[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3621-3625]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1258]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1017; FRL-9332-1]

Rimsulfuron; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
rimsulfuron in or on the caneberry subgroup 13-07A and the bushberry
subgroup 13-07B. Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4) requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective January 25, 2012. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before March 26, 2012, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1017. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Ertman, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an

objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1017 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
March 26, 2012. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1017, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of February 25, 2011 (76 FR 10584) (FRL-
8863-3), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
0E7809) by IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500
College Rd. East, Suite 201W., Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.478 be amended by establishing tolerances for
residues of the herbicide rimsulfuron, N-((4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-
yl)aminocarbonyl)-3-(ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridinesulfonamide, including
its metabolites and degradates, in or on caneberry, subgroup 13-07A at
0.01parts per million (ppm) and bushberry, subgroup 13-07B at 0.01 ppm.
That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by DuPont,
the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * *
*.''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for rimsulfuron including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with rimsulfuron
follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Rimsulfuron has low acute toxicity by oral, dermal, and inhalation
routes of exposure. It is a moderate eye irritant and is not a dermal
sensitizer. In subchronic and chronic toxicity studies in rats, toxic
effects included decreased body weight, decreased body weight gain,
increased relative liver and absolute kidney weights, and diuresis. In
the subchronic study in mice, increased red blood cell (RBC) and
hemoglobin, and decreased body weight gain and food efficiency were
observed. In the chronic study in mice, decreased body weight,
increased incidences of dilation and cysts in the glandular stomach,
and degeneration of the testicular artery and tunica albuginea were
observed. In the subchronic study in dogs, diuresis was indicated by
urinary volume, platelet concentration and kidney weights accompanied
by decreased urinary osmolality. In the chronic study in dogs,
increased absolute liver and kidney weights, increased seminiferous
tubule degeneration, and increased number of spermatid giant cells
present in epididymides in males were observed.
    In the developmental toxicity study in rats, no toxicity was seen
at the highest dose tested (HDT). In the developmental toxicity study
in rabbits, and in the 2-generation reproduction toxicity study in
rats, developmental/offspring toxicity was seen in the presence of
maternal/systemic toxicity and at similar dose levels. There is no
quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility
following pre- and/or postnatal exposures, and there are no concerns or
residual uncertainties.
    Rimsulfuron was classified by EPA as ``not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans'' based on the absence of tumors in
carcinogenicity studies conducted in rats and mice.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by rimsulfuron as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Rimsulfuron. Human Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Section 3 Uses on Caneberry and Bushberry,''
pp. 31-33 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1017.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each

toxicological study to determine the dose at which the NOAEL and the
LOAEL are identified. Uncertainty/safety factors are used in
conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally
referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose
(RfD)--and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks,
the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree
of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of
an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more
information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization
and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for rimsulfuron used for
human risk assessment is shown in the Table of this unit.

   Table--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Rimsulfuron for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Point of departure and
          Exposure/Scenario               uncertainty/safety     RfD, PAD, LOC for risk  Study and toxicological
                                               factors                 assessment                effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (Females 13-50 years of      No appropriate endpoint attributable to a single dose identified.
 age and General population including
 infants and children).
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)....  NOAEL = 11.8 mg/kg/day.  Chronic RfD = 0.118 mg/  Combined Chronic/
                                       UFA = 10x..............   kg/day                   Carcinogenicity-Rat
                                       UFH = 10x..............  cPAD = 0.118 mg/kg/day.   LOAEL= 121 mg/kg/day
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                            in males; 568mg/kg/day
                                                                                in females (NOAEL=163
                                                                                mg/kg/day), based on
                                                                                decreased body weight
                                                                                gains and liver
                                                                                effects.
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)....  Rimsulfuron is considered ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans'' due
                                           to the absence of tumors in rat and mouse carcinogenicity studies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members
  of the human population (intraspecies). FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. PAD = population
  adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. Mg/kg/day = milligrams/kilograms/day.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to rimsulfuron, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing rimsulfuron tolerances in 40 CFR
180.478. EPA assessed dietary exposures from rimsulfuron in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
rimsulfuron; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure
assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 Continuing Surveys of Food by Individuals (CSFII). As to
residue levels in food, EPA assumed that rimsulfuron residues were
present at tolerance levels in all commodities for which tolerances
have been established, and that 100% of those crops were treated with
rimsulfuron.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that rimsulfuron does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for rimsulfuron. Tolerance level residues and 100
PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for rimsulfuron in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of rimsulfuron. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of rimsulfuron for
acute exposures are estimated to be 5.596 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 0.016 ppb for ground water and for chronic exposures
for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 0.120 ppb for surface
water and 0.016 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For the chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 0.120 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Rimsulfuron is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found rimsulfuron to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and rimsulfuron does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this

tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that rimsulfuron does not
have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. In the developmental
toxicity study in rats, no developmental toxicity was seen at the HDT.
In the developmental toxicity study in rabbits and in the 2-generation
study in rats, developmental and offspring toxicity were seen in the
presence of maternal/systemic toxicity. Consequently, there is no
evidence of quantitative or qualitative increased susceptibility
following in utero or postnatal exposures. Therefore, there are no
concerns, nor residual uncertainties for pre- and/or postnatal toxicity
after exposure to rimsulfuron.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for rimsulfuron is complete with the
exception of the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity and the
immunotoxicity studies which are required by the new part 158
guidelines. Despite the requirement for these studies, there is no
evidence that rimsulfuron either causes neurotoxic effects or directly
targets the immune system, and therefore an additional uncertainty
factor is not needed to account for the lack of these studies.
    ii. A developmental neurotoxicity study is not required because
neither the subchronic or chronic toxicity studies in rats and dogs,
the developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, nor the 2-
generation reproduction study indicated that the nervous system was
specifically affected by treatment with rimsulfuron.
    iii. There is no evidence that rimsulfuron results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to rimsulfuron in drinking water. These assessments
will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by rimsulfuron.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
aPAD and cPAD. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime
probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure.
Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by
comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure
to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
rimsulfuron is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
rimsulfuron from food and water will utilize < 1% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for rimsulfuron.
    3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level).
    Short- and intermediate-term adverse effects were identified;
however, rimsulfuron is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in short- and/or intermediate-term residential exposure. Short-
and intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short- and
intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure.
Because there is no short- and/or intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess short- and intermediate-term risk), no further
assessment of short- and intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA
relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and
intermediate-term risk for rimsulfuron.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, rimsulfuron is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to rimsulfuron residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography with tandem
mass spectroscopy (LC/MS/MS)) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical
Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd. Ft.
Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    The Codex has not established a MRL for rimsulfuron.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of rimsulfuron,
N-((4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)aminocarbonyl)-3-(ethylsulfonyl)-2-
pyridinesulfonamide, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on
caneberry, subgroup 13-07A at 0.01 ppm; and bushberry, subgroup 13-07B
at 0.01 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule 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 this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 11, 2012.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.478 is amended by alphabetically adding the following
commodities to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.478  Rimsulfuron; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Bushberry, subgroup 13-07B.................................         0.01
Caneberry, subgroup 13-07A.................................         0.01

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-1258 Filed 1-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 13772]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04909]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91254; File No. SR-Phlx-2020-41]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To
List and Trade Options on a Nasdaq-100 Volatility Index

March 4, 2021.
    On August 24, 2020, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Exchange'' or ``Phlx'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule
change to list and trade options on a Nasdaq-100 Volatility Index. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on September 8, 2020.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89725 (September 1,
2020), 85 FR 55544 (``Notice''). Comments on the proposed rule
change can be found on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-phlx-2020-41/srphlx202041.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 20, 2020, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange
Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\5\ On December 4, 2020, the Commission instituted
proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act \6\ to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90226, 85 FR 67781
(October 26, 2020). The Commission designated December 7, 2020 as
the date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90573, 85 FR 79552
(December 10, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act \8\ provides that, after
initiating disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180
days after the date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed
rule change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change by not more than 60
days if the Commission determines that a longer period is appropriate
and publishes reasons for such determination. The proposed rule change
was published for notice and comment in the Federal Register on
September 8, 2020. March 7, 2021 is 180 days from that date, and May 6,
2021 is 240 days from that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed
rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed
rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Exchange Act,\9\ designates May 6, 2021 as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change
(File No. SR-Phlx-2020-41).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.
    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-04909 Filed 3-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


97 at 20 Coyne= s Cleveland, Ohio plant, their mismanagement of the 21 hazards from solvents in shop towels created a fire on 22 January 21st, that seriously burned four employees. As OSHA 23 later described it A It was from the solvents ignited in the 24 floor below the washing machine and in a trench behind it. 25 cgg 71 Two employees sustained burns in the resulting fire. One 1 employee sustained burns while trying to assist his co 2 workers.@ It= s certainly true, it= s undeniable that Coyne has 3 made important and deliberate efforts to capture excess 4 solvent from shop towels to reduce their waste water 5 emissions. However, Coyne has also failed to acknowledge in 6 this proceedings its other evident management failures. 7 For instance, Coyne has also failed to assure that 8 its customers provide Coyne with the information necessary to 9 protect Coyne employees from those hazards. And in my 10 testimony the documents indicating Coyne= s ability to skirt 11 OSHA= s hazard communications standard and avoid the 12 obligation to get exactly that kind of information essential 13 to protecting workers and running safe operations. 14 So, it= s painfully evident that workers at Cintas 15 and Coyne are at risk from the management= s mishandling of 16 shop towels. Has anyone at EPA ever talked to a laundry 17 worker. Did EPA ever even ask Cintas, Coyne or the other 18 major laundries to document their waste water emissions since 19 the state level exemptions were granted in the mid> 90s? How 20 could EPA have failed to make such an elementary 21 determination when it was meeting with industry 22 representatives on a frequent basis? It= s obvious that the 23 only people= s whose views EPA takes seriously here are the 24 corporate stakeholders, not the workers, the community 25 cgg 72 residents or the wildlife and waterways on the receiving end 1 of the negligence of laundry industry managers like Cintas 2 and Coyne. 3 We= ve presented an extensive critique of the 4 proposal. We have very limited time here today to review it. 5 I would like to reiterate the positions that the Sierra Club 6 and others have taken regarding the need to return to the 7 critical elements of the year 2000 proposal that EPA was 8 considering at that time. 9 And we= d finally like to say that in sum, there= s no 10 reasonable assurance from any independent or objective source 11 about current industry practice that the laundry industry and 12 their customers will comply with EPA= s intent. If the Bush 13 Administration proposal is adopted laundry workers will have 14 to handle towels soaked in hazardous waste often without even 15 minimal protective equipment like rubber gloves or effective 16 masks. It= s time for EPA to force the laundry industry and 17 their customers to stop the unnecessary shipment of toxic 18 chemicals that endanger workers and the public water supply. 19 We are tired, I= m almost done. We are tired of watching the 20 Bush Administration twist our laws to benefit corporate 21 interests and we demand that EPA withdraw this proposal. You 22 must reconsider the options which you specifically rejected 23 such as more collection and recycling of toxic solvents at 24 factories, close containers for transporting solvent soaked 25 cgg 73 towels and better training of workers about the chemical 1 hazards. 2 Thank you very much. 3 MS. ATAGI: Thank you very much. 4 MR. FRUMIN: I= d now like to ask Mark Fragola. 5 MS. ATAGI: Mark Fragola to be followed by David 6 Dunlap and Robert Schaffer. 7 MR. FRAGOLA: Hi. My name is Mark Fragola. I= m 8 here to represent UNITE. I worked at Cintas Corporation at 9 Branford, Connecticut from November 1999 until July of 2002. 10 During this time I worked primarily as a route service and 11 sales representative which involved driving the customers 12 dirty laundry, shop towels from printed plants and other 13 customers that were soaked with solvents such as acetone was 14 a big part of the load that I carried everyday. I also had 15 to carry towels and mats from restaurants that were filled 16 with mold and fungus. The conditions for drivers hauling 17 these shop towels were horrible. Drivers like me were 18 routinely forced to count up dirty rags, one at a time, pick 19 up dripping rags with our bare hands, without cotton gloves 20 and breathe the contaminant air in the truck. Sometimes you 21 put these towels into plastic bags, but they would tear and 22 we would have to sit there and pick them up all over again. 23 We usually had to put the towels in cotton bags, in the bags 24 soaked with solvents. I know this because the solvents left 25 cgg 74 a stain on my shirt when I picked the bags up. When I came 1 home I had to warm my kids don= t touch daddy until I took off 2 my uniform. Only after a couple of years just before I left 3 did I ever get some plastic gloves. They usually didn= t have 4 enough gloves for all the drivers. My biggest problem with 5 the bags of rags was that when I put these bags in the back 6 of my truck, there was nothing to protect me from the vapors. 7 The smell was very powerful. I used to joke that I was 8 getting a buzz and then sinus headache. It would last a few 9 hours until I got out of the truck and back at the plant. 10 We were never told what chemicals we were forced to 11 handle, never really warned about the types of dangers from 12 these chemicals. The towels were also sometimes dripping 13 with the solvents. Our supervisors knew this all along. One 14 time I was given some papers to give to the customers asking 15 them to control the amount of solvents on the towels. But 16 the customers overlooked these warnings and Cintas never even 17 cut them off as customers. I don= t recall Cintas ever 18 telling me to refuse to take these dangerous loads from 19 customers. They= re just interested in getting all the 20 business they could. Shop towels were easy makers. It 21 doesn= t surprise me that Connecticut EPA is fighting Cintas 22 in court right now about the years worth of violations of 23 Cintas= permit and EPA rules on toxic chemicals. 24 Cintas by law and workers like me pay that price 25 cgg 75 with our health and our jobs. I hope that EPA will remember 1 this when you listen to all the lobbyists for the laundries 2 of other companies who keep promising to protect the 3 environment. Unless they  that they= re operating  I 4 wouldn= t believe a word they say. After two years in 5 October/ November 2001 I developed serious breathing problems 6 and headaches. By February of 2002 I finally went to my 7 doctor  who said I was being heavily affected by the mold 8 from the shop towels. He said I actually needed surgery and 9 I was forced to undergo my first surgery that month. The 10 effects were so bad that I had to stay home for seven weeks 11 to receive strong antibiotics through a tube that was 12 permanently inserted into my arm, all the way to my heart. 13 After returning to work for a few weeks in April 14 2002 I had to undergo still a second surgery to clear out my 15 sinuses. After two more weeks I went back to work again. I 16 reported all of this to Mike, my supervisor. I showed the 17 letters from my doctor which said my condition was related to 18 my job. But Cintas kept denying that this was work related. 19 They refused to admit that this is a worker= s compensation 20 case. Instead they told me just to accept my disability pay 21 which is, of course, less than the worker= s compensation and 22 cover the medical costs through the regular health insurance. 23 I had to pay for 20 percent of all medical bills and we= re 24 still paying off those debts today. We still owe about 25 cgg 76 $ 2,000. 1 When I came back to work I asked for a different 2 driving route without the shop towel chemicals. I showed the 3 letter from my doctor about the danger the job posed to my 4 breathing, but they refuse to accommodate me. Mike said I= m 5 sorry, there= s nothing else available. Instead they offered 6 me a job panting the plant at $ 10 an hour. Compare that to 7 the $ 650 a week I was making before I got sick. I don= t 8 understand how they could have done this to me. 9 Essentially I was forced to quit in April 2002. 10 During this time I was studying Public Health at the 11 University of Southern Connecticut. As a result of my 12 studies I graduated in May 2002 with a Bachelor= s Degree in 13 Public Health with emphasis in Environmental Health. I 14 started looking for work. I soon got a job at a local 15 private environmental testing laboratory analyzing water and 16 other samples in a pollution control program. 17 I strongly recommend that the EPA changes these 18 things to help protect workers and the environment and change 19 these rules by one, forcing customers to take more of these 20 solvents out of these towels. Number two, putting the towels 21 in closed containers that can= t leak the solvents into the 22 air and to label the containers with the names and the hazard 23 of the solvents. Number three, to force the laundry to train 24 drivers and the washing workers about the OSHA and EPA rules 25 cgg 77 so that it can help the EPA make sure the rules are enforced. 1 Why should drivers like myself have to put our jobs and 2 families at risk in order just to comply with the law. 3 Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify. 4 MS. ATAGI: Our next speaker is David Dunlap 5 followed by Robert Schaffer and William Guerry. 6 MR. DUNLAP: Good morning. I= d like to thank the 7 Board for allowing me the opportunity to speak this morning. 8 My name is David Dunlap and I am the Director of 9 Environmental Affairs at the Uniform and Textile Service 10 Association. UTSA is a nonprofit association, represents the 11 interests of the uniform and textile supply companies, that= s 12 the industrial laundry industry. I= m a chemical engineer by 13 training as well as a licensed Class I waste water treatment 14 plant operator in Virginia. I= ve been working with the 15 industrial laundry industry since 1988 and the UTSA since 16 1995. All combined I have nearly 20 years environmental 17 experience in both environmental engineering, regulatory 18 analysis and municipal and waste water treatment plant 19 operations. 20 This morning, my goal is not to emphasize the 21 negative aspects of disposables. The record is clear on 22 this. I= m here to explain the benefits of reusables. 23 Industrial laundries provide environmental benefits by 24 decreasing natural resource consumption, saving energy and 25 cgg 78 providing effective pollution management and prevention. 1 When compared to home laundering, industrial laundries on 2 average use 64 percent less water, 73 percent less energy and 3 90 percent less detergent is what is required to launder the 4 same quantity of towels in small home washers and dryers. 5 In 1996 EPA= s Office of Research and Development 6 conducted a life cycle assessment study of reusable and 7 disposable wipes entitled Environmental Assessment of Shop 8 Towel Usage in the Automotive and Printing Industries. 9 That= s the Lockheed study that has been referenced a couple 10 of times today. The environmental assessment looked at the 11 raw material requirements and pollutant emissions associated 12 with each type of wipe for its entire life cycle, from 13 manufacture through usage and to the ultimate disposition. 14 The results of the study are impressive, particularly when 15 adjustments are made to account for multiple use cycles for 16 reusable towels. Now this is something that Lockheed failed 17 to do in their initial analysis. 18 As measuring terms of poundage, reusable shop 19 towels use 94 percent less water, 99 percent less energy and 20 generate 52 percent less solid waste when compared to an 21 equivalent amount of disposable paper towels. Because 22 uniform and textile service companies deliver clean wipes to 23 customers and pick up soiled wipes for cleaning and reuse, 24 all the most efficient way possible, we are one of the 25 cgg 79 nation= s largest recycling industries. Unlike single use 1 disposable wipes and rags, reusable shop towels are not 2 discarded after use but are rather used to clean and then 3 reused over and over. 4 On the other hand disposables are used once and 5 then sent to a landfill or incinerator. All the solvents on 6 disposable wipes are never treated. In most cases end up 7 going directly untreated to landfills. In contrast there= s 8 no direct water or solid waste discharges to the environment 9 from laundries. More than 15 years ago the laundry industry 10 self imposed no free liquid standard for reusable shop 11 towels. Laundries have since been working with customers to 12 reduce the amount of solvents and other pollutants found on 13 these towels. The no free liquid standard remains the 14 foundation of most state shop towel guidelines and therefore 15 is a principle upon which the proposed rule is modeled. 16 Those minimal solvents that are still present after 17 meeting the no free liquid standard are then effectively 18 removed during sequential stages. The initial laundering 19 process, the subsequent waste water pre treatment process and 20 finally the ultimate treatment at the downstream publicly 21 treatment works of POTW. All industrial laundries are 22 indirect discharges unless their waste water is controlled 23 via local pre treatment limits, private discharge in 24 municipal sewer systems. In the past ten years, numerous 25 cgg 80 data collection efforts by EPA, the industrial laundering 1 industry and third parties to document the overall 2 effectiveness of laundry waste water treatment. In fact, and 3 this was during the Clinton Administration, EPA= s 1999 4 decision to withdraw proposed guidelines of the industry was 5 based on the fact that industrial laundry effluent is already 6 effectively treated at laundries and their POTWs and is no 7 way adversely impacting the environment. 8 As required under  industrial laundries examine 9 the characteristics of waste water sludge and other solid 10 waste generated by their waste water treatment systems. US 11 EPA= s comprehensive risk analysis, screening analysis 12 properly concludes that the sludge produced by industrial 13 launderers does not contain constituents in concentrations 14 which would exceed any of the allowable health benchmarks. 15 Due to the industry= s extensive waste water permitting 16 laundries are in regular contact with local regulators. This 17 ensures a laundry complies with no just local waste water 18 rules but with the rules that govern the proper disposal 19 solid waste generated by the laundry treatment systems as 20 well as state regulations and policies that require the 21 proper management for reusable shop towels. 22 Because recycle and research conservation is such 23 an essential part of our industry, USTA and TSA together with 24 EPA created the laundry environmental stewardship program, 25 cgg 81 laundry ESP. That was in 1999. Laundry ESP is a voluntary 1 program by which industrial laundries both large and small 2 raise their overall environmental performance. Laundry ESP 3 is not just limited to reusable wipes though. It also 4 extends laundry= s entire line of textiles. More importantly, 5 laundry ESP facilitates an exchange in cooperation in 6 critical environmental matters across industries including 7 the various businesses that use and rely on reusable shop 8 towels. 9 Laundry ESP documents the industry= s environmental 10 performance as whole and it has been a resounding success. 11 Through program participation, laundries have achieved the 12 following. An 11 percent decrease in water use. That means 13 we saved over 4.9 billion gallons of water since 1997. We= ve 14 also achieved an 11 percent reduction in energy consumption. 15 That= s over 10 trillion BTUs of energy saved since 1997 16 also. And since 1998 we have reduced the toxicity of our 17 waste water discharges by over 40 percent. As I say Laundry 18 ESP has been a great success for us. 19 One last point, that the record is clear, reusable 20 shop towels and the materials found in reusables after use 21 are handled, after reusables are handled. Excuse me, let me 22 start over. The record is clear. Reusable shop towels and 23 the materials found on reusables after use are handled in a 24 more environmentally sensitive way than disposal wipes and 25 cgg 82 rags. EPA should create regulatory incentives not barriers 1 to permit reuse, recovery, recycling of reusable towels 2 through the environmentally beneficial services provided by 3 laundries. All of the industrial laundry waste streams are 4 already subject to comprehensive federal, state and local 5 environmental regulation, the Clean Water Act and RIPRA as 6 well as the related pre treatment permits and state policies 7 and the proper management of shop towels. There will be no 8 environmental basis or justification to impose duplicative 9 regulations on laundries or their customers. 10 In conclusion, UTSA and TRSA fully support EPA= s 11 proposal to provide a realistic solution for reusable shop 12 towels including the former exclusion of properly managed 13 reusable shop towels from the definition of solid waste. To 14 reiterate, we strongly support this rule as opposed. 15 Thank you very much. 16 MS. ATAGI: Thank you very much. Our next speaker 17 is Robert Schaffer to be followed by William Guerry and Jim 18 Buik. 19 MR. SCHAFFER: Good morning. My name is Robert 20 Schaffer. I= m Director of Environmental Affairs for Coyne 21 Textile Services. I= m here today testifying on the company= s 22 behalf as well as on the behalf of TRSA for which Coyne is a 23 member company. 24 Coyne is a national textile rental company with 37 25 cgg 83 locations doing business in 25 states. I= m a chemist by 1 training and have had extensive career in both federal 2 government and the private sector. I work for Dow Chemical 3 Company, United States Department of Interior, U. S. EPA and 4 as an independent environmental consultant. I was at EPA for 5 11 years and concluded my career there as Director of the 6 Effluent Guidelines Division where I supervised the 7 development of categorical standards under the Clean Water 8 Act. I have been with Coyne for 11 years. 9 EPA= s proposed rule addresses reusable and disposal 10 shop towels. In the laundry industry there are several 11 different types of reusable towels used by different 12 customers for a variety of different purposes. Most of the 13 towels are used by printers, automotive repair, service 14 facilities and other general manufacturing. These towels are 15 typically soiled with oils and greases and to a much less 16 extent solvents. Towels used in the printing industry, of 17 course, more frequently contain solvents and certainly not 18 all shop towels contain solvents. 19 Coyne specializes in serving industries with 20 reusable towels and over the years a significant portion of 21 our rental line has been devoted to industrial customers and 22 many in the printing industry. Coyne is intimately familiar 23 with all the environmental and worker safety issues 24 associated with solvent contaminated reusable towels 25 cgg 84 including waste water treatment, solvent extraction and 1 recycling and workplace exposure. Because of our experience 2 in dealing with solvent contaminated towels, especially the 3 critical issue of whether they have any work safety impacts, 4 we felt an obligation to attend this hearing and to share our 5 experiences with the Agency. We are also testifying here 6 today because reusable towels play a significant role in our 7 business. 8 Coyne like other TRSA and UTSA member companies has 9 a strong commitment to protection of worker health and 10 safety. We conduct routine sampling of air, water to ensure 11 that the concentration of solvents and other regulated 12 substances are well within acceptable limits. Coyne has 13 invested millions of dollars in treatment facilities, in 14 environmental worker safety controls and we have an annual 15 budget in excess of $ 2,000,000 to cover these matters. Coyne 16 provides its workers with all necessary training and 17 protective equipment to meet federal, state and local 18 requirements. We= ve conducted several comprehensive worker 19 exposure studies. We have provided the results to the 20 Agency. In those studies we performed detailed analysis of 21 air samples collected in personal breathing zones, of two 22 workers, for instance, and this is an example, in the 23 receiving and sorting area of our facilities. 24 These studies demonstrated as all of our workplace 25 cgg 85 exposure data has confirmed that our employees= workplace 1 exposures are well within safety levels. One study evaluated 2 the presence of approximately 40 compounds in the breathing 3 zone of two textile sorting workers at one of our facilities. 4 At the facility bagged soiled towels are delivered via truck 5 and manually loaded at an open air exterior loading dock. 6 Weighed on four scales and then manually removed from the 7 bags for sorting. Towels are then loaded onto another truck 8 for delivery to one of Coyne= s laundering facilities. 9 Breathing zone sampling was conducted for comparison with an 10 eight hour time related average for TWA for permissible 11 exposure limit, PEL, established by the United States 12 Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA. 13 The study was, of course, conducted under 14 applicable OSHA and NIAGE standards. The results of the 15 study demonstrated no significant health risk associated with 16 any of the evaluated solvent compounds. Concentrations of 17 the solvents were at least 100 times less than the OSHA PEL 18 and sometimes a thousand times less than the OSHA PEL. 19 A second study involved solvent vapor exposure from 20 soiled textiles to a Coyne driver on a heavy soil pickup 21 route. The driver= s basic task involved picking up, making 22 stops at various customer locations and delivering clean and 23 picking up soiled products. The driver stated that during 24 this task, the greater than average number of soiled towels 25 cgg 86 were picked up during his 22 stops on that particular run. 1 The driver also unloaded 20  bags of soiled towels. 2 Consultants using personal monitoring devices on the driver 3 to measure concentrations in his breathing zone conducted the 4 tests. The duration of tests were slightly over eight hours 5 and a monitor was also placed in the truck. All test results 6 for the 36 solvents found were far below OSHA= s PEL. Only 7 two values or more than one percent of this and all were less 8 than one and a half percent of the PEL. A consultant 9 reminded us that these results provided conservative estimate 10 of worker exposure. 11 The most important aspect of these studies, and 12 Coyne has conducted a number of them over the years is that 13 the concentration of solvents detected are always a minute 14 fraction of the OSHA PELs. Aside from giving the company 15 confidence that worker health is not jeopardized this data 16 demonstrates that existing industry practices and regulatory 17 responsibilities under state law and OSHA adequately and 18 comprehensively address worker exposure concerns associated 19 with solvent vapors in the industrial laundry workplace. 20 Furthermore, the amount of solvents contained on 21 soil towels returned to Coyne= s facilities has been reduced 22 over the years. This reduction is due in large part to 23 Coyne= s customer education efforts and the education of our 24 own folks. We continually stress the requirement consistent 25 cgg 87 with company policy, industrial management standards and 1 state regulation that return towels contain no free liquid. 2 And customers seem to be more conscious of using the least 3 amount of solvent products necessary for their given tasks at 4 their locations. The reduction of solvent use is also 5 reflected in the waste water generated by Coyne and our 6 ability to meet our discharge requirements. We had noticed a 7 25 percent reduction in the last few years between 1998 and 8 2003 of solvents we had recovered from our waste water 9 treatment operations for beneficial reuse. 10 Although the proposed regulation does not require 11 to the extent they codify their regulation, not required from 12 a worker safety perspective to the extent that they codify 13 the regulatory status quo, Coyne supports EPA= s efforts and 14 subject to the joint comments and these are the joint 15 comments that will be submitted by UTSA and TRSA later this 16 month. 17 Thank you very much. 18 MS. ATAGI: Thank you. Our next speaker is William 19 Guerry to be followed by Jim Buik and the Rev. Ron Stief. 20 MR. GUERRY: Good morning, my name is Bill Guerry 21 and I serve as Environmental Counsel to the industrial 22 laundry industry through the two trade associations UTSA and 23 TRSA. I= m testifying here today to explain the legal 24 precedent which compels EPA to finalize its proposal to 25 cgg 88 exclude properly managed reusable shop towels from their 1 RIPRA definition of a solid waste. 2 In evaluating whether a recycled secondary material 3 constitutes a solid waste under RICRA courts have universally 4 held that EPA must determine whether the materials are truly 5 A discarded, disposed of, thrown away or abandoned.@ Courts 6 have also precluded EPA from regulating those secondary 7 materials which A have not yet become a part of the waste 8 disposal problem, rather they are destined for beneficial 9 reuse or recycling.@ Most recently the D. C. Circuit Court of 10 Appeals has clarified that secondary materials that are 11 A retained or saved as part of an overall recycling production 12 process are not discarded or thrown away as solid waste.@ 13 Unlike discarded rags, reusable shop towels are 14 retained and saved as products so that they do not threaten 15 to become part of the waste disposal problem. In the context 16 of determining whether reusable shop towels are solid waste, 17 numerous EPA regional offices have correctly interpreted 18 RICRA as I quote from Region 9, A Industrial Textiles 19 manufactured for multiple cycles of soiling and cleaning are 20 generally not regulated as solid waste until they are 21 discarded.@ Similarly states like California have recognized 22 A reusable textiles are in essence a piece of industrial 23 equipment. And when soiled are no more waste material than a 24 dull cutting tool.@ 25 cgg 89 EPA= s proposed solid waste exclusion for reusable 1 shop towels is based on extensive judicial and regulatory 2 precedent. In fact, since 1980, EPA has created 20 similar 3 solid waste exclusions for commodity like materials under 40 4 C. F. R. Section 261.4( a). All of these solid waste exclusions 5 are based on clear and straightforward management conditions, 6 simply set forth as keeping the commodity like material from 7 being directly placed on the ground. 8 In the proposed rulemaking EPA correctly relies on 9 the following three well established criteria to conclude 10 that properly managed reusable shop towels are more commodity 11 like than waste like. First reusable shop towels are 12 partially reclaimed by laundry customers who remove free 13 liquids. Second, reusable shop towels are handled throughout 14 the laundering and reuse process as viable commodities. 15 Third, because the shop towels are owned by the same entity 16 throughout the use and reuse process, laundries have enormous 17 incentives to ensure that the shop towels are, in fact, 18 reused and not discarded. In fact, reusable shop towels far 19 exceed EPA= s commodity like criteria as applied to 20 other 20 solid waste exclusions. Because shop towels represent one of 21 the core primary assets on which laundries directly derive 22 their revenues and profits as opposed to being a secondary or 23 incidental by product which may have value which is the core 24 basis of most of the other solid waste exclusions. 25 cgg 90 Following me, Jim Buik, President of the Roscoe 1 Corporation will document the economic factors that ensure 2 the proper and safe management of reusable shop towels. 3 It is critical for both legal and policy reasons 4 that EPA clearly exclude properly managed shop towels from 5 solid waste classification. This is because numerous states 6 with large reusable shop towel markets impose onerous 7 requirements on both generators and processors of non 8 hazardous industrial solid waste. By indicating or implying 9 incorrectly that reusable shop trowels are or could be a 10 solid waste, EPA would unintentionally number one, override 11 the decisions of virtually all states that reusable shop 12 towels should not be subject to solid waste regulation and 13 two, trigger inappropriate requirements for industrial 14 laundries and their customers. If reusable shop towel 15 products were incorrectly deemed solid waste, then a critical 16 distinction between reused shop towels and discarded rags 17 would disappear and a significant portion of the shop towel 18 market could shift away from usable shop towels to discarded 19 rags. Thus a uniform exclusion from only the definition of 20 hazardous waste for both reusable shop towels and discarded 21 rags would result in unintended negative consequences that 22 are directly contrary to RICRA= s goals of reducing over 23 regulation and encouraging recycling. 24 One of the laundry industry= s primary goals as you 25 cgg 91 just heard from Bob Schaffer is to protect workers and to 1 provide a safe workplace at all laundry facilities. As you 2 know Congress appropriately delegated to OSHA the role of 3 protecting employees from unsafe working conditions. OSHA 4 has implemented this authority and established comprehensive 5 permissible exposure limits or PELs for all of the hazardous 6 solvents regulated under RICRA. As Mr. Schaffer testified, 7 laundry workplace exposure to solvent vapors is a diminimus 8 fraction of the various OSHA PELs for solvents. 9 Moreover, industrial laundries are already subject 10 to and must meet OSHA Hazard communications standard 11 requirements which require employers to inform their 12 employees of chemical hazards via container labels, MSD 13 sheets and training. 14 In conclusion, well established legal and 15 regulatory precedent as well as sound policy compels EPA to 16 finalize the proposed solid waste exclusion for reusable shop 17 towels. We look forward to working with EPA to achieve 18 RICRA= s environmental goals to promote resource recovery and 19 recycling. 20 Thank you. 21 MS. ATAGI: Thank you. All right. The next speaker 22 is Jim Buik to be followed by the Reverend Ron Stief and the 23 David Case. 24 MR. BUIK: We officially cross over from good 25 cgg 92 morning to good afternoon. My name is Jim Buik. I= m the 1 President of the Roscoe Company located at 3535 West Harrison 2 Street in Chicago, Illinois. I= m testifying not only as the 3 owner of a, or I= m testifying as the owner of a small 4 industrial laundry business in Chicago as well as serving as 5 the Vice Chairman of UTSA. I= ll testify from both 6 perspectives. 7 My grandfather, George Buik, started Roscoe in 8 1921. My father, Don Buik, owned Roscoe from 1973 to 1999 9 and now I own the business. The bank owns part of it too. 10 Roscoe employs 90 people. We= re located in an 11 economically disadvantaged neighborhood on the west side of 12 Chicago in a designated empowerment zone. Our workers are 13 represented by UNITE and we have a longstanding tradition of 14 maintaining strong ties to the community. In addition to 15 maintaining strong ties to the community, for generations my 16 grandfather and father started a tradition, an ethic of 17 environmental excellence long before it was in vogue. In 18 fact, Roscoe was the first industrial laundry in the United 19 States to install an advanced pre treatment waste water 20 system in 1973 as part of a joint project between the EPA, 21 our company, UTSA and TRSA. Though my grandfather laid the 22 groundwork, my father was primarily responsible during the 23 1970s for putting Roscoe on the cutting edge of technology 24 and environmental due diligence. 25 cgg 93 In the 1980s we focused our efforts on creating a 1 clean work environment in order to better protect workers, 2 improve the work setting and ease environmental compliance. 3 To make sure we continued to achieve our goals in this 4 regard, Roscoe has the Illinois Department of Economic and 5 Community Affairs conduct hygiene and safety inspections. 6 Roscoe also from time to time has our employees don exposure 7 badges to measure the exposure of materials of concern. In 8 short, we really double check our work. 9 I= ve done my best to follow in this tradition. And 10 in 1999 Roscoe won the Illinois Governor Pollution Prevention 11 Award for our achievements in reducing solid waste water 12 consumption in our hangar recycling program. My grandfather 13 introduced reusable shop towels to Roscoe= s textile line in 14 the 1940s. Today shop towels represent about 15 percent of 15 our overall revenue and thus represents a substantial part of 16 our business. Shop towels have also added value because they 17 are frequently offered as a component to the entire textile 18 package for customers that might also rent uniforms, floor 19 mats and other textile products. Over the years, Roscoe= s 20 gathered the best practices for managing shop towels. 21 These practices range from our own company= s 22 procedures and infrastructure such as ventilation systems to 23 protect workers handling shop towels to imposing strict 24 rental conditions on our customers including a no free 25 cgg 94 flowing liquids policy for return shop towels and finally 1 comprehensive employee training so that our route drivers can 2 discriminate whether or not to accept a load of soiled shop 3 towels. 4 At Roscoe, we partner with our customers to help 5 them manage their waste streams in an environmentally 6 friendly manner. The industry practices that we have 7 developed and followed over the years help us do just that. 8 As I stated earlier, shop towels make up approximately 15 9 percent of Roscoe= s revenue. This revenue is generated, of 10 course, by providing a service to our customers. The 11 provision of clean, a clean supply of textiles. The 12 individual shop towels and the ability to use and reuse the 13 shop towels again and again is the cornerstone of our 14 business model. We deliver approximately 10,000,000 shop 15 towels to our customers annually. Because we use and reuse 16 shop towels we= re able to achieve this 10,000,000 shop towel 17 delivery with an annual fleet of one and a half million shop 18 towels. 19 EPA is absolutely entirely correct that laundered 20 shop towels are not a solid waste. Rather than being 21 disposed of after use, our shop towels are laundered and used 22 again and again. Put another way, if the shop towels were 23 solid waste we would be purchasing 10,000,000 shop towels 24 annually to meet the customer demand, not the one and a half 25 cgg 95 million that we currently purchase. That= s six times more 1 landfill space that would be taken up and that= s not one of 2 Administrator Levitt= s goals. The value of a shop towel is 3 also reflected in the accounting and paperwork that we 4 maintain with our customers. Customers are financially 5 responsible for shop towels that are in their possession. If 6 a customer loses a shop towel or destroys it, the customer 7 would pay to replace that shop towel. If a customer= s needs 8 change and they require a lower amount of shop towels 9 inventory is reduced and their account= s credited. 10 To us each shop towel is like a dollar bill. WE 11 protect our shop towels the same way we protect our money. 12 My grandfather started the tradition of walking the plant on 13 a regular basis picking up shop towels. He was a statsman 14 and he had a stern burrow, but the plant manager= s knew right 15 well that he was very upset when he would find shop towels 16 lying around. My dad continued that tradition as did I. If 17 I find a shop towel on the floor of our plant, I have a 18 little talk with our manager because it= s completely out of 19 the question that something like that should happen. Those 20 are dollars sitting on the floors. Those are our corporate 21 assets laying around. I= ll guarantee it doesn= t happen very 22 often. 23 Excluding reusable shop towels from the definition 24 of hazardous waste only and thus defining them as a solid 25 cgg 96 waste makes no sense considering the fact that reusable shop 1 towels play in my business. We work closely with the 2 Illinois EPA and together have developed a viable 3 environmentally sound program for managing used shop towels 4 from pickup at the customer facility through the laundering 5 process. The management conditions we adhere to ensure 6 protection of our workers and the environment. A solid waste 7 exclusion contingent on a lab or testing rather than the 8 common sense management conditions we already employ would 9 totally undermine the existing viable state regulatory 10 program and create additional but unnecessary compliance 11 costs. These additional compliance costs might make the 12 provision of reusable shop towels too expensive for some 13 customers and possibly too expensive for all customers. 14 These costs would surely impact our ability to 15 generate revenue that may lead to employee layoffs. 16 Unnecessary regulation of reusable shop towels would also 17 impact other aspects of our business because customers 18 frequently run a collection of textiles in addition to shop 19 towels. If a shop towel component of a customer account 20 becomes too expensive or unavailable customers may be 21 inclined to satisfy their needs for other textiles such as 22 uniforms and floor maps. 23 In closing, Roscoe is not a company to shirk our 24 environmental or worker safety responsibilities. We have a 25 cgg 97 longstanding tradition and company ethic to go beyond 1 requirements and serve as an industry van guard in these 2 areas. We trust EPA will maintain its position on reusable 3 shop towels. That they are not a solid waste. Excluding 4 reusable shop towels from the definition of solid waste will 5 allow Roscoe, a third generation family business to continue 6 its tradition of environmental responsibility, resource use 7 and recycling as well as local/ community leadership. 8 Thank you. 9 MS. ATAGI: Thank you. I understand the Reverend 10 Stief had to leave. So our next speaker will be David Case. 11 MR. CASE: My name is David Case. I= m the Executive 12 Director of the Environmental Technology Council. ETC as you 13 know is a trade association of companies that provide various 14 services and technologies to customers for recycling, 15 treatment and proper disposal of both hazardous waste and 16 non hazardous industrial waste. In particular, many ETC 17 companies provide in plant industrial services to customers 18 where they pick up properly manage, recycle and dispose of 19 solvent contaminated industrial wipes. Because in many 20 states these industrial wipes are hazardous waste, we see the 21 industrial wipes at the point of pickup for proper 22 transportation and ultimate disposal or recycling. And I can 23 tell you we don= t often see wipes that have only one drop or 24 solvent on them. We see wipes that are soaked in solvent and 25 cgg 98 have been used, are filthy dirty with contamination from 1 equipment, from automobile or ink manufacturing facilities. 2 And these shop towels need to be managed properly. It= s a 3 sad day when a representative of the waste management 4 industry has to tell EPA that a proposed rule poses a threat 5 to human health and the environment, but that is the 6 situation this afternoon. 7 We are alarmed by a number of the provisions in the 8 proposed rule which simply do not reflect safe management 9 practices in our industry. For example, solvent soaked rags 10 could be accumulated in containers with just a piece of 11 plywood or a piece of cardboard put over the top and thereby 12 be deemed a closed container. Solvent rags could be dry, 13 deemed dry without using any solvent removal technology like 14 a centrifuge or other commonly available equipment for that 15 purpose. Instead somebody can sit at a desk and make a rough 16 guesstimate of the volume of solvent used and the volume of 17 rags and thereby claim that every solvent, every rag had less 18 than five grams of solvent. Under this rule there would be 19 no standards for accumulating and storing of these solvent 20 soaked rags to prevent fires, not even something as simple 21 regular inspections of the facilities. 22 The solvent soaked rags could be shipped in things 23 like plastic bags, cloth bags, wraps, even paper bags which 24 obviously can be pierce and allow accumulated solvent to be 25 cgg 99 released. And the solvent rags could go to landfills or 1 municipal incinerators. After we have spent 30 years under 2 RICRA trying to keep solvents out of landfills, this rule 3 would allow solvents to be disposed of in landfills. 4 Any of these practices if conducted by a waste 5 management person at one of our companies would end up 6 sending that person to jail. There are a number of 7 provisions in the proposed rule that we think need to be 8 seriously revised and upgraded. And I= ll basically follow 9 the life of a solvent soaked rag through accumulation, 10 transport and disposal and comment on each phase. 11 Under the proposed rule, solvent rags could be 12 accumulated for an indefinite period of time at the generator 13 site, no limitations on the amount of time of storage or the 14 type of facility that could retain the stored materials. And 15 we think that= s just not good management practice for this 16 kind of waste material. We recommend that the rule first of 17 all distinguish between accumulation and storage which it 18 doesn= t do. While shop rags are being accumulated we can see 19 the practical need for the worker= s to be able to put the 20 rags in some sort of a bin or container with a lid that is 21 secure but not sealed tight. Obviously you need that 22 practical flexibility. But once the drums or the bins, 23 whatever container is being used are filled and the material 24 is going to be stored, waiting, picked up and transported, we 25 cgg 100 think the material should be stored properly in sealed 1 containers for some limited time period such as 90 days and 2 with some regular inspection period or self inspections of at 3 least once a week to ensure that the containers aren= t 4 leaking or that they don= t pose some kind of a fire hazard. 5 After the material is picked up, it= s going to be 6 transported and we think all shop towels, solvent soaked shop 7 towels should be transported in sealed containers that are 8 appropriate for the type of material that= s being 9 transported. It= s not the cloth or the paper rag that= s of 10 concern, obviously. It= s the solvent and the contaminants 11 that have been picked up with the solvent. 12 When the material is delivered to a landfill, EPA 13 has evaluated only the potential for the solvent to then be 14 released from an online landfill and get into people= s 15 drinking water. That is not the major concern of solvents. 16 Solvents are a concern because they attack synthetic liner 17 systems and cause the liner to deteriorate and be breached. 18 So, instead of doing a computer model of an unlined landfill 19 and the potential release of contaminants directly, what EPA 20 needs to look at is a landfill that has at least a single 21 liner which is common today, and the risk of allowing the 22 solvent in these rags to be compressed in the landfill to 23 accumulate on top of the liner to then deteriorate and cause 24 a breach of the liner system which would allow not just 25 cgg 101 solvents but all the collective waste contaminants in the 1 landfill to be released into the environment. That= s a 2 fairly basic risk assessment that EPA after apparently 18 3 years of study has failed to do. 4 Likewise, when material is going to be delivered to 5 a municipal or a waste to energy incinerator, in that case 6 the material doesn= t even have to be dry. It has to be what 7 I called not quite dripping with solvent. And if you= ve ever 8 been to a municipal waste incinerator, you will see that the 9 material is then generally dumped into a large bin or 10 concrete pit and it is manipulated with a clam shell or a 11 backhoe or equipment of that nature. If the Agency thinks in 12 this proposed rule that somebody= s going to look in the bags 13 to see if there= s any free liquid, that= s just not going to 14 happen. The material is immediately off loaded into these 15 bins where it is manipulated by heavy equipment. There is a 16 very serious risk of fire in that situation. A spark from 17 the equipment could easily ignite the solvent. And the whole 18 management of the material before it gets into the municipal 19 incinerator by putting it onto conveyor systems and that sort 20 of thing allow easy release to the environment and 21 evaporation primarily because municipal incinerators are not 22 equipped and people are not trained to manage this kind of 23 hazardous material. 24 And then finally EPA has simply ignored the 25 cgg 102 contamination from the material that the solvent removes from 1 the equipment, the metals, the inks, the colors, things of 2 that nature. The background document makes clear that EPA 3 simply didn= t collect information that it would need in order 4 to assess the risks posed by those materials. And that= s 5 something EPA needs to do. 6 I think in the end so many conditions would be 7 necessary to allow this material to be handled under 8 conditional exclusion. But really it ought to be handled 9 under the universal waste rule kept within the RICRA system 10 but managed under flexible standards that are appropriate for 11 universal hazardous waste. 12 Thank you. 13 MS. ATAGI: Thank you very much. All right. That 14 concludes the testimony today. Are there any questions 15 before we adjourn? No. Thank you all very much for your 16 participation. And this meeting is now adjourned. 17 ( Whereupon, at 12: 22 p. m., the hearing was adjourned.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 C E R T I F I C A T E DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC., hereby certifies that the attached pages represent an accurate transcript of the electronic sound recording of the proceedings before the Environmental Protection Agency, in the matter of:

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM By:

Caroline G. Gibson, Transcriber