[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29723-29726]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13722]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0414; FRL-9979-91--Region 2]

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New York; Subpart
225-1, Fuel Composition and Use--Sulfur Limitations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to approve a
revision to the New York State Implementation Plan concerning sulfur-
in-fuel limits. The intended effect of this revision is to add a
regulatory mechanism for meeting the existing obligations related to
regional haze. The SIP revision consists of amendments to Title 6 of
the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Subpart 225-1, ``Fuel
Composition and Use--Sulfur Limitations'' and Section 200.1,
``Definitions'' and, also removes an obsolete provision from the Code
of Federal Regulations related to facility specific sulfur-in-fuel
limits.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-
R02-OAR-2016-0414, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods i.e., the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Evaluation of New York's Submittal
III. Updating 40 CFR 52.1675 Control Strategy and Regulations:
Sulfur Oxides
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve New
York's State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal consisting of
revisions to Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (6
NYCRR) Section 200.1, ``Definitions,'' which adds a definition for
waste oil. EPA proposes to approve, with limitations, Subpart 225-1,
``Fuel Composition and Use--Sulfur Limitations,'' as contributing to
attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM
2.5) and the NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (SO2), and
establishing a revised regulatory mechanism for New York's regional
haze SIP. The EPA's proposed approval of New York's sulfur-in-fuel
regulation into the SIP does not alter the EPA's prior action on New
York's Regional Haze SIP, which includes emission reductions related to
the sulfur-in-fuel requirements of section 19-0325 of the Environmental
Conservation Law (ECL). 77 FR 51915 (Aug. 28, 2012). The EPA is
proposing to approve these revisions, requested by New York, as
strengthening the effectiveness of New York's SIP.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, the EPA also is proposing to remove a
section from 40 CFR 52.1675 which lists sulfur limitations for various
facilities in New York. EPA has determined that these limitations have
expired and/or refer to sources which have been shut down. That
determination was reflected in EPA's reformatting exercise that ensured
that all revisions to the New York State SIPs are accurately reflected
in 40 CFR part 52, including 40 CFR 52.1670(d), ``EPA approved State
source-specific requirements.'' 76 FR 41705 (July 15, 2011). In
addition, the sulfur-in-fuel rule proposed for approval here requires
the use of lower sulfur fuel, with lower sulfur concentrations than the
limits listed in 40 CFR 52.1675. The EPA is therefore removing the
existing sulfur limitations in 40 CFR 52.1675 as they are superfluous
and obsolete.

II. EPA's Evaluation of New York's Submittal

    On June 12, 2013, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted to the EPA the proposed revisions to
Section 200.1 and Subpart 225-1 and supplemental materials, including
documentation of the comment period and public hearings, and NYSDEC's
responses to public comments. These materials are in the EPA's docket
for this proposal.

Revisions to Section 200.1

    The EPA is proposing to approve Section 200.1, which includes New
York's new definition for ``waste oil'' at 6 NYCRR 200.1(cw). This
definition is relevant to Subpart 225-1 and is consistent with similar
definitions of waste oil recognized by EPA.
    NYSDEC also revised 6 NYCRR 200.9, Table 1, updating the list of
federal regulations referenced in the amended Subpart 225-1. In a
separate rulemaking action, the EPA approved a SIP submittal from New
York, dated October 12, 2011 and revised on July 25, 2016, of Section
200.9, Table 1. 81 FR 95049 (Dec. 27, 2016). That approval included the
revisions to Section 200.9, Table 1, referenced in NYSDEC's June 12,
2013 submittal. We therefore have already acted on the revision to
Section 200.9, Table 1, which references the amended Subpart 225-1, and
we are not taking action here.

Subpart 225-1

    New York relied on ECL section 19-0325, limiting sulfur
concentrations in fuel oil, in its Regional Haze SIP and the EPA
approved it as part of New York's emissions reduction plan to make
reasonable progress toward reducing widespread visibility impairment.
77 FR 51915. By submitting this revision to Subpart 225-1 to the EPA
for SIP approval, New York is adding a regulatory mechanism for
implementing the reduced sulfur-in-fuel limits in ECL-19-0325 and the
Regional Haze SIP. The EPA proposes to approve these revisions to
strengthen the New York's SIP.

Sulfur-in-Fuel Limitations

    Section 225-1.2 provides the sulfur-in-fuel limitations and are
identified below.
    Owners and/or operators of any stationary combustion installation
that fires solid fuels are limited to the firing of solid fuel with a
sulfur content listed in the table below on or after July 1, 2014:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Solid fuel  (pounds of
                   Area                     sulfur per million Btu gross
                                                    heat content)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York City.............................  0.2 MAX.
Nassau, Rockland and Westchester Counties.  0.2 MAX.
Suffolk County: Towns of Babylon,           0.6 MAX.
 Brookhaven, Huntington, Islip, and Smith
 Town.
Erie and Niagara Counties.................  1.7 MAX, 1.4 AVG.*
Remainder of State........................  2.5 MAX, 1.9 AVG *, and 1.7
                                             AVG (ANNUAL).**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Averages are computed for each emission source by dividing the total
  sulfur content by the total gross heat content of all solid fuel
  received during any consecutive three-month period.
** Annual averages are computed for each emission source by dividing the
  total sulfur content by the total gross heat content of all solid fuel
  received during any consecutive 12-month period.

    Owners and/or operators of any stationary combustion installation
that fires residual oil are limited to the firing of residual oil with
a sulfur content listed in the table below on or after July 1, 2014:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Residual oil  (percent sulfur by
                Area                                weight)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York City.......................                                0.30
Nassau, Rockland and Westchester                                    0.37
 Counties...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Owners and/or operators of any stationary combustion installation
that fires residual oil are limited to the purchase of residual oil
with a sulfur content listed in the table below on or after July 1,
2014, and are limited to the firing of residual oil with a sulfur
content listed in the table below on or after July 1, 2016:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Residual oil  (percent sulfur by
                Area                                weight)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suffolk County: Towns of Babylon,                                   0.50
 Brookhaven, Huntington, Islip, and
 Smith Town.........................
Erie and Niagara Counties...........                                0.50
Remainder of State..................                                0.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Owners and/or operators of commercial, industrial, or residential
emission sources that fire number two heating oil on or after July 1,
2012 are limited to the purchase of number two heating oil with 0.0015
percent sulfur by weight or less.
    Owners and/or operators of a stationary combustion installation
that fires distillate oil other than number two heating oil are limited
to the purchase of distillate oil with 0.0015 percent sulfur by weight
or less on or after July 1, 2014.
    Owners and/or operators of any stationary combustion installation
that fires distillate oil including number two heating oil are limited
to the firing of distillate oil with 0.0015 percent sulfur by weight or
less on or after July 1, 2016.
    Owners and/or operators of any stationary combustion installation
that fires waste oil on or after July 1, 2014 are limited to the firing
of waste oil with 0.75 percent sulfur by weight or less.

Exceptions and Variances Provided for in Subpart 225-1

    6 NYCRR Sections 225-1.3 and 225-1.4 include provisions allowing
for exceptions or variances from the sulfur-in-fuel limits set forth in
ECL 19-0325 and Section 225-1.2.
    Section 225-1.3 addresses exceptions to fuel limitations due to
fuel shortage. It provides that NYSDEC may issue an order granting a
temporary exception based on an insufficient supply of conforming fuel,
provided the decision is certified by the New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority. The exception cannot exceed 45
days, unless the department permits a public hearing, after which the
extension can be granted for up to one year. Section 225-1.3(e)
recognizes that, pursuant to New York State Energy Law 5-117, any
provisions of Section 225-1.3 may be preempted if the Governor declares
that a fuel-supply emergency exists or is impending.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 5-117 of the New York State Energy Law concerns
powers granted to the Commissioner of the New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) when the Governor finds
there is a fuel supply emergency; the powers are authorized to the
extent that they are not in conflict with federal law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 225-1.4 allows for fuel mixture or equivalent emission rate
variances. Fuels with sulfur content greater than that allowed by
Section 225-1.2 may be fired when the facility owner can demonstrate
that sulfur dioxide emissions do not exceed the value for S calculated
using the following equation:

S = (1.1AM + 2BT)/(M + T)

Where:

S = Allowable sulfur dioxide emission (in pounds per million Btu)
A = Sulfur in oil allowed by section 225-1.2 of this Subpart (in
percent by weight)
B = Average sulfur in solid fuel allowed by section 225-1.2 of this
Subpart (in pounds of sulfur per million Btu gross heat content)
M = Percent of total heat input from liquid fuel
T = Percent of total heat input from solid fuel (including coal,
coke, wood, wood waste, and refuse-derived fuel)

    Fuel mixtures and equivalent emission rate variances only apply to
processes or stationary combustion installations. Compliance will be
based on the total heat input from all fuels fired, including gaseous
fuels. Any process or stationary combustion installation owner who
chooses to fire a fuel mixture is subject to the emission and fuel
monitoring requirements of Section 225-1.5.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Subpart 225-1.4 also allows variances for fuel fired to
demonstrate the performance of experimental equipment and/or
processes for reducing sulfur compounds from an emission source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the initial approval of Part 225 into the SIP, the EPA indicated
that variances adopted by the State pursuant to sections 225.2(b) and
(c), 225.3, and 225.5(c) are federally enforceable only if approved by
the EPA as SIP revisions. 46 FR 55690, 55693 (Nov. 12, 1981). The
provisions of 225.2(b) and (c), 225.3, and 225.5(c), although now
renumbered in revised Subpart 225-1, are substantively unchanged.
Therefore, EPA's condition, that variances adopted pursuant to these
conditions are federally enforceable only if approved by the EPA as SIP
revisions, remains in effect. 81 FR 23167, 23171 (April 20, 2016); 40
CFR part 52.1670.
    The EPA proposes to approve New York's Subpart 225-1 submittal,
provided that, consistent with prior approvals of Part 225, any
exception or variance must to be submitted to the EPA as a source-
specific SIP revision and is not federally enforceable until approved
by EPA.

III. Updating 40 CFR 52.1675 Control Strategy and Regulations: Sulfur
Oxides

    40 CFR 52.1675 includes a list of special limitations of sulfur-in-
fuels, adopted in the 1980s, for a variety of sources. EPA has
determined that either these limits have expired or the sources have
shut down. 47 FR 7662 (2/22/82); letter from NYSDEC, dated March 25,
2011, confirming the shut-down of Lovett Generating Station (a copy is
in the docket for this action). EPA's determination was reflected in
the reformatting exercise that ensured that all revisions to the New
York State SIP are accurately reflected in 40 CFR part 52, including 40
CFR 52.1670(d), ``EPA approved State source-specific requirements.'' 76
FR 41705 (July 15, 2011). 40 CFR 52.1670(d) identifies all source-
specific requirements still effective in New York State. The EPA is
proposing to remove the provisions listed below from 40 CFR 52.1675 as
superfluous and obsolete.
    List of special limitations from 40 CFR 52.1675(d), (f) and (g)
that the EPA proposes to remove:

    (d) Section 225.3(e) of Subchapter A, Chapter III, Title 6 of
New York State's Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations, is disapproved since it does not provide for the type
of permanent control necessary to assure attainment and maintenance
of national standards.
* * * * *
    (f) The following applies to the Environmental Protection
Agency's approval as a SIP revision of the ``special limitation''
promulgated by the Commissioner of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation on November 20, 1979 permitting the
purchase and use by the Consolidated Edison Company of New York,
Inc. of fuel oil with a maximum sulfur content of 1.5 percent, by
weight, at units 2 and 3 of its Arthur Kill generating facility on
Staten Island, New York and unit 3 of its Ravenswood generating
station in Queens, New York:
    (1) On or before the ``Date of Conversion'' indicated below,
each ``Facility'' indicated below shall combust only natural gas for
the duration of the special limitation.
    (a) City College of New York, Amsterdam Ave. between W. 135th
St. and W. 138th St., Manhattan--
    North Campus Academic Center: Converted North Campus Main Boiler
(Compton Hall): Two boilers shut-down; One boiler converted;
    South Campus--Boiler Plant: Converted;
    North Campus Science and Physical Education Building: October 1,
1980.
    (b) Harlem Hospital, 135th St. and Lenox Ave., Manhattan: April
1, 1981;
    (c) Columbia University, 116th St. and Broadway, Manhattan:
Converted;
    (d) New York City Housing Auth., Senator Robert F. Wagner
Houses, 23-96 First Ave.: October 1, 1980;
    (e) New York City Housing Auth., Frederick Douglass Houses, 880
Columbus Ave., Manhattan: October 1, 1980;
    (f) New York City Housing Auth., Manhattanville Houses, 549 W.
126th St., Manhattan: October 1, 1980;
    (g) New York City Housing Auth., St. Nicholas Houses, 215 W.
127th St.: October 1, 1980;
    (h) New York City Housing Auth., General Grant Houses, 1320
Amsterdam Ave., Manhattan: October 1, 1980;
    (i) New York City Housing Auth., Harlem River Houses, 211-0-1 W.
151st Street, Manhattan: October 1, 1980;
    (j) New York City Housing Auth., Martin Luther King Towers, 90
Lenox Ave., Manhattan: October 1, 1980;
    (k) New York City Housing Auth., Drew Hamilton Houses, 210 W.
142nd Street, Manhattan: October 1, 1980.
    (2) If any of the facilities identified in paragraph (g)(1) of
this section, fail to meet the requirements of that paragraph, the
Consolidated Edison Company shall not burn fuel oil with a sulfur
content in excess of 0.30 percent, by weight. For this purpose,
Consolidated Edison shall maintain a reserve supply of fuel oil with
a maximum sulfur content of 0.30 percent, by weight, and shall have
a mechanism to switch promptly to the use of such fuel oil.
    (3) EPA's approval of this revision to the New York SIP will
extend for a period of twelve months from [August 11, 1980] or such
longer period limited to twelve months from the date on which fuel
oil with a sulfur content exceeding 0.30 percent, by weight, is
first burned at any of the affected Consolidated Edison facilities.
However, once the use of high sulfur fuel oil has commenced, failure
to meet any of the conversion dates specified in paragraph (g)(1) of
this section shall not extend the period of EPA approval.

    (4) On or before July 1, 1981 the Consolidated Edison Company of
New York, Inc. shall displace the use of approximately 7.1 million
gallons of residual oil, as projected on an annual basis, through a
gas conversion program to be implemented within a two-mile radius of
the Mabel Dean Bacon High School Annex monitor. Beginning on the
first day of the month in which fuel oil with a sulfur content
exceeding 0.30 percent, by weight, is first burned at any of the
affected Consolidated Edison facilities and continuing for twelve
months thereafter, the Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
shall submit a report to the EPA, on a monthly basis, which
includes, but is not limited to, the following information regarding
this program:
    (i) The total gallonage of fuel oil capacity converted
(projected to an annual amount) as of that date,
    (ii) The potential gallonage from sources at which conversion
work has begun, and
    (iii) The projected gallonage from sources expected to be
converted by July 1, 1981.
    (g) The Environmental Protection Agency has approved a New York
State Implementation Plan revision relating to the SO2
emission limit for units 4 and 5 of Orange and Rockland Utilities'
Lovett generating station. The revision which allows Lovett to burn
coal at units 4 and 5 was submitted by the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) on September 18, 1990, with
additional materials submitted on April 12, 1991, and June 3, 1991.
This action sets the emission limit applicable to the facility to
1.0 pound per million British thermal units (MMBtu) for units 4 and
5 if both are operated on coal, or to 1.5 lb/MMBtu for one unit if
the other is operated on fuel oil, natural gas or is not operated at
all, as set forth in the Certificates to Operate issued by NYSDEC on
April 3, 1991. The SO2 emission limit, monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements pertaining to the SO2
emissions are incorporated by reference into the Certificates to
Operate.

    The EPA also proposes to revise 40 CFR 52.1675(e) to conform with
the new nomenclature in New York's revised Subpart 225-1, and for it to
read as follows:

    (e) Any exception or variance promulgated by the Commissioner
under 6 NYCRR Sections 225-1.3 and 1.4 shall not exempt any person
from the requirements otherwise imposed by 6 NYCRR Subpart 225-1;
provided that the Administrator may approve such exception or
variance as a plan revision when the provisions of this part,
section 110(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and 40 CFR Part 51 (relating to
approval of and revisions to State implementation plans) have been
satisfied with respect to such exception or variance.

    The removed sections of 40 CFR 52.1675: (d), (f) and (g), will be
labeled as reserved.

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA proposes to approve the revisions to New York's Title 6 of
the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Subpart 225-1, ``Fuel
Composition and Use--Sulfur Limitations'' and Section 200.1,
``Definitions,'' both effective on April 5, 2013, into New York's SIP
as strengthening enforcement of the State's air pollution control
regulations.
    In addition, EPA has determined that the source-specific limits in
the New York's SIP at 40 CFR 52.1675(d), (f) and (g) have either
expired or the affected sources have shut down and that the 52.1675
requirements are therefore superfluous and obsolete. The EPA is
proposing to remove the source-specific limits from 52.1675(d), (f) and
(g). The EPA also proposes to revise 40 CFR 52.1675(e) to conform with
the new nomenclature in New York's revised Subpart 225-1.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, we are proposing to include in a final rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by
reference the provisions described above in Section IV. Proposed
Action.
    EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally
available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and in hard
copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to
apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: June 8, 2018.
Peter D. Lopez,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2018-13722 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51354-51355]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19833]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[8982-01-OA]

Notice of Meeting of the EPA Children's Health Protection
Advisory Committee (CHPAC)

AGENCY: Environmental Protect ion Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act,

notice is hereby given that the next meeting of the Children's Health
Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) will be held virtually November 2
and 3, 2021. The CHPAC advises the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) on science, regulations and other issues relating to children's
environmental health.

DATES: November 2, 2021 from 12:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. and November 3, 2021
from 12:30 p.m. to 6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place virtually. If you want to listen
to the meeting or provide comments, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for
further details.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nica Louie, Office of Children's
Health Protection, U.S. EPA, MC 1107T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meetings of the CHPAC are open to the
public. An agenda will be posted to https://www.epa.gov/children/childrens-health-protection-advisory-committee-chpac.
    Access and Accommodations: For information on access or services
for individuals with disabilities, please contact Nica Louie at 202-
564-7633 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 9, 2021.
Nica Mostaghim,
Environmental Health Scientist.
[FR Doc. 2021-19833 Filed 9-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15117-15118]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05884]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0315; FRL-9907-94-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Commercial and Industrial Solid
Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NSPS for Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units (40 CFR part 60,
Subpart CCCC) (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 2384.03, OMB Control No. 2060-
0662), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently
approved through May 31, 2014. Public comments were previously
requested via the Federal Register (78 FR 35023) on June 11, 2013,
during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30
days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given
below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency
may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 17,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0315, to: (1) EPA online, using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The NSPS fulfills the requirements of sections 111 and
129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), which require EPA to promulgate New
Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for solid waste incineration units.
This regulation amends the 2000 CISWI NSPS currently in affect. The
information collection activities required by the NSPS include: Site
requirements, operator training and qualification requirements,
testing, monitoring and reporting requirements,

one-time and periodic reports, and the maintenance of records. These
activities will enable EPA to determine initial compliance with the
emission limits for the regulated pollutants, monitor compliance with
operating parameters, and ensure that facilities conduct the proper
planning and operator training.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of commercial
and industrial solid waste incineration units.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart CCCC).
    Estimated number of respondents: 5 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and annually.
    Total estimated burden: 1,036 hours (per year). ``Burden'' is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $451,859 (per year), includes $350,476
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase in the total
estimated respondent burden when compared with the ICR currently-
approved by OMB. This increase is due to a multitude of factors
including an increase in the respondent universe since the last ICR
period, an update to the labor rates, as well as corrections to errors
in the burden estimates. The primary correction included revising the
number of existing respondents subject to annual reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
    There is also an increase in the total capital and O&M costs due to
an increase in the number of respondents. In addition, this ICR
corrects the number of respondents that have to maintain monitors,
which also contributes to the increase in O&M costs.
    There is also a decrease in the Agency burden and cost due to
several corrections, primarily associated with the frequency of
observing initial stack tests and reviewing excess emission reports.

Richard T. Westlund,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-05884 Filed 3-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17922-17925]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06083]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2023-0002-N-6]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, FRA will seek approval of the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below. Before submitting this ICR
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is
soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities
identified in the ICR.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
May 23, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR
should be submitted on regulations.gov to the docket, Docket No. FRA-
2023-0002. All comments received will be posted without change to the
docket, including any personal information provided. Please refer to
the assigned OMB control number (2130-0560) in any correspondence
submitted. FRA will summarize comments received in response to this
notice in a subsequent notice and include them in its information
collection submission to OMB for approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Arlette Mussington, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, at email: [email protected] or
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or Ms. Joanne Swafford, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, at email: [email protected] or
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information
collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8-1320.12.

Specifically, FRA invites interested parties to comment on the
following ICR regarding: (1) whether the information collection
activities are necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions,
including whether the activities will have practical utility; (2) the
accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the information collection
activities, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used to determine the estimates; (3) ways for FRA to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and
(4) ways for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection
activities on the public, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. See 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1).
    FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the
administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of
information that Federal statutes and regulations mandate. In summary,
FRA reasons that comments received will advance three objectives: (1)
reduce reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection
requirements in a ``user-friendly'' format to improve the use of such
information; and (3) accurately assess the resources expended to
retrieve and produce information requested. See 44 U.S.C. 3501.
    The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0560.
    Abstract: FRA plans to publish in the Federal Register a final
administrative rule on its procedures for service of documents in
railroad safety enforcement proceedings and other administrative
updates. This rule will update FRA's railroad safety enforcement
procedures and rules of practice to require electronic service of
documents. Specifically, this rule modernizes 49 CFR part 209's
provisions and other FRA procedures regarding service to require
service through electronic methods of transmission. For example, with
respect to updating FRA's rules of practice to require electronic
service of documents, this rule will remove the certified mail
requirements in 49 CFR part 222 and provide for electronic submission
of documents to FRA and other affected parties (such as railroads and
State agencies).
    This 60-day notice provides the public with the opportunity to
comment on the modifications made to eliminate the need for certified
mail in sections 222.39, 222.43, 222.47, and 222.51. These adjustments
will also decrease the burden hours by 47 hours, reducing the current
inventory's 7,254 hours to 7,207 hours in the requesting inventory.
Additionally, this rule will reduce the certified mailed cost by $5,000
annually to the affected parties.
    The other provisions under parts 209, 211, 212, 216, 231, 233, 235,
238, and 239 with respect to electronic methods of transmission
requirements will not impact the current PRA inventory under multiple
OMB control numbers \1\ since the affected parties are already
submitting their written products electronically to FRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Covered under multiple OMB Control Numbers, such as, 2130-
0006, 2130-0504, 2130-0509, 2130-0544, 2130-0545, and 2130-0594.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 784 railroads/645 public authorities.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Reporting Burden:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ FRA used the Surface Transportation Board's 2021 Full-Year
Wage A&B data series as the basis for each cost calculation. For
professional and administrative staff, the hourly wage rate is
$77.91 per hour ($44.52 * 1.75). For transportation (train and
engine) staff, the hourly wage rate is $62.67 per hour ($35.81 *
1.75).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average time  per      Total annual        Total cost
             CFR section                  Respondent universe     Total annual responses           response          burden hours        equivalent
                                                                 (A).....................  (B)....................     (C) = A * B   (D) = C * wage rate
                                                                                \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
222.15--How does one obtain a waiver   784 railroads + 645       2 petitions.............  4 hours................            8.00               $623.28
 of a provision of this regulation?--   public Authorities.
 Petition for waiver.
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
222.17--How can a State agency become  FRA anticipates zero applications, as FRA has yet to receive any submissions under this provision.
 a recognized State agency?
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
222.39(b)--How is a quiet zone         645 public authorities..  15 applications.........  80 hours...............        1,200.00             75,204.00
 established?--Public authority
 application to FRA--Applications for
 quiet zone approval.
    --(b)(1)(i) Updated Grade          645 public authorities..  75 updated forms........  30 minutes.............           37.50              2,350.13
     Crossing Inventory Form
     (includes requirements under
     Sec.   222.49(a)).
    --(b)(1)(iii) Diagnostic team      645 public authorities..  3 team reviews..........  16 hours...............           48.00              3,739.68
     review of proposed quiet zone
     crossings.
    --(b)(3)(i) 60-day comment         645 public authorities..  90 copies...............  1 minute...............            1.50                 94.01
     period--Copies of quiet zone
     application (Revised
     requirement).
    --(b)(3)(ii) 60-day comment        784 railroads...........  30 comments.............  1.5 hours..............           45.00              3,505.95
     period--Comments to FRA on
     Applications for quiet zone
     approval.
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --(b)(3)(iii) 60-day comment       FRA anticipates zero written statements.
     period--Written no-comment
     statements.
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
222.43(a)(1)--What notices and other   645 public authorities,   60 notices + 180          40 hours + 1 minute....        2,403.00            150,596.01
 information are required to create     784 railroads, and        notifications.
 or continue a quiet zone?--Written     state agencies.
 notice of public authority's intent
 to create new quiet zone and
 notification to required parties
 (Revised requirement).
    --(b)(3) Notice of Intent--60-day  784 railroads and state   120 comments............  1.5 hours..............          180.00             14,023.80
     comment period.                    agencies.

    --(d) Notice of Quiet Zone         645 public authorities..  60 notices + 360          40 hours + 10 minutes..        2,460.00            154,168.20
     Establishment--Written notice of                             notifications.
     quiet zone establishment and
     notification to required parties.
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --(d)(2)(ii)(A) Required           The estimated paperwork burden for this requirement is covered under Sec.   222.43(d).
     contents--Public authority to
     include a copy of the quiet zone
     calculator web page in its
     notice of quiet zone
     establishment.
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --(d)(2)(v)-(vi) Required          645 public authorities..  300 updated forms.......  30 minutes.............          150.00              9,400.50
     contents--Updated Grade Crossing
     Inventory Forms (includes
     requirements under Sec.
     222.49(a)).
    --(d)(2)(xi) Required contents--   645 public authorities..  60 certifications.......  5 minutes..............            5.00                313.35
     Certification by chief executive
     officer that the information
     submitted by the public
     authority is accurate.
222.47--What periodic updates are      645 public authorities..  180 written affirmations  30 minutes + 1 minute..          108.00              6,768.36
 required?--Written affirmation to                                + 1,080 copies.
 FRA that Supplementary or
 Alternative Safety Measures (SSMs or
 ASMs) conform to the requirements of
 Appendices A and B or the terms of
 the Quiet Zone approval (Revised
 requirement).
    --(a)(2) and (b)(2) Updated Grade  645 public authorities..  900 updated forms.......  30 minutes.............          450.00             28,201.50
     Crossing Inventory Forms
     (includes requirements under
     Sec.   222.49(a)).
222.51(a)-(b)--Under what conditions   645 public Authorities..  15 written commitments..  5 hours................           75.00              4,700.25
 will quiet zone status be
 terminated?--Written commitment to
 lower the potential risk to the
 traveling public at the crossings
 within the quiet zone.
    --(c) Review at FRA's initiative-- 645 public authorities,   2 comments..............  30 minutes.............            1.00                 62.67
     Comments from interested parties   railroads, state
     during FRA's review of quiet       agencies, and the
     zone status.                       general public.
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --(d) Termination by the public    FRA estimates zero public authorities will elect to terminate a quiet zone that they only recently designated or
     authority--Written notice of       established, and so there will be no need to provide any written notices of termination. Consequently, there is
     quiet zone termination (Revised    no estimated paperwork burden associated with this requirement.
     requirement).
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --(e) Notification of termination  FRA estimates that there will be zero quiet zones terminated under the provisions of this section, and that there
     (Revised requirement).             will be no need to provide written notifications to relevant parties. Consequently, there is no estimated
                                        paperwork burden associated with this requirement.
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
222.55(b)--How are new supplementary   645 public authorities    1 letter................  30 minutes.............             .50                 31.34
 or alternative safety measures         and interested parties.
 approved?--Request for FRA approval
 of new SSMs or ASMs for quiet zones.
    --(d) Request for SSM/ASM          645 public authorities    1 letter................  30 minutes.............             .50                 31.34
     approval upon completion of        and interested parties.
     demonstration of proposed new
     SSMs or ASMs.
222.57(a)--Can parties seek review of  645 public authorities    1 petition + 6 copies...  2 hours + 2 minutes....            2.20                137.87
 the Associate Administrator's          and interested parties.
 actions?--A public authority or
 other interested party may petition
 FRA for review of any decision by
 the Associate Administrator granting
 or denying an application for
 approval of a new SSM or ASM under
 Sec.   222.55 (plus copies to the
 required parties).
    --(b) Request for FRA              645 public authorities..  1 petition letter + 6     2 hours + 2 minutes....            2.20                137.87
     reconsideration of disapproval                               copies.
     of application for Quiet Zone
     approval and copies of requests
     to the required parties.
    --(b) Additional documents         645 public authorities..  1 additional document     2 hours................            2.00                125.34
     submitted to FRA to support                                  and set of materials.
     petition for reconsideration.
    --(b) Letter to FRA requesting an  645 public authorities..  1 letter................  30 minutes.............             .50                 31.34
     informal hearing.
222.59(b)--When may a wayside horn be  645 public authorities..  5 notices + 30 copies...  2.5 hours + 2 minutes..           13.50                846.05
 used?--Written notice of use of
 wayside horn at grade crossing
 within a quiet zone plus copies of
 the written notices to the required
 parties.
    --(c) Written notice of wayside    645 public authorities +  5 notices + 30 copies...  2.5 hours + 2 minutes..           13.50                846.05
     horn use located outside a quiet   784 railroads.
     zone.
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix B to Part 222--Alternative    FRA anticipates zero submissions. Additionally, FRA has yet to receive any submissions under this provision.
 Safety Measures--Non-engineering
 ASMs--Programmed Enforcement.
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix B to Part 222--Alternative    FRA anticipates zero submissions. Additionally, FRA has yet to receive any submissions under this provision.
 Safety Measures--Non-engineering
 ASMs--Photo Enforcement.
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

229.129(c)(10)--Locomotive horn--      The one-time testing requirement under this provision for locomotives built before September 18, 2016 has been
 Written Reports and Records of         fulfilled. However, any estimated burden for testing records will be covered under OMB control number 2130-0004
 Locomotive Horn Testing.               under 229.23.
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total............................  784 railroads + 645       3,620 responses.........  N/A....................           7,207               455,939
                                        public authorities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 3,620.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 7,207 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent:
$455,939.
    FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or
sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection
of information that does not display a currently valid OMB control
number.
    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Brett A. Jortland,
Deputy Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2023-06083 Filed 3-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


 Introduction

This is the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA or the Agency)
Final Work Plan (FWP) for the registration review of tribufos.  The FWP
includes the expected registration review timeline.  The FWP also
addresses public comments received concerning the Preliminary Work Plan
(PWP) in the Summary Document which was posted in the tribufos
registration review docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0883) and any other comments
concerning the initial docket postings.  The Summary Document provided
information on what EPA knows about the pesticide and what additional
risk analyses and data or information the Agency believes are needed to
make a registration review decision.

The Agency is implementing the registration review program and will
review each registered pesticide every 15 years to determine whether it
continues to meet the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) standard for registration.  Changes in science, public
policy, and pesticide use practices will occur over time.  The
registration review program is intended to make sure that, as the
ability to assess risk evolves and as policies and practices change, all
registered pesticides continue to meet that statutory standard.  The
public phase of registration review begins when the initial docket is
opened for each case.  Information on this program is provided at
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/"
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/ .

Tribufos was the subject of a 2000 Interim Reregistration Eligibility
Decision (IRED), and in July 2006 the Reregistration Eligibility
Decision (RED) for tribufos was finalized upon completion of the
Organophosphate (OP) Cumulative Risk Assessment.  Tribufos is an
organophosphate defoliant used on cotton crops.  There are no
residential or public recreational uses of tribufos.

Comments Received on the Preliminary Work Plan

In the Summary Document for tribufos, EPA solicited comments on the
topics of environmental justice, water body impairment, and potential
trade irritants, in addition to questions specific to tribufos
concerning use, usage, benefits, and available alternatives.  No
comments or information were received during the public comment period.
Therefore, the Agency’s intent to conduct the risk assessments
described in the Summary Document, and the timeline for tribufos
registration review described in the PWP, remain the same.

Anticipated Risk Assessment and Data Needs:

The Agency anticipates updating and revising the ecological risk
assessment for tribufos (including an endangered species risk
assessment) and updating and revising the human health risk assessment.
Additional data that the Agency anticipates needing to complete these
assessments are specified below.

Ecological Risk:

An ecological risk assessment (1996) and an updated drinking water
assessment (2000) were completed for the IRED (2000).  Eight ecological
studies were required during reregistration to address the data gaps.
These data have been submitted; however, one of the studies (850.1400
– Early Life Stage Toxicity of Tribufos to the Fathead Minnow) was
determined to be unacceptable for risk quotient (RQ) calculations and
remains an outstanding data gap.

The environmental fate database for tribufos is currently complete with
two exceptions; an aerobic aquatic metabolism study is needed to
describe the fate of tribufos in surface water bodies, and an
octanol-air partition coefficient (KOA) study is also required in order
to describe the fate of tribufos in the atmosphere in support of
bioaccumulation modeling.

While they will not be used for an exposure assessment, submission of
analytical methods in water and in sediment (and associated independent
laboratory validations) are       needed to support enforcement and
monitoring at the federal, state, and local levels.  The analytical
method in sediment data is needed, since tribufos is expected to
partition predominately to sediment in surface water bodies.  If data
are submitted indicating that the previously submitted analytical method
in soil is appropriate for measuring residues in sediment, then a
separate analytical method in sediment should not be necessary.

In order to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment during registration
review, the following data are needed: avian acute oral toxicity
(passerine); terrestrial plant toxicity; and sediment toxicity for
invertebrates.

Although acceptable acute avian oral toxicity data were submitted for
mallard duck and bobwhite quail, data are not available for a passerine
species.  The available acute oral toxicity data for mallard ducks and
bobwhite quails indicates that tribufos may be moderately toxic to birds
on an acute oral exposure basis, and there is evidence from other OPs
(e.g., dimethoate) that passerines are significantly more sensitive to
at least some OPs when compared to the upland and game bird species
tested.

While acceptable Tier II terrestrial plant studies are available for
tribufos, the plant species studied (i.e., annual dicots and monocots)
are not expected to be as sensitive to tribufos as other plants (e.g.,
woody deciduous trees and shrubs) due to its mechanism of action.
Available toxicity studies were conducted on plants that do not form
abscission zones, and data from these studies may underestimate the
potential toxicity of tribufos to non-target plants that do form
abscission zones.  Therefore, additional terrestrial plant toxicity
studies on plants expected to be sensitive to tribufos’ mode of action
are required.

The fate properties of tribufos indicate it can potentially partition to
the sediment, and no sediment toxicity data are available for review;
therefore, toxicity to benthic invertebrates is unknown.  Sediment
toxicity data are required to assess risk to the benthic invertebrate
community from tribufos.

The Agency has not conducted a risk assessment that supports a complete
endangered species determination.  The ecological risk assessment
planned during registration review will allow the Agency to determine
whether tribufos’s use has “no effect” or “may affect”
federally listed threatened or endangered species (listed species) or
their designated critical habitats.  When an assessment concludes that a
pesticide’s use “may affect” a listed species or its designated
critical habitat, the Agency will consult with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (the
Services), as appropriate.

The Agency completed endangered species assessments evaluating the
potential effects of tribufos on the California red-legged frog (Rana
aurora draytonii) consistent with court orders and settlements, Center
for Biological Diversity v. Johnson, et al.,No. 02-1580  (N.D. Cal.,
October 20, 2006).  The Agency concluded in October 2008 that tribufos
is Likely to Adversely Affect the California red-legged frog and
initiated formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
regarding this determination.

EPA anticipates needing the following guideline studies in order to
conduct a complete ecological risk assessment for the registration
review of tribufos:

835.4300 - Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism

835.6200 - Analytical Methods (and Associated Independent Laboratory
Validations) for Residues in Water and Sediment

850.2100 - Avian Acute Oral Toxicity Test (Passerine)

850.1735 - Sediment Toxicity Testing on Freshwater Invertebrates

850.1740 - Sediment Toxicity Testing on Marine Invertebrates

Non-guideline - Partition Coefficient (n-Octanol/Air)

Non-guideline - Terrestrial Plant Toxicity Test

Please refer to the December 10, 2008 document “Problem Formulation
for Ecological Risk, Endangered Species, and Drinking Water Exposure
Assessments in Support of the Registration Review of Tribufos” in the
registration review docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0883) for a detailed
discussion of the anticipated risk assessment needs.

Human Health Risk:

The human health risk assessment conducted in support of the 2000 IRED
was the primary source used for the 2009 “Tribufos:  Revised Human
Health Assessment Scoping Document in Support of Registration Review.”
  EPA completed its reevaluation of tribufos with the release of the OP
Cumulative Risk Assessment (CRA) in July 2006.  The CRA did not result
in any changes to tribufos registrations.

Should the Agency determine that new information on tribufos is
available which could potentially impact the CRA, the Agency will
revisit the CRA.

The toxicity database for tribufos is largely complete, with the
exception of a comparative cholinesterase (CCA) study and an
immunotoxicity study.  The CCA study is an outstanding requirement from
the IRED.

A new drinking water exposure assessment is anticipated to be needed for
registration review to incorporate the latest modeling methods.

A new dietary risk assessment is anticipated to be needed for
registration review, which will include updated drinking water estimated
environmental concentrations (EECs), updated percent crop treated
information, and revised anticipated residue levels taking into account
the revised dietary burden to ruminants.  Additionally, any changes to
toxicity endpoints or safety factors will also be incorporated.

The updated dietary assessment will also include a reassessment of
tribufos tolerance levels for livestock commodities.  The only
tribufos-treated livestock feedstuff, cotton gin byproducts, has had a
significant reduction in the percent of diet (25 to 5%), resulting in a
lower dietary burden, which may in turn result in lower tolerance levels
than previously recommended.

Since there are no currently registered residential or public
recreational uses for tribufos, a residential risk assessment is not
required at this time.

The most recent aggregate assessment (Human Health Risk Assessment for
Tribufos, June 2000) considered only food and water, as there are no
residential uses of tribufos.

A new aggregate risk assessment may be needed in registration review due
to the identified data gaps in the toxicity database and likely
revisions to drinking water estimates, percent crop treated information,
and anticipated residue levels.

Occupational handler and post-application risk estimates (inhalation and
dermal exposure) have been updated in the February 20, 2009 “Tribufos.
 Revised Human Health Assessment Scoping Document in Support of
Registration Review” based on current labels incorporating mitigation
measures required in the 2000 IRED.

During reregistration, a biomonitoring study was required to obtain
exposure values to refine occupational risk estimates.  However, the
registrants requested, and the Agency agreed, to postpone the study
until after the required developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study was
submitted and reviewed.  The Agency has completed its review of
submitted studies, and concludes the toxicity data did not eliminate the
need for additional exposure data.  Therefore, a biomonitoring study or
a similar study that provides exposure data that can be used to refine
occupational handler and post-application risk estimates is required and
was called in by letter to the technical registrant in February, 2009.

A new occupational assessment is anticipated to be needed for
registration review, which will include risk estimates based on the
required tribufos biomonitoring or equivalent data, as well as any new
toxicity data that apply.

There are no maximum residue levels (MRLs) established for tribufos in
Canada, Mexico, or through Codex; thus, there are no international
harmonization issues.

Please refer to the February 20, 2009 “Tribufos:  Revised Human Health
Assessment Scoping Document in Support of Registration Review” in the
registration review docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0883) for a detailed
discussion of the anticipated risk assessment needs.

Timeline:

EPA has created the following estimated timeline for the completion of
the tribufos registration review.

Registration Review for Tribufos – Projected Registration Review
Timeline

Activities	Estimated Yr/Mon

Opening the docket

Open Docket and Public Comment Period	2009 – March

Close Public Comment	2009 – May

Case Development

Develop Final Work Plan (FWP)	 2009 – Aug.

Issue DCI	 2010 – April - June

Data Submission	 2012 – April - June

Preliminary Risk Assessments and Open Public Comment Period	 2013 –
Oct. - Dec.

Close Public Comment Period	 2014 – Jan. - March

Registration Review Decision

Proposed Registration Review Decision 	 2014– April - June

Public Comment Period 	 2014 – July - Sept.

Final Registration Review Decision and Begin Post-Decision Follow-up
2015

Total (years)	 6

As noted above, the Agency plans to require a number of ecological fate
and effects studies, an immunotoxicity study, and a CCA study through a
data call-in, which is expected to be issued in 2010.  This new
information will be used to conduct a comprehensive ecological risk
assessment, including an endangered species assessment, as well as a
full human health assessment, for all tribufos pesticidal uses.

 PAGE

  PAGE  1