[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47988-47992]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22241]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0437; FRL-9969-32-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Adoption of Control Techniques Guidelines for Control of
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Miscellaneous Metal Parts
Surface Coating, Miscellaneous Plastic Parts Surface Coating, and
Pleasure Craft Surface Coatings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a revision to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania's state implementation plan (SIP). The revision includes
amendments to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's
(PADEP) regulations and addresses the requirement to adopt reasonably
available control technology (RACT) for sources covered by EPA's
control techniques guidelines (CTG) standards for the following
categories: Miscellaneous metal parts surface coating, miscellaneous
plastic parts surface coating, and pleasure craft surface coatings, as
well as related cleaning activities. The SIP revision also amends
regulations for graphic arts systems and mobile equipment repair and
refinishing as well as making general administrative changes. This
action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on December 15, 2017 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by November 15,
2017. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2017-0437 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory A. Becoat,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 18, 2016, PADEP submitted a
revision to the Pennsylvania SIP concerning the adoption of EPA's CTG
for miscellaneous metal parts surface coating processes, miscellaneous
plastic parts surface coating processes, and pleasure craft surface
coatings. Specifically, PADEP has amended 25 Pennsylvania Code (Pa.
Code) Chapter 129 (relating to standards for sources) to address RACT
and further reduce volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions in
Pennsylvania. In accordance with sections 172(c)(1), 182(b)(2)(A) and
184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA, Pennsylvania's SIP revision submittal
establishes VOC emission limitations and other requirements consistent
with the recommendations of EPA's 2008 Control Techniques Guidelines
for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings (MMPP) (Publication
No. EPA 453/R-08-003; September 2008) and Control Techniques Guidelines
for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings for these sources
in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Publication No. EPA 453/R-08-006).

I. Background

    Ground level ozone is formed in the atmosphere by photochemical
reactions between VOCs, nitrogen oxides (NOX), and carbon
monoxide (CO) in the presence of sunlight. In order to reduce ozone
concentrations in the ambient air, the CAA requires all nonattainment
areas to apply controls on VOC and NOX emission sources to
achieve emission reductions. Among effective control measures, RACT
controls significantly reduce VOC and NOX emissions from
major stationary sources. NOX and VOC are referred to as
ozone precursors and are emitted by many types of pollution sources,
including motor vehicles, power plants, industrial facilities, and area
wide sources, such as consumer products and lawn and garden equipment.
Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health effects occur
following exposure to ozone. These effects are more pronounced in
children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone
can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase
respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases.
    RACT is defined as the lowest emission limitation that a particular
source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology
that is reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility (44 FR 53761 at 53762, September 17, 1979). Section 182 of
the CAA sets forth two separate RACT requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas. The first requirement, contained in section
182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and referred to as RACT fix-up requires the
correction of RACT rules for which EPA identified deficiencies before
the CAA was amended in 1990. Pennsylvania previously corrected its
deficiencies under the 1-hour ozone standard and has no further
deficiencies to correct under this section of the CAA. The second
requirement, set forth in section 182(b)(2) of the CAA, applies to
moderate (or worse) ozone nonattainment area as well as to marginal and
attainment areas in ozone transport regions (OTRs) established pursuant
to section 184 of the CAA, and requires these areas to implement RACT
controls on all major VOC and NOX emission sources and on
all sources and source categories covered by a CTG issued by EPA.\1\
See CAA section 182(b)(2) and 184(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CTGs are documents issued by EPA intended to provide state
and local air pollution control authorities information to assist
them in determining RACT for VOC from various sources. The
recommendations in the CTG are based upon available data and
information and may not apply to a particular situation based upon
the circumstances. States can follow the CTG and adopt state
regulations to implement the recommendations contained therein, or
they can adopt alternative approaches. In either case, states must
submit their RACT rules to EPA for review and approval as part of
the SIP process. Pursuant to section 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA, all
areas in the OTR must implement RACT with respect to sources of VOCs
in the state covered by a CTG issued before or after November 15,
1990.

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

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated the health-based national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone based on 8-hour average
concentrations. 62 FR 38856. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), EPA
designated 37 counties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as 8-hour
ozone nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On March 27,
2008, EPA revised the 8-hour ozone standard to a new 0.075 parts per
million (ppm) level (73 FR 16436). On May 21, 2012, EPA finalized
designations for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (77 FR 30087). EPA
designated five areas in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as
nonattainment. These areas include all or a portion of Allegheny,
Armstrong, Berks, Beaver, Bucks, Butler, Carbon, Chester, Delaware,
Fayette, Lancaster, Lehigh, Montgomery, Northampton, Philadelphia,
Washington, and Westmoreland Counties. On October 26, 2015, EPA revised
the 8-hour ozone standard to a new 0.070 ppm level (80 FR 65292). This
rulemaking does not address SIP requirements under the 2015 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is in the OTR
established by Congress in CAA section 184 and is thus subject to
implementing RACT for all sources of VOC in the state covered by a CTG
issued before or after November 15, 2990 pursuant to CAA section
184(b)(1)(B).
    Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs for nonattainment
areas must include reasonably available control measures (RACM),
including RACT, for sources of emissions. Pursuant to section
184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA, regardless of an area's nonattainment status,
all areas in the OTR must implement RACT with respect to sources of
VOCs in the Commonwealth covered by a CTG issued before or after
November 15, 1990. In addition, pursuant to CAA section 184(b)(2),
unless more stringent nonattainment area requirements apply, stationary
sources in states or portions of a state within the OTR that emit at
least 50 tons per year of VOCs shall be considered major stationary
sources subject to requirements applicable to major stationary sources
as if the area were classified as a Moderate nonattainment area
including requirements for CTGs and RACT.
    Pennsylvania has implemented numerous RACT controls to meet the CAA
RACT requirements under the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These
RACT controls were promulgated in title 25 of the Pennsylvania Code,
chapter 129, Standards for Sources. In accordance with CAA section
184(b)(1)(B), to achieve and maintain the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, the Commonwealth Pennsylvania must continue to adopt and
implement VOC RACT emission control measures for source categories
covered by all CTGs issued by EPA, as of 2014, including miscellaneous
metal parts surface coating processes, miscellaneous plastic parts
surface coating processes, and pleasure craft surface coatings.
    CTGs are documents issued by EPA intended to provide state and
local air pollution control authorities information to assist them in
assessing RACT for VOC from various sources. Section 183(e)(3)(c)
provides that EPA may issue a CTG in lieu of a national regulation as
RACT for a product category where EPA determines that the CTG will be
substantially as effective as regulations in reducing emissions of VOC
in ozone nonattainment areas. The recommendations in the CTG are based
upon available data and information and may not apply to particular
situations based on unique circumstances. To date, EPA has issued 44
CTGs, providing guidelines for the control of VOC emissions from these
types of sources. States can follow the CTG and adopt state regulations
to implement the recommendations contained therein, or they can adopt
alternative approaches. In either case, states must submit their RACT
rules to EPA for review and approval as part of the SIP process.
    EPA developed the CTG for MMPP in September 2008 (Publication No.
EPA 453/R-08-003) that provides guidelines with regard to feasible
emission limitations and operating practices for a number of different
surface coatings used within this large and diverse source category.
The 2008 MMPP CTG recommends separate sets of emission limits for metal
parts coatings, plastic parts coatings, automotive/transportation and
business machine plastic parts, and pleasure craft, depending on the
type of coating used by a particular source. The miscellaneous metal
product and plastic parts surface coatings categories under section
183(e) of the CAA include the coatings that are applied to the surfaces
of a varied range of metal and plastic parts and products. Such parts
or products are constructed either entirely or partially from metal or
plastic. These miscellaneous metal products and plastic parts include,
but are not limited to, metal and plastic components of the following
types of products as well as the products themselves: Fabricated metal
products, molded plastic parts, small and large farm machinery,
commercial and industrial machinery and equipment, automotive or
transportation equipment, interior or exterior automotive parts,
construction equipment, motor vehicle accessories, bicycles and
sporting goods, toys, recreational vehicles, pleasure craft
(recreational boats), extruded aluminum structural components, railroad
cars, heavier vehicles, lawn and garden equipment, business machines,
laboratory and medical equipment, electronic equipment, steel drums,
metal pipes, and numerous other industrial and household products.
    The pleasure craft coating category does not include coatings that
are a part of other product categories listed under Section 183(e) of
the CAA for which CTGs have been published or included in other CTGs.
For pleasure craft surface coatings, EPA took into account California
regulations when developing the 2008 MMPP CTG. California was the only
state at that time with regulations governing VOC emissions from
pleasure craft surface coatings. After EPA finalized the 2008 MMPP CTG,
the pleasure craft coatings industry asserted to EPA that three of the
VOC emission limits in the CTG were too low considering the performance
requirements of the pleasure craft coatings and that the VOC emission
limits recommended did not represent RACT for the National pleasure
craft coatings industry. On September 14, 2009, EPA was contacted by
the pleasure craft coatings industry to reconsider some of the VOC
emission limits recommended in the final 2008 MMPP CTG. In response,
EPA issued a memorandum on June 1, 2010, entitled ``Control Technique
Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part Coatings--Industry
Request for Reconsideration,'' recommending that the pleasure craft
industry work with state agencies during their RACT rule development
process to assess what is reasonable for the specific sources
regulated. EPA has stated that states can use the recommendations from
the MMPP CTG to form their own determinations as to what constitutes
RACT for pleasure craft coating operations. CTGs impose no legally
binding requirements on any entity, including pleasure craft coating
facilities. As stated in the memorandum, EPA will evaluate state-
developed RACT rules and determine whether the submitted rules meet the
RACT requirements of the CAA.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On November, 18, 2016, PADEP submitted a SIP revision which adopted
the recommendations contained in the 2008 MMPP CTG with respect to
sources in the miscellaneous metal products coatings and plastic parts
coatings product categories. For the pleasure craft coating industry,
after evaluating what is reasonable for this source category, PADEP
determined that three VOC content limits applicable to the source
categories should be revised from the limits in the CTG to represent
RACT for the industry. This is based on EPA's memorandum that the
pleasure craft industry should work with state agencies during their
RACT rule development process to assess what is reasonable for the
specific sources regulated.
    The SIP revision includes an amendment to 25 Pa. Code Chapter 129--
(relating to standards for sources) as follows: (1) Amended section
129.51(a)--(relating to general) in order to extend applicability; (2)
added section 129.52(d)--``Control of VOC emissions from miscellaneous
metal parts surface coating processes, miscellaneous plastic parts
surface coating processes and pleasure craft surface coatings,'' in
order to regulate VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal parts surface
coating processes, miscellaneous plastic parts surface coating
processes and pleasure craft surface coatings; (3) amended section
129.52(g)--(relating to surface coating processes) in order to clarify
record keeping and reporting requirements; (4) added section 129.52(k)
in order to clarify the applicability of the requirements of section
129.52, Table I, Category 10 in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 129; (5) amended
section 129.67--(relating to graphic arts systems) in order to extend
applicability; and (6) amended section 129.75--(relating to mobile
equipment repair and refinishing) in order to specify exceptions for
those who apply surface coating to mobile equipment already subject to
requirements of sections 129.52 and 129.52(d). More detailed
information on these provisions as well as a detailed summary of EPA's
review and rationale for proposing to approve these SIP revisions can
be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action which
is available on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-
2017-0437.
    After evaluating this SIP revision submittal, EPA concludes that
this SIP submittal which addresses the 2008 MMPP CTG and makes other
related administrative changes, meets CAA requirements under sections
110, 172(c)(1), 182(b)(2)(A), and 184(b)(1) by adopting EPA's CTG and
continuing to address and minimize VOC emissions in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania as discussed in more detail in EPA's TSD for this
rulemaking action. PADEP is adopting the requirements as recommended by
the MMPPC CTG and adopting the pleasure craft industry recommendations
for the following three coating categories: Antifouling Sealer/Tiecoat;
Other Substrate Antifoulant; and Extreme High Gloss. For these three
categories, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania reviewed industry data and
determined that for the purpose of functionality, cost, and VOC
emissions, the alternative limits adopted for these three coating
categories constitute RACT. EPA concludes that Pennsylvania's approach
is consistent with the guidance memorandum entitled, ``Control
Technique Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part
Coatings--Industry Request for Reconsideration,'' and therefore,
concludes that these regulations reflect RACT given costs and VOC
emissions. The revised VOC content limits for the pleasure craft
surface coatings proposed by PADEP are expected to have a de minimis
impact on the amount of VOC emission reductions from the implementation
of the revised VOC limits due to having no facilities with the
potential to emit VOC emissions for pleasure craft surface coatings.
    EPA notes that under 25 Pa. Code section 129.52d, PADEP is allowing
the provisions of 25 Pa. Code section 129.52d to supersede the
requirements of a RACT permit previously issued under 25 Pa. Code
sections 129.91-129.95 if the permit was issued prior to January 1,
2017, to the owner or operator of a source subject to section
129.52d(a), except to the extent the RACT permit contains more
stringent requirements. EPA further notes that the RACT permits issued
under 25 Pa. Code sections 129.91-129.95 were issued for previous RACT
determinations on a case-by-case basis; these permits were then
submitted to EPA as source-specific SIP revisions and were previously
acted on by EPA and would have been approved into the Pennsylvania SIP.
If EPA approved those source-specific RACT determinations as meeting
the requirements of RACT under the CAA, then the permits associated
with those determinations were approved into the SIP as listed in 40
CFR 52.2020(d). The requirements of the source-specific RACT
determination which EPA approved into the Pennsylvania SIP remain
applicable requirements for the specific source unless and until
Pennsylvania seeks to remove the limits from the SIP in accordance with
CAA section 110(l). To the extent that the provisions of 25 Pa. Code
section 129.52d are more stringent than those of a previous SIP-
approved permit, PADEP will need to make a source-specific
determination as to whether the requirements of the previous RACT
permit apply, or those of section 129.52d, and submit that
determination to EPA as a SIP revision in order to remove the
previously approved permit from the SIP. Until such a SIP revision is
made, EPA cannot remove the source-specific permits from the SIP and
EPA is not taking such action in this rulemaking. Thus, the
requirements of a previously SIP-approved permit are not superseded
under the SIP. In accordance with section 110 of the CAA including
110(a) and 110(l), EPA determines that approval of this PADEP SIP
revision will not interfere with reasonable further progress,
attainment of any NAAQS or any other applicable CAA requirements.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's November 2016
SIP revision submittal, which adopts RACT requirements for
miscellaneous metal parts surface coating, miscellaneous plastic parts
surface coating, and pleasure craft surface coatings and which makes
other related administrative changes, as the revision meets
requirements in CAA sections 110, 172(c)(1), 182(b)(2)(A), and
184(b)(2). EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because
EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of this
Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve
as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are
filed. This rule will be effective on December 15, 2017 without further
notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 15, 2017. If EPA
receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so
at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of

this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of
the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are
not the subject of an adverse comment.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
Pennsylvania rule discussed in section II of this preamble. EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available
through http://www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region III Office
(please contact the person identified in the ``For Further Information
Contact'' section of this preamble for more information). Therefore,
these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP,
have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully
federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the
effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in
the next update to the SIP compilation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    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);
     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, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 15, 2017. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking action. This action, which approves Pennsylvania's SIP
revision adopting CTGs for miscellaneous metal parts surface coating,
miscellaneous plastic parts surface coating, and pleasure craft surface
coatings, as well as general administrative changes related to cleaning
activities, 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, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: September 27, 2017.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (c)(1) is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entries for Sections 129.51 and 129.52;
0
b. Adding an entry in numerical order for Section 129.52d; and
0
c. Revising the entries for Sections 129.67 and 129.75.
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional
        State citation             Title/ subject          State        EPA approval date     explanation/ Sec.
                                                      effective date                          52.2063 citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Title 25--Environmental Protection
                                           Article III--Air Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 129.51................  General.............        10/22/16  10/16/17, [Insert     Revised Section
                                                                       Federal Register      129.51(a).
                                                                       citation].
Section 129.52................  Surface coating             10/22/16  10/16/17, [Insert     Revised 129.52(g)
                                 processes.                            Federal Register      and added
                                                                       citation].            Subsection
                                                                                129.52(k).

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 129.52d...............  Control of VOCs from        10/22/16  10/16/17, [Insert     New section 129.52d
                                 Miscellaneous Metal                   Federal Register      is added. This
                                 Parts Surface                         citation].            section does not
                                 Coating Processes,                                          remove or replace
                                 Miscellaneous                                               any permits
                                 Plastic Parts                                               approved under
                                 Surface Coating                                             paragraph (d) of
                                 Processes and                                               this section.
                                 Pleasure Craft
                                 Surface Coatings.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 129.67................  Graphic arts systems        10/22/16  10/16/17, [Insert     Revised Subsection
                                                                       Federal Register      129.67(a)(1).
                                                                       citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 129.75................  Mobile equipment            10/22/16  10/16/17, [Insert     Revised Subsection
                                 repair and                            Federal Register      129.75(b)(1).
                                 refinishing.                          citation].            Previous approval 8/
                                                                                14/00 (c)(148).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-22241 Filed 10-13-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 105)]
[Notices]
[Page 26761]
[DOCID:fr03jn09-125]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending May 23,
2009

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of
Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation
Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1383 and 1384) and procedures governing
proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21
days after the filing of the application.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2009-0123.
    Date Filed: May 20, 2009.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject:
     PSC/RESO/143 dated 6 February 2009.
     Finally Adopted Resolutions & Recommended Practices r1-r44.
     PSC/MINS/026 dated 6 February 2009.
     Minutes.
    Intended effective date: 1 June 2009.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisiory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Alternate Federal
Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. E9-12959 Filed 6-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 190 (Wednesday, October 1, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59104-59105]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23394]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 200

[Release No. 34-73229]

Delegation of Authority to the Chief Financial Officer

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is
amending its rules to delegate to the Chief Financial Officer the
authority granted to the Commission by Section 21F(g)(4) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') to request that
the Secretary of the Treasury invest the portion of the Commission's
whistleblower reward fund that, in its discretion, is not required to
meet the current needs of the fund, and determine the maturities for
those investments suitable to the needs of the fund. These changes are
intended to streamline the operation of the Commission by delegating to
staff certain routine financial responsibilities.

DATES: Effective September 29, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Johnson, Chief Financial
Officer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or Caryn Kauffman, Deputy Chief Financial
Officer, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Discussion

    Section 21F(g)(1) of the Exchange Act establishes the Securities
and Exchange Commission Investor Protection Fund (``Fund''),\1\ which
is available to pay awards to whistleblowers (as provided in Section
21F(b)), and to fund certain activities of the Commission's Inspector
General.\2\ The Commission may request that the Secretary of the
Treasury invest the portion of the Fund that is not, in the discretion
of the Commission, required to meet the current needs of the Funds.\3\
The Secretary of the Treasury must invest such funds in obligation of
the United States, ``within maturities suitable to the needs of the
funds of the Fund as determined by the Commission on the record.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 14 U.S.C. 78u-6(g)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78u-6(g)(2).
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78u-6(g)(4)(A).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78u-6(g)(4)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is amending it rules to delegate to the Chief
Financial Officer the authority, in accordance with section 21F(g)(4),
to make requests to the Secretary of the Treasury to invest the Fund's
monies that are not, in his or her discretion, required to meet the
current needs of the Fund and to determine what maturities for these
investments are suitable to the needs of the Fund.
    The Office of Financial Management, headed by the Chief Financial
Officer, is responsible for managing the financial matters of the
Commission. In providing the Chief Financial Officer with the authority
to perform these additional functions, this amendment is intended to
streamline the efficient operation of the Commission.

II. Administrative Law Matters

    The Commission has determined that these amendments relate solely
to the agency's organization, procedure, or practice. Accordingly, the
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act regarding notice of
proposed rulemaking and opportunity for public participation are not
applicable.\5\ The Regulatory Flexibility Act, therefore, does not
apply.\6\ Because these rules relate solely to the agency's
organization, procedure, or practice and do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties, they are not subject
to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.\7\ Finally,
these amendments do not contain any collection of information
requirements as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as
amended.\8\ Further, because the amendments impose no new burdens on
private persons, the Commission does not believe that the amendments
will have any impact on competition for purposes of Section 23(a) (2)
of the Exchange Act.

Accordingly, the amendments are effective October 1, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
    \6\ 5 U.S.C. 601 through 612.
    \7\ 5 U.S.C. 804.
    \8\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statutory Authority

    The amendments to the Commission's rules are adopted pursuant to 15
U.S.C. 77o, 77s, 77sss, 77d, 78d-1, 78d-2, 78w, 78ll(d), 78mm, 80a-37,
80b-11, and 7202.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 200

    Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations
(Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government
agencies).

Text of Amendments

    In accordance with the preamble, the Commission hereby amends Title
17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 200--ORGANIZATION; CONDUCT AND ETHICS; AND INFORMATION AND
REQUESTS

SUBPART A--ORGANIZATION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 200, Subpart A, continues to read,
in part, as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77o, 77s, 77sss, 77d, 78d-1, 78d-2, 78o-4,
78w, 78ll(d), 78mm, 80a-37, 80b-11, 7202, and 7211 et seq. unless
otherwise noted.
* * * * *

0
2. Section 200.30-13 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows.

Sec.  200.30-13  Delegation of authority to Chief Financial Officer.

* * * * *
    (c) Pursuant to section 21F(g)(4) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u-6(g)(4)), the making of requests to the
Secretary of the Treasury to invest the portion of the Securities and
Exchange Commission Investor Protection Fund that is not, in his or her
discretion, required to meet the current needs of the fund, and the
determination of the maturities for those investments suitable to the
needs of the fund.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: September 26, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-23394 Filed 9-29-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 71642]
[DOCID:fr25no08-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP09-8-000]

Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Technical
Conference

November 19, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission will convene a technical conference
in the above-referenced proceeding on Thursday, December 11, 2008, at
10 a.m. (EDT), in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    The Commission's October 31, 2008 Order \1\ in Docket No. RP09-8-
000 directed that a technical conference be held to address the issues
raised by Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company's (Tuscarora) October 1,
2008 tariff filing. At the conference, Commission Staff and interested
persons will have the opportunity to discuss all of the issues raised
by Tuscarora's filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Tuscarora Gas Transmission Co., 125 FERC ] 61,133 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the required accommodations.
    All interested persons are permitted to attend. For further
information please contact Timothy Duggan at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-27917 Filed 11-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Structure Activity Relationship Analysis for Carcinogenicity The Structure Activity Relationship ( SAR) showed that the concern level for carcinogenic potential is low. According to the OncoLogic Cancer Expert System, there is a Low Moderate concern for para dichlorobenzene but the substituents of dicamba lower the concern to Low. A structurally similar chemical, 2,4 D, is negative for carcinogenicity with a negative Ames test but positive chromosomal aberration and CHO tests. Other structurally similar chemicals, 5 chlorosalicylic acid, dichlorobenzoic acid, and chlorobenzoic acid have negative Ames tests, but no carcinogenicity data are available.

OTHER TOXICOLOGY STUDIES Executive summaries for studies not described in the main body of the document are provided in the following pages.

In an acute neurotoxicity study ( MRID 42774104) groups of Crl: CD BR rats ( 10/ sex/ dose) received a single oral ( gavage) administration of dicamba ( 86.9%) in corn oil at doses of 0, 300, 600, or 1200 mg/ kg. Vehicle controls received corn oil only. Positive controls received acrylamide at 50 mg/ kg/ day by intraperitoneal injection on seven consecutive days. At 300 mg/ kg, transiently impaired respiration; rigidity upon handling, prodding or dropping; freezing of movement when touched; decreased arousal and fewer rears/ minute compared to controls; impairment of gait and righting reflex were observed in both sexes. In addition, males showed decreased forelimb grip strength. With the exception of the decrease in forelimb grip strength, which persisted until day seven, these effects were observed only on the day of dosing. In addition, at 600 mg/ kg, both sexes showed decreases in locomotor activity and males showed significant decreases in tail flick reflex and a raised posture when placed in an open field. These effects were also observed only on the day of dosing. At the highest dose level tested ( 1200 mg/ kg), both males and females showed an impaired startle response to an auditory stimulus. The effect was significant in males on day seven and in females on the day of dosing. In addition, males showed decreases in body weight ( 5  9%), body weight gain ( 24%) and food consumption ( 13% between days 0 and 7). The LOAEL was 300 mg/ kg based on the several neurologic signs listed above; a NOAEL was not established. The submitted study is classified as acceptable/ guideline and satisfies the Guideline requirements for an acute neurotoxicity screening battery in rats.

Subchronic Neurotoxicity Study in the Rat In a subchronic neurotoxicity study ( MRID No. 43245210), Sprague Dawley rats ( 10/ sex/ dose) were fed diets containing dicamba ( 86.9%) at 0, 3000, 6000, or 12000 ppm ( 0, 197.1, 401.4, 767.9 mg/ kg/ day for males and 0, 253.4, 472.0 or 1028.9 mg/ kg/ day for females, respectively) for 13 weeks. Neurobehavioral evaluations, consisting of FOB, locomotor activity, and auditory Dicamba Human Health Risk Assessment  Phase I Barcode: D317720 Page 53 of 70 startle response, were conducted at prestudy and during Weeks 4, 8 and 13. No toxicologically significant differences were noted in either the mean body weights or food consumption of the treated animals. Neurobehavioral evaluations at the 4, 8, and 13 week evaluations revealed abnormal FOB observations consisting of rigid body tone, slightly impaired righting reflex and impaired gait. At Week 13 the incidences of these findings were decreased. Rigid body tone was also noted during evaluation of the righting reflex and landing foot splay. The NOAEL was 401 mg/ kg/ day and the LOAEL was 768 mg/ kg/ day based on rigid body tone, slightly impaired righting reflex and impaired gait. The study is classified as acceptable/ guideline and satisfies the guideline requirements ( 870.6200b) for a subchronic neurotoxicity study in the rat.

21/ 28 Day Dermal Toxicity   Rat ( 870.3200)

In a 28 day dermal toxicity study ( MRID 45814501), Dicamba ( 91.0% a. i., batch # B2826511) was applied to the shaved skin of 10 male and 10 female Alpk: AP f SD rats / sex/ dose at dose levels of 0, 30, 300 or 1000 mg/ kg bw/ day, 6 hours/ day for 5 days/ week during a 28 day period.

Clinical observations, body weights and food consumption were measured throughout the study. Urine samples were taken for clinical pathology during week 4 of the study. A functional observational battery of all animals consisting of: detailed clinical observations, including quantitative assessments of landing foot splay, sensory perception and muscle weakness, and assessment of motor activity was performed on day 22. At the end of the scheduled period, the animals were killed and subjected to a post mortem examination. Blood samples were taken for clinical pathology, selected organs and specified tissues were taken for subsequent histopathological examination.

There were no changes indicative of systemic toxicity in either sex. There were no compound related effects in mortality, clinical signs, body weight, food consumption, hematology, clinical chemistry, organ weights, or gross and histologic pathology. Histopathological changes indicative of irritation were seen in skin from the application site in both sexes given 1000 or 300 mg/ kg/ day and in some males given 30 mg/ kg/ day. A LOAEL for systemic toxicity was not established. The NOAEL is 1000 mg/ kg/ day the highest dose tested.

This 28 day dermal toxicity study in the rat is acceptable/ guideline, and satisfies the guideline requirement for a 28 day dermal toxicity study ( OPPTS 870.3200 ; OECD 410) in the rat.

21/ 28 Day Dermal Toxicity   Rabbit ( 870.3200)

In a 21 day dermal study ( MRID 40547901), New Zealand white rabbits ( 5/ sex/ group) received 15 repeated dermal applications of Dicamba in deionized water at dose levels of 0, 40, 200, or 1000 mg/ kg/ day , 6 hours/ day, 5 days/ week over a three week period. No systemic toxicity was observed at any dose level. Dose related dermal irritation was observed at the application sites. Desquamation was seen predominantly in the 1000 mg/ kg/ day group while moderate erythema, moderate edema and atonia were observed exclusively in the 1000 mg/ kg/ day group. A doserelated incidence of fissuring was noted in the 200 and 1000 mg/ kg/ day groups. The severity of acanthosis and the incidence of hyperkeratosis was increased at these sites in rabbits at 200 and 1000 mg/ kg. For systemic toxicity, the NOEL was 1000 mg/ kg/ day ( HDT); a systemic LOEL Dicamba Human Health Risk Assessment  Phase I Barcode: D317720 Page 54 of 70 was not be established.

This 28 day dermal toxicity study in the rat is acceptable/ guideline, and satisfies the guideline requirement for a 21 day dermal toxicity study ( OPPTS 870.3200 ; OECD 410) in the rabbit.

Subchronic Oral Toxicity Rat ( 870.3100) In a 13 week subchronic toxicity study ( MRID 44623101), dicamba technical ( 89.4% a. i.) was administered to HanIbm: WIST ( Wistar) rats ( 10 or 20 rats/ sex/ dose) by feeding at dose levels of 0, 500, 3000, 6000, or 12,000 ppm ( equivalent to 0/ 0, 40.1/ 43.2, 238.7/ 266.4, 479.4/ 535.6, or 1000.0/ 1065.3 mg/ kg/ day [ M/ F]) for 13 weeks. Following 13 weeks of treatment, 10 rats/ sex/ dose were sacrificed. Rats ( 10/ sex) in the control and 12,000 ppm groups were maintained for a 4 week recovery period to determine the reversibility of effects.

No treatment related deaths were observed in any treatment group. The liver was the target organ, as evidenced by microscopic liver changes associated with clinical serum chemistry changes and increased relative ( to body) liver weights ( 820 23%) in both sexes at the high dose. The livers of the 12,000 ppm females exhibited slight centrolobular hepatocyte hypertrophy ( 4/ 10) and an increased incidence of minimal to moderate hepatocellular pigmentation ( 5/ 10). Both sexes exhibited increased alkaline phosphatase ( 862 76%), serum alanine aminotransferase ( 859 66%), and serum aspartate aminotransferase ( 829%) activities compared to the controls. Females exhibited an increase in mean gamma glutamyl transferase activity ( 8136%) while males showed a decrease activity ( 950%) compared to the controls.

Other effects observed in the 12,000 ppm rats were transient hypothermia ( weeks 1 4), reduced activity, slower movements, decreased food consumption, and less efficient food utilization than the controls throughout the treatment period. Lower mean final body weights ( 918 20%), body weight gains ( 928 40%) and adipose tissue content were observed compared to the controls. Decreases in protein ( 910 15%) and globulin ( 916 26%) levels were observed in both sexes. In females, decreased mean hemoglobin concentration ( 94%) and red blood cell counts ( 94%), and decreased mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration ( 93%) were observed. Significant ( p< 0.05 or p< 0.01) increases of white blood cell count ( 813%) and lymphocyte count ( 833%) were observed in 12000 ppm females compared to the controls. Males had a lower mean platelet count ( 97%) and shorter partial thromboplastin time ( 911%) compared to the controls. Urinalysis showed that males excreted more triple phosphate crystals in the 12000 ppm group, whereas females excreted more uric acid crystals in the 12000 and 6000 ppm groups at week 12. Following a 4 week recovery period, all observed effects were recovered.

The LOAEL for this study is 12,000 ppm ( 1000 mg/ kg/ day), based on clinical signs, reduced body weight gains, hematological and clinical serum chemistry changes in both sexes, centrolobular hepatocyte hypertrophy and hepatocellular pigmentation in females, and increased relative ( to body) liver weights for both sexes. The NOAEL is 6000 ppm ( 479 mg/ kg/ day). Dicamba Human Health Risk Assessment  Phase I Barcode: D317720 Page 55 of 70 This 13 week subchronic toxicity study is classified acceptable/ guideline ( 870.3100) and satisfies the guideline requirement for a subchronic toxicity study in rodents.

Chronic Toxicity  Dog ( 870.4100b)

In a chronic oral toxicity study ( MRID 40321102), dicamba ( 86.8, a. i., lot # 52625110) was administered to beagle dogs ( 4/ sex/ group) in diet at dose levels of 0, 100, 500, or 2500 ppm ( 0, 2, 11, or 52 mg/ kg/ day, respectively) for one year.

The investiagated parameters in this study, which included behavior, mortality, body weight, food consumption, hematology, serum chemistry, urinalysis as well as macroscopic and histologic examination of tissues, did not reveal any apparent adverse effect from the test compound. Therefore, the NOAEL for dicamba was 2500 ppm in the diet ( about 52 mg/ kg/ day), the highest dosage administered in this test; the absence of any adverse effects among treated animals indicated that the MTD was not attained.

This one year dog study is classified Acceptable/ Guideline and satisfies the guideline requirement for a chronic toxicity study in dogs.

Metabolism  Rat ( 870.7485)

In a plasma kinetics study, ( MRID 44609801), [ phenyl U 14C] dicamba ( [ 14C] dicamba; 86.0% a. i. radiochemical purity), was administered as a dietary admix to 4 male and 4 female Wistar and Sprague Dawley at 900, 1500, 3000, 4500, and 12000 ppm ( Wistar rats) and 900, 1500, 3000, 6000 and 9000 ppm ( Sprague Dawley rats) for fourteen days, followed by a radioactive dose of 90, 150, 300, 450 mg/ kg bw ( Wistar rats) and 75, 125, 250, 500 and 800 mg/ kg bw by a single gavage dose ( in 10 ml/ kg body weight 0.5% Tylose CB 30.000 in aqua bidest). Plasma levels were measured at various time intervals following radioactive dose.

A preliminary study in Wistar rats suggests excessive toxicity following repeated gavage doses. Therefore, the main study in both strains of rats was conducted as a dietary ad mix followed by a gavage dose of radiolabeled dicamba. In both strains of rats, the plasma levels reached a maximum level after 0.5 1 hour following the gavage dose and declined thereafter. The AUC 0 4 values were calculated from the plasma concentrations versus time curves at the respective dose levels indicated linear relationship with increase in dose up to a certain dose levels in both strains of rats indicating saturation of excretion. Initial plasma half life was increased with increasing dose, but terminal half life remains more or less constant in both strains of rats indicating saturation of excretion. Plasma half life was increased with increasing dose giving no indication of saturation of oral absorption.

In Wistar rats, the increase in plasma AUC was linear with dose up to a level of 150 mg/ kg bw in males and 300 mg/ kg bw in females. Above these dose levels, plasma AUC values increased more than dose. Sprague Dawley rats showed similar results, with the increase in AUC being linear with dose up to a level of 125 and 250 mg/ kg bw in males and females, respectively. Above these dose Dicamba Human Health Risk Assessment  Phase I Barcode: D317720 Page 56 of 70 levels, plasma AUC values increased more than dose. Considering that oral absorption was not saturated and that initial plasma levels went up with dose, the disproportionate increase in plasma AUC is clearly due to saturation of renal excretion of dicamba resulting in a longer plasma half life. This is supported by half life data in both species which showed an increase in plasma half life with dose.

This plasma kinetics study in the rats is classified Acceptable/ Nonguideline ( § 85 1).

Metabolism  Rat ( 870.7485)

In a plasma pharmacokinetic study ( MRID 46022302), five groups of 4 male and 4 female Wistar rats received diets containing the equivalent of 50, 100, 200, 400, or 800 mg/ kg dicamba/ day for 90 days ( Lot No. 52103810, 87.2% a. i.) . On study days 29, 63, and 91, dietary supplementation of dicamba was stopped and rats in each group received an equivalent gavage dose of 14C dicamba ( Lot No. 787 0102, > 99% a. i., universally labeled in the phenyl group). Blood samples were drawn 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, and 48 hours after treatment and the plasma radioactivity determined.

Absorption of the radiolabeled test material was rapid, with peak plasma concentrations found within 2 hours of treatment. Absorption was not saturated, even at the highest dose, as indicated by increasing plasma concentrations with dose. However, the increase in plasma concentration was disproportionate from dose as shown by the $ 2 fold increase in AUC from one dose group to the next at doses > 100 mg/ kg. Elimination of radiolabel from the plasma was tri phasic, with the terminal phase consistent between doses. However, the initial elimination phase increased with dose, particularly in the 400 and 800 mg/ kg dose groups and is consistent with excretion saturation. No significant treatment related differences between the sexes or time of radiolabel administration were found.

This plasma pharmacokinetic study in the rat is classified Acceptable/ Nonguideline and satisfies its intent.

Metabolism  Rat ( 870.7485)

In a pharmacokinetic study ( MRID 46022303), two groups of 3 male Wistar rats were given a single 200 mg/ kg gavage dose of 14C dicamba ( Lot No. 787 0102, > 99% a. i., universally labeled in the phenyl group). One group of rats was pretreated with a 150 mg/ kg IP dose of probenecid , a known competitive inhibitor of renal anion transport, 30 minutes prior to dicamba dosing. Blood samples were drawn 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, and 48 hours after gavage treatment and the plasma radioactivity determined.

The time to peak plasma concentration in rats treated with 14C dicamba occurred within 0.5 hours while peak plasma concentration was reached at 1.0 hour in the probenecid/ dicamba rats. However pretreatment with probenecid increased plasma AUC by a factor of 1.54. Although the terminal phase of elimination remained relatively the same, the initial and intermediate elimination phases were increased by a factor of two. These data suggest that both dicamba and probenecid, act as inhibitors of renal anion transport. Dicamba Human Health Risk Assessment  Phase I Barcode: D317720 Page 57 of 70 This pharmacokinetic study in the rat ( MRID 46022303) is classified Acceptable/ Nonguideline and satisfies its intent. Dicamba Human Health Risk Assessment  Phase I Barcode: D317720 Page 58 of 70 Appendix B: Use Profile Table B. 1 Dicamba Use Profile ( 8/ 2/ 2005)

Use Sites Forms1 Max Application Rate ( Unit/ Area) Max Application Rate ( year)

Non Food/ Non Feed Uses Agricultural Fallow/ Idleland ( Non crop) Dimethylamine Salt 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Agricultural rights ofway fencerows/ hedgerows ( Non crop) 2 Dimethylamine Salt, Sodium Salt 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A)

7.7 ( lbs a. e./ A) 7.7 ( lbs a. e./ A)

Agricultural Uncultivated Areas ( Non crop) Dimethylamine Salt 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Agricultural/ Farm Structures/ Buildings and Equipment ( Non crop) Dimethylamine Salt 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Airports/ Landing Fields ( Non crop) Dimethylamine Salt 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Commercial/ Industrial Lawns ( Non crop) Dimethylamine Salt 1.0 ( lbs a. i./ A) 1.0 ( lbs a. i./ A) year Commercial/ Institutional/ Industrial Premises/ Equipment ( Noncrop Dimethylamine Salt 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Drainage Systems ( Noncrop Dimethylamine Salt, DGA 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Fencerows/ Hedgerows ( Noncrop Dimethylamine Salt 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Forest Plantings ( reforestation programs)( tree farms, tree plantations, etc) ( Non crop) Dimethylamine Salt 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Forest Trees ( Non crop) Dimethylamine Salt, DGA 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Golf Course Turf Dimethylamine Salt, DGA 1.0 ( lbs a. i./ A) 1.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Household Domestic Dwellings ( Non crop) Dimethylamine Salt 1.0 ( lbs a. i./ A) 1.0 ( lbs a. i./ A) year Industrial Areas ( Outdoor) ( Non crop) Dimethylamine Salt, DGA 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Dicamba Human Health Risk Assessment  Phase I Barcode: D317720 Table B. 1 Dicamba Use Profile ( 8/ 2/ 2005)

Use Sites Forms1 Max Application Rate ( Unit/ Area) Max Application Rate ( year)

Page 59 of 70 Nonagricultural Outdoor Buildings/ Structures ( Noncrop Dimethylamine Salt 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Nonagricultural Rights ofway Fencerows/ Hedgerows ( Non crop) Dimethylamine Salt, Sodium Salt, DGA 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Nonagricultural Uncultivated Area/ Soils ( Non crop) Dimethylamine Salt, DGA 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Ornamental Lawns and Turf Dimethylamine Salt, Sodium Salt, DGA 1.0 ( lbs a. i./ A) 1.0 ( lbs a. i../ A) year Ornamental Sod Farm Dimethylamine Salt, DGA 1.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) 1.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Paths/ Patios ( Non crop) Dimethylamine Salt 2.0 ( lbs a. e/ A) 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Paved Areas ( Private Roads/ Sidewalks ( Non crop) Dimethylamine Salt 2.0 ( lbs a. e/ A) 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Recreation Area Lawns Dimethylamine Salt, DGA 1.0 ( lbs a. i./ A) 1.0 ( lbs a. i./ A) year Recreational Areas Dimethylamine Salt, DGA 1.0 ( lbs a. i./ A) 1.0 ( lbs a. i./ A) year Residential Lawns Dimethylamine Salt 1.0 ( lbs a. i./ A) 1.0 ( lbs a. i./ A) year Urban Areas ( Non crop) Dimethylamine Salt 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Food/ Feed Uses Agricultural Crops/ Soils Dimethylamine Salt, Sodium Salt 2.0 ( lbs a. e/ A) 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Agricultural Fallow/ Idleland All 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Agricultural/ Farm Premises Dimethylamine Salt, DGA 1.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) 1.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Agricultural/ Farm Structures/ Buildings and Equipment Dimethylamine Salt 1.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) 1.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Asparagus Dimethylamine Salt, Sodium Salt, DGA 0.5 ( lbs a. e./ A) 0.5 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Barley Dimethylamine Salt, Sodium Salt, DGA, IPA 0.25 ( lbs a. e./ A) 0.38 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Corn ( field, pop, seed, silage) Dimethylamine Salt, Sodium Salt, DGA, Potassium Salt 0.5 ( lbs a. e./ A) 0.75 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Cotton Dimethylamine Salt, DGA 0.25 ( lbs a. e./ A) 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) Dicamba Human Health Risk Assessment  Phase I Barcode: D317720 Table B. 1 Dicamba Use Profile ( 8/ 2/ 2005)

Use Sites Forms1 Max Application Rate ( Unit/ Area) Max Application Rate ( year)

Page 60 of 70 1. There are 5 forms of dicamba used in this Master Label: Dimethylamine Salt ( PC Code 29802), Sodium Salt ( PC Code 29806), Diglycoamine [ DGA] ( PC Code 128931), Isopropylamine Salt [ IPA] ( PC Code 128944), and Potassium Salt ( PC Code 129043)

2. Label 100 884 list 7.7 lbs a. e./ A as the maximum rate for spot treatment for Agricultural right of way uses. The 2.0 lbs a. e./ A is what the registrant stated at the SMART Meeting as the rate they intended to support.

3. Based on label 51036 289 and 7969 131 4. Label 100 884 list 7.7 lbs a. e./ A as the maximum rate for spot treatment for pasture uses. The 2.0 lbs a. e./ A is what the registrant stated at the SMART Meeting as the rate they intended to support.

5. Label 100 884 list 7.7 lbs a. e./ A as the maximum rate for spot treatment for rangeland uses. The 2.0 lbs a. e./ A is what the registrant stated at the SMART Meeting as the rate they intended to support. Hay Dimethylamine Salt, Sodium Salt, DGA 2.03 ( lbs a. e./ A) 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Millet ( Proso) Dimethylamine Salt 0.125 ( lbs a. e/ A) 0.125 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Oats Dimethylamine Salt, Sodium Salt, DGA 0.125 ( lbs a. e./ A) 1.0 ( lbs a. e/ A) year Pastures4 Dimethylamine Salt, Sodium Salt, DGA 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year 7.7 ( lbs a. e/ A) 7.7 ( lbs a. e/ A) year Rangeland5 Dimethylamine Salt, Sodium Salt, DGA 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year 7.7 ( lbs a. e./ A 7.7 ( lbs a. e/ A) year Rye Dimethylamine Salt 0.5 ( lbs a. e./ A) 1.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Sorghum All .2748 ( lbs a. e./ A) 0.5 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Soybean Sodium Salt, DGA 2.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) 2.0 ( lbs a. e/ A) year Sudangrass Dimethylamine Salt 0.5 ( lbs a. e./ A) As listed for Hay. 1.0 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Sugarcane Dimethylamine Salt, Sodium Salt, DGA 2.8 ( lbs a. e./ A) 2.8 ( lbs a. e./ A) year Wheat Dimethylamine Salt, Sodium Salt, DGA, IPA 0.5 ( lbs a. e./ A) 1.0 ( lbs a. e./ A ) year Dicamba Human Health Risk Assessment  Phase I Barcode: D317720 Page 61 of 70 Appendix C: TOLERANCE REASSESSMENT SUMMARY The established tolerances for dicamba are listed in 40 CFR § 180.227. There are three dicamba tolerance expressions. Under 40 CFR § 180.227 ( a)( 1), the tolerances are expressed in terms of the combined residues of the herbicide dicamba ( 3,6 dichloro o anisic acid) and its metabolite 3,6 dichloro 5 hydroxy o anisic acid. The tolerances listed in 40 CFR § 180.227 ( a)( 2) are expressed in terms of the combined residues of dicamba and its metabolite 3,6 dichloro 2 hydroxybenzoic acid. Finally, the tolerances listed in 40 CFR § 180.227 ( a)( 3) are expressed in terms of the combined residues of dicamba and its metabolites 3,6 dichloro 5 hydroxy o anisic acid and 3,6 dichloro 2 hydroxybenzoic acid.

The results of plant and animal metabolism studies suggest that the various tolerance expressions for dicamba are appropriate. The results of a confined rotational crop study indicate that tolerances need not be established for rotational crops pending label revisions to specify appropriate rotational crop restrictions.

A summary of the tolerance reassessment and recommended modifications in commodity definitions for dicamba is presented in Table C1.

Tolerances Established Under CFR § 180.227 ( a)( 1)

Pending label revisions and/ or adjustment of tolerances, there are adequate residue data to reassess the tolerances for: barley, grain, hay, and straw; corn, field, grain, forage, and stover; grass forage and hay; wheat grain, straw, forage and hay; and sorghum grain, forage, and stover.

The submitted data for many commodities do not support the established tolerances because they do not reflect the maximum use rates listed in Dicamba Master Use Profile. To fulfill reregistration requirements, the registrant are required to submit additional data for sugarcane. In lieu of submitting additional data, the registrants are given the option to rely on the available data provided they revise their product labels for consistency with the reviewed data.

HED will allow the translation of available/ requested data from some crop commodities to agronomically related commodities with identical uses. Where this situation exists, any HED recommendations with regards to label revision and tolerance reassessment should apply to both crop commodities. The following translations have been made in this Residue Chemistry Chapter: ( i) data from field corn grain and stover may be translated to pop corn grain and stover; ( ii) data from wheat grain may be translated to proso millet grain and rye grain; ( iii) data from wheat forage, hay, and straw may be translated to oat forage, hay, and straw; and ( iv) data from wheat straw may be translated to proso millet straw Pending submission of supporting storage stability data, an acceptable sugarcane processing study is available to reassess the established tolerance for sugarcane molasses. When the maximum HAFT combined residue level ( 0.183 ppm) of the RAC is multiplied by the observed concentration factor for sugarcane molasses ( 24.4x), the resulting level is 4.465 ppm which is higher than the current tolerance of 2.0 ppm. Based on these data, HED recommends that the tolerance for sugarcane molasses be increased from 2.0 ppm to 5.0 ppm, toxicological considerations permitting. Dicamba Human Health Risk Assessment  Phase I Barcode: D317720 Page 62 of 70 The Agency no longer considers sugarcane forage and fodder to be significant livestock feed items, and these items have been deleted from Table 1 of OPPTS 860.1000. Therefore, the respective tolerances should be revoked.

The generic " corn, forage" tolerance should be revoked since a separate tolerance for field corn forage is established. The generic " corn, stover" tolerance should be revoked since separate tolerances are established for field corn stover and pop corn stover. The generic " corn, grain" tolerance should be split into: " corn, field, grain" and " corn, pop, grain".

Tolerances Needed Under CFR § 180.227 ( a)( 1)

Tolerances are needed for proso millet forage and hay. The available/ requested data for wheat forage and hay may be translated to proso millet forage and hay.

Tolerances are needed for rye grain, forage, and straw. The available/ requested data for wheat grain, forage, and straw may be translated to rye grain, forage, and straw.

Tolerances Established Under CFR § 180.227 ( a)( 2)

Pending label revisions and/ or adjustment of tolerance, there are adequate data to reassess the established tolerance for asparagus.

A ruminant feeding study conducted at a dosing level of 1000 ppm is under review. Assuming this study is adequate sufficient data are available to reassess the established ruminant tolerances.

Tolerances Established Under CFR § 180.227 ( a)( 3)

There are adequate data to reassess the tolerances for soybean seed and soybean hulls.

An acceptable soybean processing study is available to reassess the established tolerance for soybean hulls. When the HAFT combined residue level ( 7.44 ppm) for the RAC is multiplied by the observed concentration factor for soybean hulls ( 3.8x), the resulting level is 28.272 ppm which suggests that the existing tolerance of 13.0 ppm needs an upward adjustment. Based on these data, HED recommends that the tolerance for soybean hulls be increased from 13.0 ppm to 30.0 ppm.

There are adequate residue data on the aspirated grain fractions of sorghum, soybean, and wheat and may be translated to corn.

Tolerances That May Be Needed Under CFR § 180.227 ( a)( 3)

It is the current Agency policy to allow label restrictions on the feeding/ grazing of livestock animals on soybean forage and hay, thus, precluding the need for residue data and tolerances for these soybean commodities. HED defers to RD for verifying whether such restrictions exist on product labels. If such restrictions appear on the labels, then residue data and tolerances for soybean forage and hay are not necessary. If no such restrictions appear on the labels, then the Dicamba Human Health Risk Assessment  Phase I Barcode: D317720 Page 63 of 70 registrants are required to propose tolerances for soybean forage and hay; based on the available data, a tolerance level of 0.1 ppm would be appropriate for each soybean commodity. Concomitant with these tolerance proposals, the registrants are required to propose a maximum seasonal rate of 0.5 lb ae/ A for preplant application on soybean grown for forage and hay only.

Pending Tolerance Petition:

PP# 6E06209: Interregional Research Project No. 4 ( IR 4) has submitted a petition, on behalf of the Agricultural Experiment Stations of MN, ND and WI, proposing the following permanent tolerances for the combined residues of the herbicide dicamba and its 5 hydroxy ( 5 OH) metabolite ( 3,6 dichloro  5 hydroxy o anisic acid) in/ on: sweet corn forage at 1.0 ppm, fresh sweet corn at 0.1 ppm, and sweet corn stover at 1.0 ppm. HED's evaluation of residue data and analytical methods ( DP Barcode D275611, 7/ 26/ 2001, G. Kramer) concluded that additional field residue trials need to be conducted and a revised Section F must be submitted before a favorable recommendation can be made.

Codex/ International Harmonization No Codex MRLs have been established for dicamba; therefore, issues of compatibility between Codex MRLs and U. S. tolerances do not exist. Compatibility cannot be achieved with the Canadian negligible residue limits or with Mexican MRLs because these levels are expressed in terms of parent compound only. Dicamba Human Health Risk Assessment  Phase I Barcode: D317720 Page 64 of 70 Table 9. Tolerance Reassessment Summary for Dicamba.

Commodity Current Tolerance ( ppm) Reassessed Tolerance ( ppm) Comments/

Correct commodity definition Dicamba Tolerances Listed Under 40 CFR § 180.227 ( a)( 1)

[ Expressed in terms of the combined residues of dicamba and its metabolite 3,6 dichloro 5 hydroxy o anisic acid]

Barley, grain 6.0 6.0 Barley, hay 2.0 2.0 Barley, straw 15.0 15.0 Corn, field, forage 3.0 3.0 The combined residues ranged from < 0.01 to 2.27 ppm in/ on field corn forage harvested 39 71 days following the last of three sequential treatments for a total of 2.75 lb ae/ A. The combined residues ranged from < 0.01 to 2.45 ppm in/ on field corn fodder harvested 66 123 days following same sequential treatments.

Corn, field, stover 3.0 3.0 Corn, forage 0.5 Revoke The generic " corn, forage" tolerance should be revoked since a separate tolerance for field corn forage is established.

Corn, grain 0.5 0.1 The combined residues ranged from < 0.01 to 0.015 ppm in/ on field corn grain samples harvested 69 123 days following the last of three sequential treatments for a total of 2.75 lb ae/ A. The generic " corn, grain" tolerance should be split into: " corn, field, grain"; and " corn, pop, grain".

Corn, pop, stover, 3.0 3.0 HED will allow the translation of available data for field corn stover to pop corn stover. Any label revision for field corn should also be made for pop corn.

Concurrently, any adjustment to the field corn stover tolerance should also be applied as necessary to the pop corn stover tolerance.

Corn, stover 0.5 Revoke The generic " corn, stover" tolerance should be revoked since separate tolerances are established for field corn stover and pop corn stover.

Cotton, undelinted seed 5.0 TBD Cotton, meal 5.0 TBD Dicamba Human Health Risk Assessment  Phase I Barcode: D317720 Table 9. Tolerance Reassessment Summary for Dicamba.

Commodity Current Tolerance ( ppm) Reassessed Tolerance ( ppm) Comments/

Correct commodity definition Page 65 of 70 Crop Group 17 ( grass forage, fodder, and hay) The combined residues ranged 66 358 ppm in/ on grass forage samples harvested immediately ( 0 day) following a single application at 2.0 lb ae/ A ( 1x). The combined residues ranged 25 201 ppm in/ on grass hay samples harvested 7 days following a single application 1x. Based on these data, HED is reassessing the grass forage tolerance at 400 ppm and the grass hay tolerance at 250 ppm.

Concomitant with the reassessment of these tolerances, HED is requesting RD to verify that all dicamba labels specify a 0 day PHI/ PGI for grass forage and a 7

day PHI for grass hay when applied at a maximum of 2.0 lb ae/ A.

 Grass forage 125.0 400  Grass hay 200.0 250 Millet, proso, grain 0.5 2.0 HED will allow the translation of available/ requested data for wheat grain and straw to proso millet grain and straw since the Dicamba Master Use Profile indicates that the application rate of the two crops is identical. Any label revision for wheat should also be made for proso millet. Concurrently, any adjustment to the wheat grain and straw tolerances should also be applied as necessary to the proso millet grain and straw tolerances.

Millet, proso, straw 0.5 TBD Oat, grain 0.5 2.0 HED will allow the translation of available/ requested data for wheat grain to oat grain since the Dicamba Master Use Profile indicates that the application rate of the two crops is identical.

Oat, forage 80.0 2.0 HED will allow the translation of available/ requested data for wheat forage, hay,

and straw to oat forage, hay, and straw since the Dicamba Master Use Profile indicates that the application rate of the two crops is identical.

Oat, hay 20.0 TBD Oat, straw 0.5 30 Sorghum, grain 3.0 4.0 The maximum combined residues were 2.73 ppm ( MRID 43245203) and 3.164 ppm ( MRID 44089306) in/ on sorghum grain harvested 30 42 days following sequential treatments for a total rate of 0.5 lb ae/ A ( 1x the maximum rate listed in the Dicamba Master Use Profile). These data suggest that the established tolerance for sorghum grain may be too low. Based on the reviewed data, HED is recommending a tolerance level of 4.0 ppm for sorghum grain concomitant with label revision to specify a 30 day PHI. Dicamba Human Health Risk Assessment  Phase I Barcode: D317720 Table 9. Tolerance Reassessment Summary for Dicamba.

Commodity Current Tolerance ( ppm) Reassessed Tolerance ( ppm) Comments/

Correct commodity definition Page 66 of 70 Sorghum, forage 3.0 0.5 The maximum combined residues were 0.46 ppm ( MRID 43245203) and 0.350 ppm ( MRID 44089306) in/ on sorghum forage samples harvested 20 72 days following a single postemergence application at 0.25 lb ae/ A ( 0.5x the seasonal rate listed in the Dicamba Master Use Profile). The maximum combined residues were 8.22 ppm ( MRID 43245203) and 4.29 ppm ( MRID 44089306) in/ on sorghum fodder ( stover) samples collected at PHIs of 30 42 days following the last of two applications for a total rate of 0.5 lb ae/ A ( 1x). These data suggest that the established tolerance for sorghum forage may be too high and the tolerance for fodder too low. Based on these data, HED is recommending tolerance levels of 0.5 ppm for sorghum forage and 10.0 ppm for sorghum stover concomitant with the following recommended label revisions: ( i) a 20 day PHI and a maximum single/ seasonal rate of 0.25 lb ae/ A for sorghum forage; and ( ii)

a 30 day PHI for sorghum fodder ( stover) at a maximum seasonal rate of 0.5 lb ae/ A.

Sorghum, grain, stover 3.0 10 Sugarcane, cane 0.1 TBD 1 The available data do not support the maximum seasonal single/ yearly rate of 2.8 lb ae/ A that is listed in the Dicamba Master Use Profile because the sugarcane trials were conducted at an application rate of 2.0 lb ae/ A. The maximum combined residues were 0.202 ppm in/ on sugarcane harvested 87 173 days following a single layby application at 2.0 lb ae/ A.

The registrants are required to submit additional data on sugarcane reflecting a maximum single/ yearly rate of 2.8 lb ae/ A. Alternatively, the registrants may rely on the available data provided they are willing to revise their product labels for consistency with the reviewed data. If the registrants elect to choose the latter option, then they will be required to revise product labels to specify a maximum seasonal rate of 2.0 lb ae/ A and an 87 day PHI for sugarcane. Based on the reviewed data, the existing tolerance of 0.1 ppm for sugarcane is too low, and HED is recommending that it be reassessed at 0.3 ppm if the registrants elect to revise product labels as detailed above.

Sugarcane, fodder 0.1 Revoke These items are no longer regulated and have been removed from Table 1 of OPPTS 860.1000.

Sugarcane, forage 0.1 Revoke Dicamba Human Health Risk Assessment  Phase I Barcode: D317720 Table 9. Tolerance Reassessment Summary for Dicamba.

Commodity Current Tolerance ( ppm) Reassessed Tolerance ( ppm) Comments/

Correct commodity definition Page 67 of 70 Sugarcane, molasses 2.0 5.0 When the maximum HAFT combined residue level ( 0.183 ppm) of the RAC is multiplied by the observed concentration factor for sugarcane molasses ( 24.4x),

the resulting level is 4.465 ppm which is higher than the current tolerance of 2.0 ppm. Based on these data, HED recommends that the tolerance for sugarcane molasses be increased from 2.0 ppm to 5.0 ppm, pending submission of supporting storage stability data.

Wheat, forage 80.0 TBD Additional data are currently under review.

Wheat, grain 2.0 2.0 The combined residues were < 0.01 to 0.15 ppm in/ on samples of wheat grain harvested 63 125 days following one spring broadcast application at 0.25 lb ae/ A.

The combined residues were 0.039 to 1.4 ppm in/ on grain samples harvested 6 12 days following the last of two treatments for a total of 0.5 lb ae/ A.

Wheat, hay 20.0 TBD Additional data are currently under review.

Wheat, straw 30.0 30.0 The combined residues were 0.011 to 0.97 ppm in/ on samples of wheat straw harvested 63 125 days following one spring broadcast application at 0.25 lb ae/ A.

The combined residues were 0.13 to 26 ppm in/ on straw samples harvested 6 12 days following the last of two treatments for a total of 0.5 lb ae/ A.

Dicamba Tolerances Needed Under 40 CFR § 180.227( a)( 1)

Millet, proso, forage None TBD HED will allow the translation of available/ requested data for wheat forage and hay to proso millet forage and hay since the Dicamba Master Use Profile indicates that the application rate for wheat is slightly higher than millet.

Millet, proso, hay None TBD Rye, grain None 2.0 HED will allow the translation of available/ requested data for wheat grain,

forage, and straw to rye grain, forage, and straw since the Dicamba Master Use Profile indicates that the yearly application rate of the two crops is identical.

Rye, forage None TBD Rye, straw None 30.0 Dicamba Tolerances Listed in 40 CFR § 180.227 ( a)( 2)

[ Expressed in terms of the combined residues of dicamba and its metabolite 3,6 dichloro 2 hydroxybenzoic acid]

Asparagus 4.0 4.0 Th combined residues ranged 0.28 3.29 ppm in/ on asparagus samples harvested 24 hours following a single application at 1x the maximum rate listed in the Dicamba Master Use Profile. These data support the currently established tolerance of 4.0 ppm on asparagus pending verification by RD that the label PHI for asparagus is 24 hours or 1 day. Dicamba Human Health Risk Assessment  Phase I Barcode: D317720 Table 9. Tolerance Reassessment Summary for Dicamba.

Commodity Current Tolerance ( ppm) Reassessed Tolerance ( ppm) Comments/

Correct commodity definition Page 68 of 70 Cattle, fat 0.2 0.3 Reassessed values are based on a new ruminant feeding study currently under review.

Cattle, kidney 1.5 25 Reassessed values are based on a new ruminant feeding study currently under review.

Cattle, liver 1.5 Revoke Residues in liver will be covered by redefined meat by products tolerance.

Cattle, meat byproducts 0.2 3.0 Cattle, meat by products, except kidney. Reassessed values are based on a new ruminant feeding study currently under review.

Cattle, meat 0.2 0.25 Reassessed values are based on a new ruminant feeding study currently under review.

Goat, fat 0.2 0.3 Reassessed values are based on a new ruminant feeding study currently under review.

Goat, kidney 1.5 25 Reassessed values are based on a new ruminant feeding study currently under review.

Goat, liver 1.5 Revoke Residues in liver will be covered by redefined meat by products tolerance.

Goat, meat byproducts 0.2 3.0 Goat, meat by products, except kidney Goat, meat 0.2 0.25 Reassessed values are based on a new ruminant feeding study currently under review.

Hog, fat 0.2 0.3 Reassessed values are based on a new ruminant feeding study currently under review.

Hog, kidney 1.5 25 Reassessed values are based on a new ruminant feeding study currently under review.

Hog, liver 1.5 Revoke Residues in liver will be covered by redefined meat by products tolerance.

Hog, meat byproducts 0.2 3.0 Hog, meat by products, except kidney Hog, meat 0.2 0.25 Reassessed values are based on a new ruminant feeding study currently under review.

Horse, fat 0.2 0.3 Reassessed values are based on a new ruminant feeding study currently under review. Dicamba Human Health Risk Assessment  Phase I Barcode: D317720 Table 9. Tolerance Reassessment Summary for Dicamba.

Commodity Current Tolerance ( ppm) Reassessed Tolerance ( ppm) Comments/

Correct commodity definition Page 69 of 70 Horse, kidney 1.5 25 Reassessed values are based on a new ruminant feeding study currently under review.

Horse, liver 1.5 Revoke Residues in liver will be covered by redefined meat by products tolerance.

Horse, meat byproducts 0.2 3.0 Horse, meat by products, except kidney Reassessed values are based on a new ruminant feeding study currently under review.

Horse, meat 0.2 0.25 Reassessed values are based on a new ruminant feeding study currently under review.

Milk 0.3 0.2 Reassessed values are based on a new ruminant feeding study currently under review.

Sheep, fat 0.2 0.3 Reassessed values are based on a new ruminant feeding study currently under review.

Sheep, kidney 1.5 25 Reassessed values are based on a new ruminant feeding study currently under review.

Sheep, liver 1.5 Revoke Residues in liver will be covered by redefined meat by products tolerance.

Sheep, meat byproducts 0.2 3.0 Sheep, meat by products, except kidney Reassessed values are based on a new ruminant feeding study currently under review.

Sheep, meat 0.2 0.25 Reassessed values are based on a new ruminant feeding study currently under review.

Dicamba Tolerances Under 40 CFR § 180.227( a)( 3)

[ Expressed in terms of the combined residues of dicamba and its metabolites 3,6 dichloro 5 hydroxy o anisic acid and 3,6 dichloro 2 hydroxybenzoic acid]

Grain, aspirated grain fractions 5100 1000 There are adequate residue data on the aspirated grain fractions of sorghum,

soybean, and wheat, and can be translated to corn.

Soybean, hulls 13.0 30.0 When the maximum HAFT combined residue level ( 7.44 ppm) of the RAC is multiplied by the observed concentration factor for soybean hulls ( 3.8x), the resulting level is 28.272 ppm which suggests that the existing tolerance of 13.0 ppm is too low. HED recommends that the tolerance for soybean hulls be increased from 13.0 ppm to 30.0 ppm. Dicamba Human Health Risk Assessment  Phase I Barcode: D317720 Table 9. Tolerance Reassessment Summary for Dicamba.

Commodity Current Tolerance ( ppm) Reassessed Tolerance ( ppm) Comments/

Correct commodity definition Page 70 of 70 Soybean, seed 10.0 10.0 The highest total residues were 8.13 ppm in/ on samples of soybean seed harvested 6 8 days following treatments at 1.25x the maximum rate listed in the Dicamba Master Use Profile.

Dicamba Tolerances That May Be Needed Under 40 CFR § 180.227( a)( 3)

Soybean, forage None TBD It is the current Agency policy to allow label restrictions on the feeding/ grazing of livestock animals on soybean forage and hay, thus, precluding the need for residue data and tolerances. HED defers to RD for verifying whether such restrictions exist on product labels. If such restrictions appear on the labels, then residue data and tolerances for soybean forage and hay are not necessary. If no such restrictions appear on the labels, then the registrants are required to propose tolerances for soybean forage and hay; based on the available data, a tolerance level of 0.1 ppm would be appropriate for each soybean commodity.

Concomitant with these tolerance proposals, the registrants are required to propose a maximum seasonal rate of 0.5 lb ae/ A for preplant application on soybean grown for forage and hay.

Soybean, hay None TBD 1 TBD = To be determined. Additional data/ information are required for tolerance reassessment.