     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                             OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFTEY
AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

RE:  	Meeting with Archuleta Builders (Morristown, NJ) and EPA on Risk Management under TSCA Section 6, Aliphatic Cyclic Bromide Cluster (HBCD)

List of Documents
 Meeting Summary
 Attendees
Meeting Summary
On December 14, 2020, EPA held a conference call with Alan Archuleta, owner of Archuleta Builders to discuss their participation as a self-nominated small business entity representative (SER) for EPA's Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (SBAR). EPA presented an overview of the SBAR Panel process, an explanation of the planned rulemaking, and technical background.

Attendees
EPA:
Susan Slotnick
Timothy Lehman
Sarah Cox
Erik Winchester
Robert Courtnage
Claudia Menasche

Archuleta Builders:
Alan Archuleta
Tamra Spielvogel (National Association of Home Builders)


From:
Gammon, Marian<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Friday, August 5, 2016 3:30 PM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Zavoda, Rich<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Hill, John R<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Foster, Jeff<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Hauge, Eric<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
Coke MACT ICR submittal, ArcelorMittal Warren sections I-III and attachments email #2

Dr. Jones,

Find attached in email #2  ICR requested reports for 2015.

Marian M. Gammon | Environmental Manager
ArcelorMittal Warren
ArcelorMittal Warren  | 2234 Main Ave, Warren, Ohio 44481
T |<PHONE_NUMBER> C |<PHONE_NUMBER> F|<PHONE_NUMBER>
www.arcelormittal.com
P    Please consider the environment before printing this email. ArcelorMittal encourages environmental awareness.

<< AM Warren  PQBS MACT 2H15.pdf >>
<< AM Warren Title V 4Q15.pdf >>
<< AM Warren PQBS MACT 4Q15.pdf >>
<< AM Warren Title V 2H15.pdf >>
<< AM Warren Flare Stack 2H15.pdf >>
<< Title V 3Q 2015.pdf >>
<< PQBS MACT 3Q2015.pdf >>
<< AMWarren PQBS Battery MACT 1H15.pdf >>
<< AMWarren Title V 1H15.pdf >>
<< AMWarren Title V 2Q15.pdf >>
<< AMWarren Battery Flare 1H15.pdf >>
<< AMWarren2Q15Battery Stack MACT.pdf >>
<< AM Warren PQBS MACT 1Q15.pdf >>
<< AM Warren Title V 1Q15.pdf >>


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 199 (Friday, October 14, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70974-70980]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24089]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0390; FRL-9951-92]

Pyridaben; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of the
insecticide pyridaben in or on multiple commodities which are
identified and discussed later in this document. Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective October 14, 2016. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 13, 2016,
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: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number HQ-EPA-OPP-2015-0390, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main 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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/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 HQ-EPA-OPP-2015-0390 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
December 13, 2016. 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 (excluding any Confidential Business Information (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 the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number HQ-EPA-OPP-2015-0390, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of Wednesday, August 26, 2015 (80 FR 51759)
(FRL-9931-74), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section
408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide
petition (PP 5E8363) by IR-4, IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The
State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W.,
Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.494 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide
pyridaben, [2-tert-butyl-5-(4-tert-butylbenzylthio)-4-chloropyridazin-
3(2H)-one] in or on berry, low growing subgroup 13-07G, except
cranberry at 2.5 ppm; cucumber at 0.5 ppm; fruit, citrus group 10-10 at
0.5 ppm; fruit, pome group 11-10 at 0.75 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12-12
at 2.5 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing, subgroup 13-07F, except fuzzy
kiwifruit at 1.5 ppm; and nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.05 ppm. In
addition, the petitioner requests removal of established tolerances
under 40 CFR 180.494 in or on apple at 0.5 ppm; pear at 0.75 ppm; nut,
tree, group 14 at 0.05 ppm; citrus (fruit) at 0.5 ppm; fruit, stone,
group 12 at 2.5 ppm; pistachio at 0.05 ppm; grape at 1.5 ppm; and
strawberry at 2.5 ppm upon approval of tolerances mentioned above and
thereby eliminating redundancies. That document referenced a summary of
the petition prepared by Gowan Company, the registrant, which is
available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Two comments were
received on the notice of filing in support of this action.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
revised certain proposed tolerance levels, corrected crops/crop group
definitions, as needed, and modified the tolerance expression for
pyridaben to comply with current EPA policies. The reason for these
changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

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 FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), 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 pyridaben including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with pyridaben follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity database 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.
    In subchronic and chronic oral toxicity studies in rats and mice,
the adverse effects were decreased body weight and food consumption; in
dogs, toxicity consisted of increased incidences of clinical signs
(i.e., ptyalism) and decreased body weight. In the repeat dose dermal
toxicity studies in rabbits, the adverse effect was decreased body
weight. In the repeat dose inhalation toxicity study in rats, there
were no adverse effects up to the highest dose tested. In all animals
where toxicity was observed, body weight decreases became more
pronounced as study duration increased while incidences of clinical
signs of toxicity did not become more severe or more frequent as the
study duration increased.
    Susceptibility was observed in the rat prenatal developmental
toxicity and rat developmental neurotoxicity studies. In the rat
prenatal developmental toxicity study, fetal toxicity (i.e., decreased
bodyweight and incomplete ossification) occurred in the absence of
maternal toxicity at the highest dose tested (HDT) of 30 mg/kg/day. In
the rat developmental neurotoxicity study, offspring toxicity (i.e.,
decreased bodyweight) occurred in the absence of maternal toxicity at
the HDT of 8.4 mg/kg/day. In the rabbit prenatal developmental toxicity
study, fetal and maternal toxicity consisted of abortions and occurred
at the HDT of 15 mg/kg/day. There were no adverse effects observed in
the rabbit dermal prenatal developmental toxicity study. In the rat
reproduction and fertility effects study, parental and offspring
toxicity (i.e., decreased bodyweight) occurred at the HDT of 6.3 mg/kg/
day.
    In the acute neurotoxicity study in rats, animals had increased
incidences of clinical signs (i.e., piloerection, hypoactivity,
tremors, and partially closed eyes). In the subchronic neurotoxicity
study in rats, male animals had increased incidences of

impaired righting reflex. In the developmental neurotoxicity study in
rats, there were no neurotoxicity effects up to the highest dose tested
(17.7 mg/kg/day).
    Pyridaben has been classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic in
humans'' based on the results from carcinogenicity studies in rats and
mice. The mutagenicity studies do not indicate increased mutagenic
potential in the battery of in vivo and in vitro assays.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by pyridaben 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 ``Pyridaben--Human Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Uses on Greenhouse Cucumbers and Crop Group
Expansions for Pome Fruit Group 11-10, Tree Nut Group 14-12, Stone
Fruit Group 12-12, Citrus Fruit Group 10-10, Small Fruit Vine Climbing
(except Fuzzy Kiwifruit) Subgroup 13-07F, and Low Growing Berry
Subgroup 13-07G (except Cranberry), dated June 21, 2016'' at page 28 in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0390.

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 no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). 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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for pyridaben used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

   Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for pyridaben 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 (General population    NOAEL = 44 mg/kg/day..  Acute RfD = 0.44 mg/kg/ Acute Neurotoxicity Study
 including infants and children).    UFA = 10x.............   day.                    in Rats:
                                     UFH = 10x.............  aPAD = 0.44] mg/kg/day  LOAEL = 80 mg/kg/day based
                                     FQPA SF = 1x..........                           on increased incidences of
                                                                                clinical signs (i.e.,
                                                                                piloerection,
                                                                                hypoactivity, tremors, and
                                                                                partially closed eyes).
Chronic dietary (All populations)..  NOAEL= 2.2 mg/kg/day..  Chronic RfD = 0.022 mg/ Reproduction and Fertility
                                     UFA = 10x.............   kg/day.                 Effects in Rats LOAEL =
                                     UFH = 10x.............  cPAD = 0.022 mg/kg/day   6.3 mg/kg/day based on
                                     FQPA SF = 1x..........                           decreased parental and pup
                                                                                body weight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, and              Classification: ``Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans'' based on the
 inhalation).                                    results of carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among
  members of the human population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to pyridaben, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing pyridaben tolerances in 40 CFR
180.494. EPA assessed dietary exposures from pyridaben 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.
    Such effects were identified for pyridaben. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model-Food
Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCIDTM), Version 3.16, which
incorporates 2003-2008 food consumption information from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to
residue levels in food, EPA used anticipated-residue estimates derived
from proposed and established tolerance levels; DEEM-FCIDTM,
Version 7.81 default processing factors were utilized for most
processed commodities; and 100 percent crop treated (PCT).
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the DEEM-FCIDTM, Version 3.16, which
incorporates 2003-2008 food consumption data from the USDA's NHANES/
WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, the chronic dietary exposure
assessment is partially refined, assuming anticipated residue estimates
derived from proposed and established tolerance levels and percent crop
treated estimates for most crops.
    iii. Cancer. Pyridaben has been classified as not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A.,
EPA has concluded that pyridaben 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.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA

to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels
of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide
residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such
information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that
data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified,
or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above
the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such
data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and
authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be
submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these
tolerances.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the
Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To
provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required
by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit
data on PCT.
    The Agency estimated the PCT for chronic exposure for existing uses
as follows: almonds 2.5%; apples 20%; cherries 2.5%; grapefruit 35%;
grapes 5%; lemons 2.5%; nectarines 2.5%; oranges 10%; peaches 10%;
pears 35%; pecans 2.5%; plums/prunes 5%; tangelos 15%; tangerines 25%;
tomatoes 2.5%; and walnuts 5%.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use
Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7
years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The
average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining
available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging
across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for
those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those
cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum
PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The
maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported
within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey
data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of
food to which pyridaben may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for pyridaben in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of pyridaben. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    The EPA's Tier II water models have been updated and applied in the
drinking water analysis for total residues of concern (TRC) of
pyridaben. The Pesticide Water Calculator (PWC), Ver.1.5001, has
replaced the PE5 shell for the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure
Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) used previously to generate
surface water estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWC) in dietary
risk assessments. In addition, the PRZM-Ground Water (PRZM GW) model,
version 1.07, has replaced Screening Concentration in Ground Water
(SCI-GROW), which was used to generate groundwater EDWCs. These latest
versions of the PWC and PRZM-GW models not only analyze for pyridaben,
but its two degradates PB-7 and P-9, residues of concern for drinking
water.
    Based on the PWC and PRZM GW, the maximum acute surface water EDWCs
of pyridaben TRC for acute exposures are estimated to be 12 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and an indeterminately low
concentration for ground water.
    For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to
be 0.91 ppb for surface water and an indeterminately low concentration
for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model.
    For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of
12 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
    For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of
value 0.91 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). Pyridaben is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    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 pyridaben to share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and pyridaben does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that pyridaben 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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

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. There was no evidence for
increased susceptibility to pyridaben following pre- or post-natal
exposure in the rat reproduction and fertility effects study,
notwithstanding the observed decreased pup body weight since that is
not considered to be more severe than decreased parental body weight.
Parental and offspring toxicity (i.e., decreased bodyweight) occurred
at the HDT of 6.3 mg/kg/day.
    Increased susceptibility following prenatal exposure in the rat
prenatal developmental toxicity studies was observed including fetal
toxicity (i.e., decreased bodyweight and incomplete ossification)
occurring in the absence of maternal toxicity at the HDT of 30 mg/kg/
day. In the rabbit prenatal developmental toxicity study, fetal and
maternal toxicity consisted of abortions and occurred at the HDT of 15
mg/kg/day. There were no adverse effects observed in the rabbit dermal
prenatal developmental toxicity study.
    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 pyridaben is complete.
    ii. Although there are signs that pyridaben causes neurotoxic
effects, a developmental neurotoxicity study in rats demonstrated no
observed neurotoxicity effects in offspring up to the HDT of 17.7 mg/
kg/day. Furthermore, the RfD of 0.44 mg/kg/day for acute dietary
exposures is protective of the HTD in the developmental neurotoxicity
study. Additionally, the acute RfD is based on clinical signs
(piloerection, hypoactivity, tremors and partially closed eyes) in
adults that could be signs of neurotoxicity, however tissue analysis
did not confirm neurotoxicity. Similarly, the chronic RfD of 0.022 mg/
kg/day (based on parental and pup body weight decreases in a
reproductive study) is protective of the impaired righting reflex
observed in the subchronic neurotoxicity study at 8.5 mg/kg/day. There
is no need to retain the FQPA 10X to account for any residual
uncertainties concerning neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is evidence that pyridaben results in increased
susceptibility following prenatal exposure in the rat prenatal
developmental toxicity and rat developmental neurotoxicity studies.
There was no evidence for increased susceptibility following pre- or
post-natal exposure in the rat reproduction and fertility effects study
since the decreased pup body weight is not considered to be more severe
than decreased parental body weight. EPA concluded that selected
endpoints based on the rat reproduction and fertility effects study's
NOAELs/LOAELs are protective of the susceptibility observed in the rat
prenatal developmental toxicity and rat developmental neurotoxicity
studies.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The pyridaben exposure databases are complete or are
estimated based on data that reasonably account for potential
exposures. The chronic dietary food exposure assessment was based on
anticipated residue estimates derived from proposed and established
tolerance levels and PCT assumptions and conservative ground water
drinking water modeling estimates. All of the exposure estimates are
not likely to result in underestimated exposure and risks posed by
pyridaben.

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
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (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. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to pyridaben will occupy 7.8% of the aPAD for the general U.S.
population and 29% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years old, the
population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
pyridaben from food and water will utilize 5% of the cPAD for the
general U.S. Population and 20% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old,
the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no
residential uses for pyridaben.
    3. Short-term and Intermediate-term risks. Short-term and
intermediate-term aggregate exposures take into account residential
exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a
background exposure level). Pyridaben is not registered for use on any
sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the
aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water, which do not
exceed the Agency's level of concern.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, pyridaben 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 pyridaben residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography with mass
spectrometry (GC/MS) detection using a modified version of BASF Method
D9312A) 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 United Nations 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.
    There are no Codex maximum residue levels (MRLs) established for
residues of pyridaben on the commodities for which tolerances are being
established in this action.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    In order to harmonize tolerances with Canada and avoid trade
irritants, EPA is establishing pyridaben tolerances as follows: (1)
Fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 3.0 ppm, instead of at 2.5 ppm as
requested; (2) Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.9 ppm, instead of at 0.5
ppm as requested; and (3) Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy
kiwifruit subgroup 13-07F at 2.0 ppm, instead of at 1.5 ppm, as
requested.
    Finally, in accordance with EPA's policy to update its tolerance
expressions where applicable, EPA is revising the tolerance expression
to clarify that (1) as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the
tolerance covers metabolites and degradates of pyridaben not
specifically mentioned; and (2) compliance with the specified tolerance
levels is to be determined by measuring only the specific compounds
mentioned in the tolerance expression.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of the
insecticide pyridaben, [2-tert-butyl-5-(4-tert-butylbenzylthio)-4-
chloropyridazin-3(2H)-one] in or on berry, low growing subgroup 13-07G,
except cranberry at 2.5 ppm; cucumber at 0.50 ppm; fruit, citrus group
10-10 at 0.9 ppm; fruit, pome group 11-10 at 0.75 ppm; fruit, stone,
group 12-12 at 3.0 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing except fuzzy
kiwifruit subgroup 13-07F at 2.0 ppm; and nut, tree, group 14-12 at
0.05 ppm. Additionally, the existing tolerances in or on apple at 0.50
ppm; pear at 0.75 ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.05 ppm; fruit, stone,
group 12 at 2.5 ppm; citrus at 0.5 ppm; pistachio at 0.05 ppm; grape at
1.5 ppm; and strawberry at 2.5 ppm are being removed as a result of
being superseded by the new tolerances. Also, the tolerance expression
is being updated to clarify that the tolerance covers metabolites and
degradates of pyridaben not specifically mentioned and compliance with
the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only
the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance expression. Finally
in order to correct a typographical error that was made in a previous
action (Federal Register of July, 14, 2000 (65 FR 43704) (FRL-6593-1)),
where a number was inadvertently dropped from the table in paragraph
(a), the EPA is revising the goat fat tolerance from 0.0 ppm to 0.05
ppm in order to reinstate the original tolerance level published in the
Federal Register of May 16, 1997 (62 FR 26954) (FRL-5178-4).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) 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 action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action 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 action 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 FFDCA section 408(d), 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 action 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 FFDCA section 408(n)(4). 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 action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    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 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
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
the rule in the Federal Register. This action 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: September 9, 2016.
Michael L. Goodis,
Acting 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 180.494 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to
read as follows:

Sec.  180.494  Pyridaben; tolerance for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
insecticide pyridaben, including its metabolites and degradates, in or
on the commodities as indicated in the following table. Compliance with
the tolerance levels specified below for plant commodities is to be
determined by measuring the insecticide pyridaben [2-tert-butyl-5-(4-
tert-butylbenzylthio)-4-chloropyridazin-3(2H)-one] on the plant
commodity. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below for
animal commodities is to be determined by measuring the insecticide
pyridaben and its metabolites, [2-tert-butyl-5-(4-(1-carboxy-1-
methylethy 1) benzylthio)-4-chloropyridazin-3 (2H)one] and [2-tert-
butyl-5-[4(-1, l-dimethyl-2-hydroxyethyl)benzylthio-4-chloropyridazin-
3(2H)one] on the animal commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond, hulls...........................................             4.0
Apple, wet pomace.......................................            0.75
Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G, except cranberry...             2.5
Canistel................................................            0.10
Cattle, fat.............................................            0.05
Cattle, meat............................................            0.05
Cattle, meat byproducts.................................            0.05
Citrus, dried pulp......................................             1.5
Citrus, oil.............................................            10.0
Cucumber................................................            0.50
Fruit, citrus group 10-10...............................             0.9
Fruit, pome group 11-10.................................            0.75
Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit,                 2.0
 subgroup 13-07F........................................
Fruit, stone, group 12-12...............................             3.0
Goat, fat...............................................            0.05
Goat, meat..............................................            0.05
Goat, meat byproducts...................................            0.05
Hog, fat................................................            0.05
Hog, meat...............................................            0.05
Hog, meat byproducts....................................            0.05
Hop, dried cones........................................            10.0
Horse, fat..............................................            0.05
Horse, meat.............................................            0.05
Horse, meat byproducts..................................            0.05
Mango...................................................            0.10
Milk....................................................            0.01
Nut, tree, group 14-12..................................            0.05
Papaya..................................................            0.10
Sapodilla...............................................            0.10
Sapote, black...........................................            0.10
Sapote, mamey...........................................            0.10
Sheep, fat..............................................            0.05
Sheep, meat.............................................            0.05
Sheep, meat byproducts..................................            0.05
Star apple..............................................            0.10
Tomato..................................................            0.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. Tolerances with
regional registration, as defined in Sec.  180.1(m) are established for
residues of the insecticide pyridaben, including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance
with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by
measuring the insecticide pyridaben [2-tert-butyl-5-(4-tert-
butylbenzylthio)-4-chloropyridazin-3(2H)-one] on the following plant
commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cranberry...............................................             0.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2016-24089 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6334-6336]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02228]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0016]

Pipeline Safety: Safe Operations of Underground Storage
Facilities for Natural Gas

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA);
DOT.

ACTION: Notice; issuance of advisory bulletin.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is issuing this advisory bulletin to remind all owners
and operators of underground storage facilities used for the storage of
natural gas, as defined in 49 CFR part 192, to consider the overall
integrity of the facilities to ensure the safety of the public and
operating personnel and to protect the environment. Operators are
reminded to review their operations to identify the potential of
facility leaks and failures caused by corrosion, chemical damage,
mechanical damage, or other material deficiencies in piping, tubing,
casing, valves, and associated facilities and the importance of
reviewing the location and operations of shut-off and isolation systems
and reviewing and updating emergency plans as necessary.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Operators of pipelines subject to
regulation by PHMSA should contact Mr. Kenneth Lee at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Intrastate gas pipeline and underground storage facility operators
should contact the appropriate state pipeline safety authority. A list
of state pipeline safety authorities is provided at: www.napsr.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On October 23, 2015, Southern California Gas Company's (SoCal Gas)
Aliso Canyon Well SS25 failed, causing a sustained and uncontrolled
natural gas leak in an area known as Porter Ranch in Los Angeles,
California. At the present time, the well leak is believed to be from
the subsurface (downhole) well casing. The well was drilled in 1953 and
was later converted to natural gas storage well in 1972. Over 4,400
households (families) have been relocated due to the natural gas
odorant (mercaptans) according to the Aliso Canyon Incident Command
briefing report issued on February 1, 2016. On January 6, 2016,
California Governor Jerry Brown issued a proclamation declaring the
Aliso Canyon incident a state emergency. After repeated unsuccessful
attempts to contain the leak, a relief well is being drilled to plug
the leaking well. The Aliso Canyon underground storage field, which can
store up to 86 billion cubic feet of natural gas, has 115 storage
wells, and is the second largest storage facility of its kind in the
United States. The root cause of this failure is the subject of ongoing
investigations and assessments and the root cause analysis is being
conducted by an independent third party expert firm. PHMSA is working
closely with the State of California to provide technical assistance
and to support State regulatory agencies related to their response and
oversight activities.
    Since 2001 several accidents involving underground gas storage
facilities have occurred and two of the more extensive accidents that
occurred in Texas and Kansas are highlighted below. On August 19, 2004,
the Market Hub Partners Moss Bluff storage facility located in Liberty
County, Texas, had a well control incident and natural gas fire at
Cavern #1. Over a period of six and one-half days, approximately 6
billion cubic feet of natural gas in the cavern was released and
burned. The fire eventually self-extinguished, and late on August 26,
2004, installation of a blowout prevention valve was completed,
effectively placing the well back under control. The Moss Bluff storage
facility was comprised of three separated underground caverns leached
out of a salt formation beneath the surface; a compressor station to
help move natural gas into and out of the caverns; well head assemblies
on each of the caverns for operational control purposes; and natural
gas, fresh water and salt water (brine) piping and related facilities
to facilitate transportation and/or holding of those materials A
detailed investigation by company personnel and outside consultants
determined the accident was caused by a separation of the 8\5/8\-inch
well string inside the cavern; a breach of the 8-inch brine piping
above ground; and the separation of the wellhead assembly above the
cavern.
    On January 17 and 18, 2001, another accident occurred at the Yaggy
underground natural gas storage field operated by Kansas Gas Service,
where a wellbore failure which led to a series of gas explosions in
Hutchinson, Kansas. The storage field injected natural gas at a depth
of 600 to 900 feet underground into salt caverns. Gas leaked from the
storage field well production casing, migrated approximately nine miles
underground, and then traveled to the surface through old brine, or
salt wells, in the Hutchinson, Kansas area. An explosion in downtown
Hutchinson destroyed two businesses, damaged 26 other businesses, and
killed two persons in a mobile home park. Approximately 143 million
cubic feet of natural gas leaked from the storage field.
    In this Advisory Bulletin, PHMSA recommends that all operators of
underground storage facilities used for the storage of natural gas, as
defined in 49 CFR parts 192, have processes, procedures, mitigation
measures, periodic assessments and reassessments, and emergency plans
to maintain the safety and integrity of all wells and associated
storage facilities whether operating, idled, or plugged. These
processes and procedures should take into consideration the age,
construction, maximum operating pressures, operating and maintenance
history, product, corrosion, casing and tubing condition (including
chemical and mechanical damage), cement condition and depths or
heights, safety valves (surface and subsurface), operation of each
well, and the amount of time elapsed since the most recent assessment.

II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB-2016-02)

    To: Owners and Operators of Underground Pipeline and Storage
Facilities.
    Subject: Safe Operation of Underground Storage Facilities for
Natural Gas
    Advisory: Operators of underground storage facilities used for the
storage of natural gas, as defined in 49 CFR part 192, should review
their operating, maintenance, and emergency response activities to
ensure the integrity of underground storage facilities are properly
maintained. This bulletin is intended to inform operators about
recommended practices and to urge operators to take all necessary
actions, including but not limited to those set forth in this bulletin,
to prevent and mitigate breach of integrity, leaks, or failures at
their underground storage facilities and to ensure the safety of the
public and operating personnel and to protect the environment.
    Operators should have comprehensive and up-to-date processes,
procedures, mitigation measures, periodic assessments and
reassessments, and emergency plans in place to maintain the safety and
integrity of all underground storage wells and associated facilities
whether operating, idled, or plugged. Operators must adhere to
applicable State regulations for the permitting, drilling, completion,
and operation of storage wells. In

developing, implementing, and updating their safety and integrity
programs, we encourage underground gas storage facility operators to
reference PHMSA Advisory Bulletin 97-04, dated July 10, 1997, and to
voluntarily implement American Petroleum Institute (API) Recommended
Practices (RP) 1170, ``Design and Operation of Solution-mined Salt
Caverns Used for Natural Gas Storage, First Edition, July 2015,'' API
RP 1171 ``Functional Integrity of Natural Gas Storage in Depleted
Hydrocarbon Reservoirs and Aquifer Reservoirs, First Edition, September
2015,'' and Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) standards
entitled ``Natural Gas Storage in Salt Caverns--A Guide for State
Regulators'' (IOGCC Guide), as applicable. The IOGCC Guide provides
safety standards for the design, construction, and operation of gas
storage caverns. Copies of the API recommended practices can be
obtained at http://www.api.org/Publications-Standards-and-Statistics/Publications/Government-cited-Safety-Documents. Copies of the IOGCC
Guide can be obtained from the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact
Commission, 900 NE 23rd Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152-3127
(phone: 405/525-3556; email: iogcc@oklaosf.state.ok.us). API has an
accredited process to develop recommended practices and standards that
involves industry, manufacturers, engineering firms, construction
contractors, the public, academia, and government.
    In addition, operator's operating and maintenance (O&M) processes
and procedures should be reviewed and updated at least annually, unless
operational inspections for integrity warrant shorter review periods.
O&M processes and procedures should include data collection and
integration, risk assessments, monitoring, operational limits,
mitigation measures, and record keeping for any underground storage
facility threat that could impact public safety, operating personnel,
or the environment due to leakage, failure, or abnormal operating
conditions whether above ground or underground. At a minimum, operator
actions should include, but not be limited to, the following:
    1. Operators should verify that the pressure required to inject
intended natural gas volumes, including any maximum treating and
stimulation pressures for the underground storage well, does not exceed
the design pressure limits of the reservoir, wells, wellheads, piping,
casing, tubing, or associated facilities, and document such
verification.
    2. The operator should monitor all wells for the presence of
annular gas or liquids by measuring and recording annular pressure,
including between casing and tubing strings at the wellhead, and any
known annular flow on a periodic basis.
    3. The operator should inspect the wellhead assembly and attached
pipelines for each of the wells used in an underground storage facility
on a periodic basis, with the frequency of the inspections defined by
the operator's risk assessment. This inspection should include leak
detection technology and monitoring of casing pressure changes at the
wellhead. The operator's selection and usage of leak detection
technology should take into consideration detection limits for natural
gas or any liquids, response time, reproducibility, accuracy, distance
from source, background lighting conditions, geography, and
meteorology.
    4. The operator should conduct periodic functional tests of all
surface and subsurface safety valve systems and wellhead pipeline
isolation valve(s) for proper function and ability to shut-off or
isolate the well as required for operational and emergency situations.
Deficiencies, test failures, and equipment that do not meet functional
specifications should be repaired or replaced promptly in order to
assure the well's ability to control and isolate natural gas flows from
the reservoir and well. Inoperable surface and subsurface safety valves
on storage well(s) should be either repaired, removed or replaced, the
well temporarily plugged, or alternative equivalent safety measures
implemented.
    5. When evaluating the need for subsurface safety valves on new,
removed, or replaced tubing strings or production casing, operators
should perform risk assessments in a manner that reviews at a minimum
the API RP 1171 criteria. Where subsurface safety valves are not
installed on wells, risk assessments should be used to inform decisions
on integrity inspection frequencies and reassessment intervals, and
mitigation criteria and procedures for the well production casing and
tubing should be evaluated and implemented as necessary.
    6. Operators should conduct ongoing assessments for the
verification and demonstration of the mechanical integrity of each well
and related piping and equipment used in the underground storage
facility. The relevant factors to consider in verifying and
demonstrating well integrity should include as a minimum: Well service
life history; design; construction; maximum operating pressures
(injection, withdrawal, maximum treating and stimulation); product,
corrosion, casing and tubing condition; cement condition and depths or
heights; safety valves (surface and subsurface); operation of each
well; and the time interval since the most recent assessment and past
assessment findings.
    7. Operators should have a corrosion monitoring and integrity
evaluation program that includes the following:
    (i) Evaluation of casing and tubular integrity and identification
of defects caused by corrosion or other chemical or mechanical damage;
    (ii) Corrosion potential of wellbore-produced fluids and solids,
including the impact of operating pressure on the corrosion potential
of wellbore fluids and analysis of partial pressures;
    (iii) Corrosion potential of annular and any packer fluid;
    (iv) Corrosion potential of current flows associated with cathodic
protection systems;
    (v) Corrosion potential of all formation fluids, including fluids
in formations above the storage zone;
    (vi) Corrosion potential of un-cemented casing annuli, including
static liquid levels;
    (vii) Corrosion potential of pipelines and other production
facilities attendant to the underground storage facility including the
corrosion potential of adverse-current flows associated with their
cathodic protection systems; and
    (viii) Periodic usage of the appropriate well log evaluations (such
as corrosion, cement bond, temperature, noise, caliper and other
appropriate assessment logs for integrity evaluations of the production
casing and tubing strings) to determine well integrity, mitigation
measures, and reassessment intervals to maintain the pressure rating
and flow isolation characteristics of the well for all downhole pipe,
cement, and any other isolation equipment.
    8. Procedures for the evaluation of well and attendant storage
facilities should include analysis of facility flow erosion, hydrate
potential, individual facility component capacity and fluid disposal
capability at intended gas flow rates and pressures, and analysis of
the specific impacts that the intended operating pressure range could
have on the corrosive potential of fluids in the system.
    9. Identification of potential threats and hazards associated with
operation of the underground storage facility should include the
following:
    (i) Evaluation of risk (likelihood of events and consequences
related to the events);

    (ii) Determination of a risk ranking to develop and implement
preventive and mitigative measures;
    (iii) Documentation of risk evaluation and decision basis for
preventive and mitigative measures implemented;
    (iv) Provision for data feedback and validation; and
    (v) Regular, periodic risk assessment reviews to update
information, and evaluate risk management effectiveness.
    10. For ongoing verification and demonstration of the integrity of
the underground storage reservoir or cavern, operators should use
appropriate monitoring techniques such as the monitoring of pressure
and periodic pressure surveys, inventory (injection & withdrawal of all
products), product levels, cavern subsidence, and the findings from
adjacent production and water wells, and observation wells used to
monitor underground storage including any integrity changes.
    11. Emergency procedures should identify the types of emergencies
for which the operator should notify public emergency response
officials, personnel training, periodic communication with local
emergency response officials, identification of the local area
impacted, notices to the public, and identification of any third-party
service providers or technical experts needed in the event of an
emergency. Emergency procedures should be reviewed, conducted, and
updated at least annually.
    12. Records of the processes, procedures, assessments,
reassessments, and mitigation measures required should be maintained
for the life of the storage well.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 2, 2016, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Policy and Programs.
[FR Doc. 2016-02228 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 116 (Monday, June 17, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28100-28101]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12676]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2018-0012]

Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH):
Notice of Membership and Meeting

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice of ACCSH membership and meeting.

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

SUMMARY: On May 13, 2019, the Secretary of Labor (the Secretary)
appointed 15 members to serve on ACCSH. OSHA also announces ACCSH will
meet July 17-18, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For press inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of
Communications, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information about ACCSH: Mr. Damon Bonneau, OSHA,
Directorate of Construction, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202)
693-2183; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For copies of this Federal Register Notice: Electronic copies of
this Federal Register Notice are available at: http://www.regulations.gov. This notice, as well as news releases and other
relevant information, are also available at OSHA's web page at
www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    ACCSH advises the Secretary of Labor and the Assistant Secretary of
Labor for Occupational Safety and Health (Assistant Secretary) in the
formulation of standards affecting the construction industry, and on
policy matters arising in the administration of the safety and health
provisions under the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
(Construction Safety Act (CSA)) (40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.) and the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et
seq.) (see also 29 CFR 1911.10 and 1912.3). In addition, the OSH Act
and CSA require the Assistant Secretary to consult with ACCSH before
the agency proposes any occupational safety and health standard
affecting construction activities (29 CFR 1911.10; 40 U.S.C. 3704).
    ACCSH operates in accordance with the CSA, the OSH Act, the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2), and regulations issued
pursuant to those statutes (29 CFR part 1912, 41 CFR part 102-3). ACCSH
generally meets two times a year.

II. Appointment of Committee Members

    ACCSH consists of 15 members appointed by the Secretary. ACCSH
members generally serve two-year terms, unless they resign, cease to be
qualified, become unable to serve, or the Secretary removes them (29
CFR 1912.3(e)). The Secretary may appoint ACCSH members to successive
terms.
    The allocation of members for each category of ACCSH membership is:
     Five members who are qualified by experience and
affiliation to present the viewpoint of employees in the construction
industry;
     Five members who are similarly qualified to present the
viewpoint of employers in the construction industry;
     Two public members, qualified by knowledge and experience
to make a useful contribution to the work of ACCSH, such as those who
have professional or technical experience and competence with
occupational safety and health in the construction industry;
     Two representatives of State safety and health agencies;
and
     One representative designated by the Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services.
    OSHA received nominations of highly qualified individuals in
response to the agency's request for nominations (83 FR 46972,
September 17, 2018). The Secretary appointed individuals to serve on
the Committee who have broad experience relevant to the issues to be
examined by the Committee. The ACCSH membership is as follows:

Employee Representatives

     Palmer L. Hickman, Electrical Training ALLIANCE;
     Randall A. Krocka, Sheet Metal Occupational Health
Institute Trust;
     Mark S. Mullins, Elevator Industry Work Preservation Fund;
     Richard Tessier, United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers,
and Allied Workers Representative Research and Education Joint Trust;
and
     Christina Trahan Cain, North America's Building Trades
Unions.

Employer Representatives

     Kevin Cannon, Associated General Contractors of America
(ACCSH Chair);
     Fravel Combs, M.A. Mortenson Company;
     Cindy DePrater, Turner Construction Company;
     Greg Sizemore, Associated Builders and Contractors; and
     Wesley L. Wheeler, National Electrical Contractors
Association.

Public Representatives

     Christopher Fought, General Motors, LLC; and

     R. Ronald Sokol, Safety Council of Texas City.

State Representatives

     Christopher Mabry, North Carolina Department of Labor; and
     Charles Stribling, Kentucky Labor Cabinet Department of
Workplace Standards.

Federal Representative

     Dr. G. Scott Earnest, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health.

III. Meeting Information

DATES: ACCSH will meet from 12:00 to 4:00 p.m., ET, Wednesday, July 17,
2019, and from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., ET, Thursday, July 18, 2019.

ADDRESSES:  The Committee will meet at the U.S. Department of Labor,
200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. The Committee will
meet in Conference Rooms N-5437 A, B, C, & D. Meeting attendees must
use the visitor's entrance located at 3rd & C Streets NW.
    Meeting agenda: The tentative agenda for this meeting includes:
     Assistant Secretary's agency update and remarks;
     Directorate of Construction update;
     ACCSH's consideration of, and recommendation on, the
following proposals:

--Adding a reference to the definition of ``confined space'' that
applies to welding activities in construction;
--Clarifying the requirements for the fit of personal protective
equipment in construction;

     Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs update;
     Directorate of Standards and Guidance update;
     Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management
update;
     Directorate of Training and Education update;
     NIOSH update;
     Office of Communications update;
     Safety Stand-Down updates; and,
     Public Comment Period.
    Submission of comments and requests to speak: Submit comments and
requests to speak at the ACCSH meeting by July 5, 2019, identified by
the docket number for this Federal Register notice (Docket No. OSHA-
2018-0012), using one of the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit comments, including attachments,
electronically at: http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, do not exceed
10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regular mail, express mail, hand delivery, and messenger or courier
service: You may submit comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket
Office, Docket No. OSHA-2018-0012, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries (express mail, hand
(courier) delivery, and messenger service) are accepted during the OSHA
Docket Office's normal business hours, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., ET.
    Requests for special accommodations: Submit requests for special
accommodations for this ACCSH meeting by July 5, 2019, to Ms. Veneta
Chatmon, OSHA, Directorate of Construction, Room N-3468, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
OSHA docket number for this Federal Register notice (Docket No. OSHA-
2018-0012). Because of security-related procedures, submissions by
regular mail may result in a significant delay in receipt. Please
contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security
procedures for making submissions by express mail, hand (courier)
delivery, and messenger service.
    OSHA will place comments and requests to speak, including personal
information, in the public docket, which may be available online.
Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting personal
information such as Social Security Numbers and birthdates.
    Docket: To read or download documents in the public docket for this
ACCSH meeting, go to http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the
public docket are listed in the index; however, some documents (e.g.,
copyrighted material) are not publicly available to read or download
through http://www.regulations.gov. All submissions are available for
inspection and, when permitted, copying at the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. For information on using http://www.regulations.gov
to make submissions or to access the docket, click on the ``Help'' tab
at the top of the homepage. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for
information about materials not available through that website and for
assistance in using the internet to locate submissions and other
documents in the docket.

Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice under the
authority granted by 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(1) and 656(b), 5 U.S.C. App. 2,
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), and 29 CFR part
1912.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on June 11, 2019.
Loren Sweatt,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2019-12676 Filed 6-14-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P