ requested the removal of (pp) from the
definition of ``Creditable.'' EPA is taking no action to remove this
definition from Michigan's SIP because EPA already removed the
definition from Part 1 in a previous rulemaking. See 78 FR 76064
(December 16, 2013).
R 336.1119 Definitions; S
    MDEQ amended this rule by adding (c) for the definition ``Secondary
risk screening level,'' and (q) for the definition ``State-only
enforceable.'' Secondary risk screening level means ``the concentration
of a possible, probable, or known human carcinogen in ambient air which
has been calculated, for regulatory purposes, according to the risk
assessment procedures in R 336.1229(1), to produce an estimated upper-
bound lifetime cancer risk of 1 in 100,000.'' State-only enforceable
means ``that the limitation or condition is derived solely from the act
and the air pollution control rules and is not federally enforceable.
State-only enforceable requirements include R 336.1224, R 336.1225, R
336.1901, any permit requirement established solely pursuant to R
366.1201(1)(b), or any other regulation that is enforceable

solely under the act and is not federally enforceable.'' EPA is taking
no action on these State-only provisions.
R 336.1120 Definitions; T
    In rule 336.1120(f), ```Toxic air contaminant' or `TAC''' is
defined as ``any air contaminant for which there is no National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and which is or may become harmful to
public health or the environment when present in the outdoor atmosphere
in sufficient quantities and duration.'' This definition includes a
list of exempt substances that are not considered TACs. MDEQ amended
the list of exempt substances to add the following: ``animal or plant
materials, including extracts and concentrates thereof, used as
ingredients in food products or dietary supplements in accordance with
applicable regulations of the United States Food and Drug
Administration.'' EPA is taking no action on this amendment to rule R
336.1120(f).
Other Revisions to Part 1
    MDEQ revised Part 1 to add the following definitions: R 336.1115(d)
for ```Oral reference dose' or `RfD','' R 336.1119(x) for ``Sufficient
evidence,'' and R 336.1123(c) for ``Weight of evidence.'' EPA is taking
no action on these definitions.
Section 110(l) Analysis of the State's Submittal
    EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to Part 1 discussed above
because the revisions meet all applicable requirements under the Clean
Air Act (CAA), consistent with section 110(k)(3) of the CAA.
Furthermore, MDEQ has shown that the revisions to Part 1 do not
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or any other applicable CAA requirement,
consistent with section 110(l) of the CAA.
    Under Section 110(l) of the CAA, EPA shall not approve a SIP
revision if it would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in
section 171 of the CAA) or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
The proposed SIP revision would not interfere with any applicable CAA
requirements based on technical analysis submitted by MDEQ. Part 1
rules are definitions and are not meant to affect any sources. The
changes to the definitions in Part 1 rules will have no effect on
actual or allowable emissions as they only clarify words and phrases
within other rules.
    MDEQ has shown there is no impact of revising Part 1 rule that
would hinder Michigan's ability to maintain and meet the NAAQS for
nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and
carbon monoxide. Therefore, these revisions to Part 1 are approvable as
they are merely administrative changes. The revisions will not increase
any emissions to the atmosphere because they do not impact on any
source applicability or emissions.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Michigan's Part 1 Rule
submitted by MDEQ on December 12, 2017, and supplemented on August 9,
2018, as a revision to the Michigan SIP.
    Michigan requested that EPA approve the following rules: R 336.1101
Definitions; A (except for (a) Act, (h) Air pollution, and (q) Aqueous
based parts washer), R 336.1102 Definitions: B, R 336.1103 Definitions
C (except for (aa) Cold cleaner), R 336.1106 Definitions; F, R 336.1107
Definitions; G, R 336.1108 Definitions; H, R 336.1109 Definitions; I, R
336.1112 Definitions; L, R 336.1113 Definitions; M, R 336.1114
Definitions; N, R 336.1115 Definitions; O (except for (d) ```Oral
reference dose' or `RfD'''), R 336.1116 Definitions; P, R 336.1118
Definitions; R, R 336.1119 Definitions; S (except for (c) Secondary
risk screening level, (q) State-only enforceable, and (x) Sufficient
evidence), R 336.1120 Definitions; T (except for (f) ```Toxic air
contaminant' or `TAC'''), R 336.1121 Definitions; U, R 336.1122
Definitions; V, R 336.1123 Definitions; W (except for (c) Weight of
evidence). We are also proposing approval of a revision removing the
following definitions from Part 1: ``Allowed emissions,'' ``Federal
land manager,'' ``Linearized multistage computer model,'' ``Offset
ratio,'' and ``Very large precipitator.''
    EPA is not taking any action on R 336.1103(pp) ``Creditable,'' R
336.1115(d) ```Oral reference dose' or `RfD','' 336.1119(c) ``Secondary
risk screening level,'' R 336.1119(q) ``State-only enforceable,'' R
336.1119(x) ``Sufficient evidence,'' R 336.1120(f) ```Toxic air
contaminant' or `TAC','' and R 336.1123(c) ``Weight of evidence.''

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA proposes to incorporate by
reference Michigan Administrative Code R 336.1101 Definitions; A
(except for (a) Act, (h) Air pollution, and (q) Aqueous based parts
washer), R 336.1102 Definitions: B, R 336.1103 Definitions C (except
for (aa) Cold cleaner), R 336.1106 Definitions; F, R 336.1107
Definitions; G, R 336.1108 Definitions; H, R 336.1109 Definitions I, R
336.1112 Definitions; L, R 336.1113 Definitions; M, R 336.1114
Definitions; N, R 336.1115 Definitions; O (except for (d) ```Oral
reference dose' or `RfD'''), R 336.1116 Definitions; P, R 336.1118
Definitions; R, R 336.1119 Definitions; S (except for (c) Secondary
risk screening level, (q) State-only enforceable, and (x) Sufficient
evidence), R 336.1120 Definitions; T (except for (f) ```Toxic air
contaminant' or `TAC'''), R 336.1121 Definitions; U, R 336.1122
Definitions; V, R 336.1123 Definitions; W (except for (c) Weight of
evidence), effective December 20, 2016. EPA has made, and will continue
to make, these documents generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: November 27, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018-26924 Filed 12-12-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES November 19, 2004 Hand Delivered Mr. Richard L. Conn Charles & Conn, LLC 6713 Catskill Rd, Lorton, VA 22079 1113 RE: Ametryn Drinking Water Exposure Assessment Memo Dear Mr. Conn On November 4, 2004, you received the preliminary human health and environmental risk assessments for ametryn from the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA or the Agency). At that time, the Drinking Water Exposure Assessment Memo ( the Drinking Water Memo) was not included with the risk assessments. Additional important information about timing of ametryn use in Florida had been received but not yet incorporated into the Drinking Water Memo. The Agency has now completed the Drinking Water Memo and it is enclosed for your review.

As with the ametryn risk assessments, the Agency asks that you please identify and comment on any technical errors in the Drinking Water Memo. As with the risk assessments, we would like you to review it for confidential business information ( CBI), and you must inform the Agency in writing of any CBI claims or if there are no CBI claims.

Please submit your technical error correction comments for the Drinking Water Memo by December 6, 2004, the same date the ametryn risk assessment error corrections are due. As a reminder, the Agency will evaluate your comments and prepare a written response, and will revise the risk assessments, as necessary. Errors include mathematical, computational, typographic, or other similar errors. At this stage, EPA will respond only to errors that do not pertain to matters of policy, interpretation, or applicability of data. In January 2005, EPA will release to the public the risk assessments, your comments, and the Agency's review and discussion of your comments. These documents will be placed in a Public Docket and posted on EPA's Internet site. The EPA will announce the availability of these documents via a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register, and through an electronic listserver message. 2 of 2 Please send your comments, including any claims of CBI and other information, in both printed and electronic form to Mark Howard, the Chemical Review Manager for ametryn. If you have any questions, please contact him at ( 703) 308 8172 and howard. markt@ epa. gov.

Sincerely,

Michael Goodis, Chief Reregistration Branch 3 Special Review and Reregistration Division Enclosure:

Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for Proposed Reregistration of Ametryn Use on Corn, Pineapple and Sugarcane ( Revised). November 17, 2004.