[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 14876]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06167]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4262-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

Virginia; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Commonwealth of Virginia (FEMA-4262-DR), dated March
7, 2016, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: March 7, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 7, 2016, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the
Commonwealth of Virginia resulting from a severe winter storm and
snowstorm during the period of January 22-23, 2016, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the Commonwealth.
You are further authorized to provide snow assistance under the
Public Assistance program for a limited period of time during or
proximate to the incident period. Consistent with the requirement
that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided
under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under
the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects
that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing
percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot
Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of
the Stafford Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Donald L. Keldsen, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the Commonwealth of Virginia have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    The counties of Albemarle, Arlington, Caroline, Clarke,
Culpeper, Fairfax, Fauquier, Frederick, Highland, King George,
Loudoun, Louisa, Madison, Page, Patrick, Prince William,
Rappahannock, Spotsylvania, Stafford, and Warren and the independent
cities of Alexandria, Falls Church, Manassas, Manassas Park, and
Winchester for Public Assistance.
    The counties of Albemarle, Arlington, Caroline, Clarke,
Culpeper, Fairfax, Fauquier, Frederick, Highland, King George,
Loudoun, Louisa, Madison, Page, Patrick, Prince William,
Rappahannock, Spotsylvania, Stafford, and Warren and the independent
cities of Alexandria, Falls Church, Manassas, Manassas Park, and
Winchester for snow assistance under the Public Assistance program
for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate the incident
period.
    All areas within the Commonwealth of Virginia are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-06167 Filed 3-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


TO: Bill Maxwell, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS ( C439 01)

FROM: Jeffrey Cole, RTI International DATE: December 2003 SUBJECT: Methodology for Estimating Cost and Emissions Impact for Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants This memorandum describes the development of cost and emissions impacts estimates for electric utility steam generating units that will be subject to a National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP). The estimates support regulations for mercury ( Hg) from coal fired units and nickel ( Ni) from oil fired units.

MEMORANDUM OUTLINE 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Methodology for Estimating Cost and Emission Impacts 2.1 Costs for Coal fired Units 2.2 Environmental Impacts for Coal fired Units 2.3 Costs for Oil fired Units 2.4 Environmental Impacts for Oil fired Units 3.0 References Appendix A. Cost and Emissions Impacts Calculations Appendix B. Equations for Cost and Impacts Estimates 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION Costs were estimated for controls to reduce Hg emissions from coal fired units and Ni emissions from oil fired units. Costing was based on adaptations of methods given in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual1 ( Manual). The Manual uses sizing information, equipment cost curves, and factors associated with specific controls to arrive at overall capital and annual costs.

Where costs are not available, or to check current equipment costs, vendor contacts can be made to get such costs. Four major elements are included in the costing: direct and indirect capital costs, and direct and indirect annual costs ( including annualized costs for capital recovery).

Direct capital costs include purchased equipment ( control device plus auxiliary equipment,

instrumentation, sales tax, and freight) and installation ( foundation and supports, handling and erection, electrical, piping, insulation, and painting). Site preparation and buildings are not usually required, but would be included with direct capital costs. Indirect capital costs include engineering, construction and field expense, contractor fees, start up, performance test, and allowance for contingencies. Direct annual costs are comprised of operating labor ( operator and supervisor), operating materials, maintenance labor and materials, replacement parts, utilities ( such as electricity or compressed air), and waste disposal. Indirect annual costs include overhead, administrative charges, property tax, insurance, and capital recovery ( the annualized cost of money borrowed to purchase and install the control system). The annualization of capital recovery is based on estimated equipment life and interest rate. For fabric filters ( baghouses) and electrostatic precipitators ( ESP), equipment life is estimated at 20 years. For spray dryer adsorbers ( SDA) life is estimated at 15 years. Interest rates are taken as 7 percent for all equipment.

Because the costing is for equipment to be installed at existing plants, extra costs are required to accommodate difficulties in working around equipment and structures already in place. These extra costs appear as a retrofit factor included in the total capital investment.

Values for retrofit factors use here are 1.4 for baghouses and ESP, and 1.2 for SDA units. 1 Some boiler/ furnace units are smaller than the equivalent of 25 MW, but are paired with similar units to serve a 25 MW ( or greater) generator. 3 For coal fired units, costs were estimated using a population of 1,143 units ( furnace/ boiler combinations) ranging in equivalent rated electrical capacity from 16 MW1 to 1,426 MW.

Oilfired units were costed based on 218 units ranging in size from 25 MW to 1,028 MW.

Incremental impacts associated with installing controls include power to operate them,

solid waste ( ash) that must be disposed of, water consumption where applicable, and wastewater treatment. All of these quantities are estimated as part of the costing methods so that annual operating costs can be found. Impacts due to compliance monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting are not given here. They can be found in Form SF 83 that is part of the rulemaking package.

A major impact is the emission reduction attributed to installation of controls. These reductions and the costs and other impacts are given on a nationwide basis. The modeling used for estimation is based in part on the individual units, but the estimate for any single unit may not be accurate. However, in the nationwide aggregate, estimates are expected to be reasonable.

Tables 1 and 2 show the results for costs and impacts associated with controlling Hg emissions from coal fired electric utility units and Ni from oil fired electric utility units,

respectively. Table 3 shows totals for the two fuel types.

While environmental impacts are given for all units, not all are projected to require costs for new or upgraded controls. Units that are below the proposed emission limits would not require equipment changes. For coal fired units, 719 are estimated to require equipment changes.

For oil fired units, 189 are estimated to require equipment changes. These numbers are equivalent to 63 percent and 87 percent of the coal and oil fired units, respectively.

Appendix A contains the spreadsheets used for generating costing equations and environmental impacts for coal and oil fired units. The spreadsheets are of simple construction,

but contain large amounts of information. Rows are used for units ( one row per unit) and columns are used for input data ( e. g., unit MW) and for cost or impact calculations ( e. g., capital cost). 4 Table 1. Estimated incremental impacts for coal fired utility units, rounded, in millions except for mercury reduction Unit type Capital cost,

1999 $ Annual cost, 1999 $/ y Energy usage,

kWh/ y Solid waste,

tons/ y Mercury reductions,

tons/ y Mercury reductions, tons/ y Water usage, gal/ y ( good units under limit) ( all units at limit)

Bituminous 4,609 728 89 0.194 14.4 13.3 208 Subbituminous 607 92 4 0.009 2.0  1.6 0 Lignite 61 9 0 0.001 0.4  0.5 0 Blends 657 101 5 0.009 2.1 1.6 0 IGCC 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Coal refuse 57 18 33 0.082 0.1 0.05 117 Total 5,991 948 131 0.300 19.0 12.9 325 " Good units" are estimated to emit below proposed limits without adding new controls.

Table 2. Estimated Incremental impacts for oil fired utility boiler emission reductions, rounded, in millions except for nickel reductions Impact Capital cost, Annual cost, Energy, Solid waste, Ni reduction 2001 $ 2001 $/ y kWh/ y tons/ y tons/ y PM control, all plants 2,190 417 1,292 0.002 620 Table 3. Total estimated incremental impacts for coal and oil fired utility boiler emission reductions, rounded, in millions except for mercury and nickel reductions Impact Capital cost Annual cost Energy Solid waste Water usage Mercury reductions,

current rate for good units Mercury reductions, all units at limit Nickel reductions Units 1999 $ 1999 $/ y kWh/ y tons/ y gal/ y tons/ y tons/ y tons/ y 8,181 1,365 1,423 0.302 325 19.0 12.9 620 5 2.0 METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING COST AND EMISSION IMPACTS 2.1 Costs for Coal fired Units A variety of control strategies is available for removing mercury from flue gas. Data from the 1999 information collection request ( ICR) sent to all electric utility owners and operators showed year long Hg in coal concentrations and, for 79 units ( total of 80 stack test reports, one tested twice), Hg removal results for the last flue gas treatment device before the unit's stack.

These devices included ESP, baghouses, cyclones, particle scrubbers, wet flue gas desulfurization ( FGD) scrubbers, and SDA desulfurization systems. Although only 79 units were tested, all units have some form of particulate matter ( PM) control and many have controls for sulfur oxides and/ or nitrogen oxides.

Examination of the data showed that effectiveness of these devices varied, and appeared to be affected by factors such as coal rank, coal constituents, and upstream controls ( e. g., selective catalytic reduction [ SCR], and selective non catalytic reduction [ SNCR]). Because of the complexity of selecting specific systems for each of the 1,143 electric utility units, and with limited resources available for cost and impacts estimation, a simplified methodology was used for estimating costs and impacts.

For each unit, an estimate was made of its 1999 emission level based on modeling with information from the 1999 ICR ( see memorandum Mercury Emission Estimates for Coal fired Power Plants, from C. Allen to J. Cole, December 2003; note that the memorandum and its associated spreadsheet use an emission limit of 0.52 lb Hg/ TBtu for waste fuels, which was later changed to 0.38 lb Hg/ TBtu and used for costs and impacts estimates). This estimate ( minus the amount of the limit) was divided by the projected emission limit for the subcategory applicable to the unit to provide a ratio. Depending on the ratio, the unit was assigned a multiplier representing a fraction of the cost of a new fabric filter and auxiliaries sized for the unit. For example, if a bituminous unit emitted at the rate of 3 lb Hg/ TBtu with a limit of 2 lb Hg/ TBtu, the ratio would be 0.5, or 50 percent greater emissions than allowed. For a ratio of 1.5 or below ( but above 0;

units with a ratio of 0 or less would not require further reductions), the assigned multiplier was set at 0.3. The unit was estimated to be able to come into compliance through refurbishing,

upgrading, or otherwise altering its existing control equipment or process for 30 percent of the 6 cost of a new fabric filter and auxiliaries. This 30 percent level represents judgement as to how much money would be required to take whatever action is needed. For ratios between 1.5 and 3,

or 3 and 9, the multipliers were 0.5 or 1, respectively. For ratios above 9, the multiplier and associated baghouse cost were replaced with the cost of an SDA/ baghouse sized to the unit.

The Manual was used to cost fabric filters at three sizes for each coal rank: 100, 500, and 975 MW for bituminous, subbituminous, and lignite. The costs per MW ( capital and annual) were plotted against unit size in MW and equations were developed from the plots. The resulting six equations ( three for capital costs and three for annual costs) were used as appropriate for the three ranks of coal, the size of the unit, and the amount of excess emissions. For example, if the unit given above were 500 MW, the equivalent capital cost to meet the emission limit would be as shown in the following equation:

Capital cost = [ 8,847 x ln( 500) + 14,386] x 500 x 0.3 = $ 10.4 million ( 1999 dollars).

The term in brackets represents the equation derived for bituminous coals as used for a 500 MW unit. Because the equation is on a MW basis, it must be multiplied by the unit size of 500 MW. Unit incremental capital costs for the fabric filter equations range from about $ 55/ kW to $ 85/ kW in 1999 dollars. Appendix B gives the equations used for cost and impact estimates.

Costing for SDA units was based on detailed information in a National Lime Association ( NLA) document. 2 The document provides capital and annual costs for two 500 MW systems burning low sulfur Appalachian bituminous coal and low sulfur Powder River Basin subbituminous coal respectively. Four cases were costed: new units with both coals and retrofit units with both coals. Unit costs for these units ranged from $ 122/ kW to $ 163/ kW.

Costs attributed to the rule are incremental, representing only costs added to a plant's existing costs for emission control. For example, costs of solid waste handling and disposal for an existing ESP would be increased by a relatively small amount for additional ash collected after upgrading, not by the entire amount of ash handled in the upgraded unit. 7 2.2 Environmental Impacts for Coal fired Units The nationwide environmental impacts shown in Table 1, incremental increases in electricity, solid waste, and water ( and reductions in mercury), were developed as part of the cost estimates. All of these incremental increases are required to estimate annual operating and maintenance costs and are included in spreadsheets based on the Manual. As with capital and annual costs, equations were developed from the costing spreadsheets to estimate impacts on a MW basis. For the 500 MW example given above, incremental electricity usage is found from the following equation:

Electricity = [ 56.224 x ln( 500) + 791.88] x 500 = 221,235 kWh/ y.

Water usage for SDA units is derived from the NLA document. Because the spray drier evaporates all of the water used for slurrying calcium sorbent, no dedicated wastewater stream exists.

2.3 Costs for Oil fired Units Unlike coal fired utility units, most oil fired units do not have PM controls. To meet the proposed Ni limitations, most units will require the installation of an ESP or fabric filter. Although the first fabric filter on a full scale, oil fired utility unit was installed in the 1960s, the filters have not become popular because of safety concerns. For this reason, all units not having an ESP were assumed to require one at 90 percent efficiency to meet the emission limit. As with coal fired units, equations were developed to estimate costs as a function of unit size in MW. The equations were based on unit sizes of 150, 370, and 700 MW. Costs were also estimated for 25, 50, and 70 MW units as a check on smaller units. Because most units do not have an ESP, the incremental costs include essentially all capital and annual items at full cost. Table 5 gives the equations used for costing.

Credit was given for units already equipped with an ESP. Similarly, for units having cyclones or multicyclones, new ESP units were assumed to require an efficiency of 80 percent.

Assuming a 60 MW unit without an existing ESP or multicyclone, estimated capital cost was found from the following equation: 8 Capital cost = [ 162,853 x ln( 60) + 813,007)] x 60 = $ 8,773,842.

Many of the plants have two or more relatively small units. These plants were examined and, where it appeared feasible, units were combined to exhaust to one large ESP rather than having a separate ESP for each unit. This strategy tended to reduce estimated capital and annual costs at appropriate plants, and is a likely action for plants to take.

2.4 Environmental Impacts for Oil fired Units As with coal fired units, environmental impacts were estimated as part of the costing spreadsheets. For ESP units, only electricity and solid waste added to environmental impacts. For both impacts, the spreadsheet values were nearly constant across ESP sizes: 28,873 kWh/ y MW and 0.163 tons/ y MW for solid waste. For example, a 60 MW plant would use the following amount of electricity:

Electricity usage = 28,873 x 60 = 1,732,380 kWh/ y Note that severe time constraints in preparing the cost and impact estimates ( and this memorandum) have led to using engineering judgement to a greater degree than would ordinarily be used. It is likely that the error bounds for these estimates are broader than usual. Also engineering judgement was used in the emission factor bin assignments that lead to the emission totals taken from the 1999 EU/ ICE data national emissions model. This technique for choosing emission factors occasionally caused apparently similarly configured units with similar fuel consumption to have significantly different emission totals.. 9 1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, sixth edition. EPA  452 02 001. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. January 2002.

2. National Lime Association. Dry Flue Gas Desulfurization Technology Evaluation, Project Number 11311 000, September 26, 2002 3.0 References 10 Appendix A Cost and Emissions Impacts Calculations See Excel Spreadsheets: Costs impacts Hg coal docket. xls, Costs impacts Ni oil docket. xls, and ESP util oil docket. xls 11 Appendix B Equations for Cost and Impacts Estimates 12 Equations for Cost and Impacts Estimates Cost and impacts equations for coal fired utility units Coal rank Capital cost, $/ MW Annual cost, $/( y MW)

Bituminous 8,847 x ln( size) + 14,386 1295.5 x ln( size) + 2,638.6 Subbituminous 8,256.1 x ln( size) + 20,570 3.2078 x ( size) + 9,106.6 Lignite 8,047.5 x ln( size) + 27,528 1,233 x ln( size) + 4,430.7 Electricity, kWh/( y MW) Solid waste, tons/( y MW) Water, gal/( y MW)

Bituminous  56.224 x ln( 500) + 791.88 0.725 x ( size) 289,000 x ( size)

Subbituminous  58.806 x ln( size) + 828.25 1.112 x ( size) 359,834 x ( size)

Lignite  58.806 x ln( size) + 828.25 1.317 x ( size) 414,375 x ( size)

Cost and impacts equations for oil fired utility units Capital cost, $/ MW Annual cost, $/( y MW)

size < 83 MW  162,853 x ln( size) + 813,007  23,373 x ln( x) + 118,878 size > 83 MW  24,890 x ln( size) + 204,138  3,538.9 x ln( size) + 31,394 Electricity, kWh/( y MW) Solid waste, tons/( y MW)

all sizes 28,873 x ( size) 0.163 x ( size)


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 203 (Thursday, October 20, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72537-72539]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25291]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0325; FRL-9951-81]

Fluridone; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of
fluridone in or on cotton gin byproducts. SePRO Corporation requested
the tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective October 20, 2016. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 19, 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 EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0325, 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 EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0325 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 19, 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 EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0325, 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 July 20, 2016 (81 FR 47150) (FRL-9948-
45), 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#
6F8451) by SePRO Corporation, 11550 North Meridian Street, Suite 600,
Carmel, IN 46032. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be
amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide
fluridone in or on cotton, gin byproducts at 0.1 ppm. That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared SePRO, the registrant,
which is available in the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0325 at http://www.regulations.gov. No comments were received in response to the
notice of filing.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with 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 fluridone in or on
cotton gin byproducts, consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2).
    In the Federal Register of February 17, 2016 (81 FR 7982) (FRL-
9941-69), EPA established a tolerance for residues of fluridone in or
on cotton, undelinted seed. EPA is relying upon the risk assessments
that supported the findings made in the February 17, 2016 Federal
Register document in support of this action. The toxicity profile of
fluridone has not changed, and the previous risk assessments that
supported the establishment of that tolerance remain valid.
    For the February 17, 2016 action, the petitioner did not propose a
tolerance for residues of fluridone on cotton gin byproducts, however,
the Agency determined that a cotton gin byproduct tolerance was needed
to cover the cotton raw agricultural commodities (RAC). The commodity
``cotton gin byproducts'' was included in the risk assessments that
supported the February 17, 2016 Final Rule, but because they were not
proposed by the registrant, they could not be established at that time.
The registrant has subsequently proposed the cotton gin byproducts
tolerance and therefore, the tolerance can now be established.
    EPA concludes that the aggregate exposure and risk estimates
presented in the most recent human health risk assessment document,
which were not of concern to the Agency, adequately account for
exposures and risk resulting from all fluridone uses including cotton
gin byproducts.
    Therefore, EPA relies upon the findings made in the February 17,
2016, Federal Register document in support of this rule. 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 fluridone residues.
    For a detailed discussion of the aggregate risk assessments and
determination of safety for these tolerances, please refer to the
February 17, 2016, Federal Register document and its supporting
documents, available at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0913.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology high performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC) method (originally submitted as method AM-AA-CA-
RO52-AA-755) is available in the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM)
Volume II for residues of fluridone in plant commodities.

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 is no Codex MRL for fluridone residues in or on cotton.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of fluridone, 1-
methyl-3-

phenyl-5-(3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)-4(1H)-pyridinone, in or on cotton,
gin byproducts at 0.1 ppm.

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 tolerances 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: October 7, 2016.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
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. In Sec.  180.420, in paragraph (a)(2) add an entry ``Cotton, gin
byproducts'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec.  180.420  Fluridone; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Cotton, gin byproducts..................................             0.1

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-25291 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


 1. 	  2. 	  3. 	  4. 	  5. 	                            6. 	  7. 	  8. 	  9. 	  10.

                                       Guidelines on Fatigue Module 5

                            FATIGUE AND SHIP DESIGN

Module 5 contains practical information intended for the Naval Architect/Ship Designer for improving the ship design conditions on ships. Module 1 (Fatigue  -  Causes and Consequences) should be read prior to going through this module.

 1. Why do ship designers need to know about shipboard fatigue?        Fatigue threatens ship safety and can cause accidents[1]. Evidence that fatigue plays in maritime accidents has been provided by a number of submissions to IMO, e.g. those made by Australia (HTW1/INF. 2 and MSC 69/INF.15); United Kingdom (STW 44/10); Netherlands (STW 40/INF. 2);  Japan (MSC 71/INF.8; MSC 69/INF.16); and Finland (MSC 68/INF.15).     Whatever the cause, the effect of fatigue on performance is serious, threatening safe operations which rely on alertness and concentration. In addition to the threat to ship safety, fatigue can negatively affect seafarers' physical and psychological health, at a high cost to the individual and the industry.     Fatigue can result in long term effects on health and clinical illnesses, increasing the risks of pain, stress, obesity, coronary heart disease, gastrointestinal disorders and diabetes. Long term affects also point to mental health problems such as negative mood states and depression. Exhausted seafarers are also more vulnerable to the many hazards on ships, resulting in slips, trips and falls, strikes by falling objects, burns, body strains and other injuries. Injury claims from P&I Club statistics illustrate how much these hazards cost the industry, in addition to lost time and vessel delays.    As highlighted in Module 1, fatigue can arise from a range of factors but is primarily affected by inadequate restorative sleep, excessive wakefulness, work/sleep at inappropriate times of the body clock (circadian cycle) and demanding mental and/or physical work. Even the boredom of watchkeeping in the still of the night can cause fatigue. Inadequate restorative sleep (duration and quality)  is among the main causes of  fatigue. Amongst others, sleep is affected by the living and working environment onboard[2][,3].

 Reducing shipboard fatigue will require orchestrated action by many groups, including  companies, seafarers and administrations. Naval architects and ship designers make their unique contribution by improving the design of shipboard conditions and incorporating `fatigue proofing' into ship and equipment design to reduce potential to cause fatigue.

           1.          2.          3.          4.

 In controlling and managing the risks of fatigue at sea shipboard ergonomics and the improvement of conditions on board are important considerations in ensuring seafarers are provided with the best opportunity to:        (a)gain adequate sleep quality onboard; and        (b) maintain safe levels of alertness and performance during duty periods.

 3. What elements of fatigue can be influenced by design?

 There are various aspects of  fatigue that can potentially be influenced by the design of the living and working environment. Excessive heat or cold, too much or too little humidity, poor air exchange in enclosed spaces where people live and work can cause fatigue.  Fatigue that results from the working and living environment can be alleviated by design improvements. The following aspects should be considered in design:     Sleep area (Design for sleep)     *          Cabin, cool, ventilated, quiet and dark     *          Bunk design and layout, add sofa  -  different orientation     *          Mattress, bedding     *          Insulate and/or isolate sleeping areas      Ship seakeeping  -  minimise in living and working spaces                     *      Ship movement                      *      Vibration                     *      Noise      Accommodation spaces and layout (Design for personal needs and comfort)    Crew accommodation is usually located in a far from ideal location. It is built around the operation of the ship, being placed directly over the engine room. This area does not give the best quality of ride. In addition, it can be noisy.

   Acoustic insulation could be used to reduce noise in this area, but it must also be considered in conjunction with measures to increase sleep disturbances that must be heard, i.e. fire alarms. Consideration could be given to ensure that the accommodation area is restful and that it aides in recovery from fatigue, e.g. in terms of decor, easy to clean. The following should be considered:        *          Design for minimal crew flow in sleeping quarters;     *          Consider laundry, changing, hygiene, privacy;     *          Insulation or isolation from cargo, engine, other disturbances (noise and vibration);     *          Lighting/dimmers (design for sleep);     *          Ventilation/air exchange;     *          Temperature and humidity (design for sleep);     *          Design for natural light access;     *          Galley & mess room/s;     *          Design of napping stations;     *          Appropriate medical facilities.

  Workplace design (Design for alertness and performance)   Workplace design, particularly those that require unnecessary sustained exertion (physical or mental), can be offset by better design of the workplace or by better upkeep of the original condition of the ship. Aspects to consider include:           * Layout of workspaces for efficient work;       * Natural light access;       * Design for workflow;       * Working position (seated/standing, height, flooring material (shock and balance));       * Avoid fatigue "inducers";       * Lighting (design for alertness);       * Ventilation/ air exchange;       * Exposure to chemicals;       * Noise and vibration;       * Temperature and humidity (design for alertness).

   Additionally, design control centres such as machinery control room layout, cargo control room layout, etc., should consider the integration of people with equipment and systems to reduce mental overload and boredom.

  Recreation and recovery     *          Privacy and social life ;     *          Minimal "housekeeping";     *          Gym/training facilities;     *          Library, media rooms.

    oo

    oo                  oo                oo                oo                oo

    oo                  oo                oo                oo                oo                oo

    oo

 Ergonomic principles should be used and have been developed to aid designers. These are examined in the next section.

 4.     What does ergonomics have to do with shipboard design?

 The discipline of ergonomics is founded on the belief that good design supports human performance and is not limited to aesthetic qualities. A well-designed work system or piece of equipment, from an ergonomics viewpoint, takes advantage of human capabilities and minimizes the impact of human limitation while ensuring that the equipment or system is fully functional,   i.e. designed for human use and meets operational requirements. Ergonomics has been defined as:      "The scientific discipline concerned with the application of validated scientific research about people, their abilities, characteristics and limitations to the design of systems they use, environments in which they function and interact, and jobs they perform to improve health,  safety, well-being and overall system performance."

 Ergonomically designed work systems enhance safety, effectiveness, and efficiency. They should also support shipboard tasks under all conditions, including situations where people may be fatigued.     The ergonomics approach to design is human-centred. This means that all designable components (ship, ship's systems, equipment, service, etc) are fitted to the characteristics of the intended users, operators or workers (e.g. seafarers, maintainers, etc.) rather than selecting and/or adapting humans to fit the system and/or product. This should be done by consideration of:

 * the intended target population;  * the task, goal or intended outcome of the system, product or service; and  * the environment in which the design is to function.    Ergonomic principles should be employed.       1.

    2.

    3.

    4.

      Those affected by the design (the seafarers) should be involved throughout the whole design process, including evaluation. This will help to optimize solutions (e.g. by providing specific experience and requirements). Their early and continued participation and involvement is regarded as an efficient design strategy within ergonomics.    Task-oriented design also takes into account differences that can be observed between the designed task and the way the task is actually performed. Activities in performing a task are affected by variations and changes in, for example, context, procedures, equipment, products or materials.    The relations between the conditions and demands placed on the seafarer and their response to being exposed to such conditions which are dependent on individual characteristics (e.g. body size, age, capacities, abilities, skills, etc.) and their effects need to be considered in the design of ship systems, services, products and tasks in order to avoid impairing effects on the individual.    Appropriate standards are referenced throughout the following sections. A few standards give guidance on how to incorporate ergonomics into the design process, e.g. ergonomic principles in the design of work systems. The remaining sections also look at specific help that is available to the ship designers  to incorporate `fatigue proofing' strategies into design. This "help" takes the form of tools, guides, standards, regulations and rules.

 5. What tools are available for designing/building fatigue resistant ships?

 Ergonomic standards are effective tools for improving the working environment, particularly those that deal with environmental conditions (such as temperature, vibration, ventilation, etc.).

 Tools that support ergonomic design include the use of computer simulation. These are increasingly being used to assess both the impact of environmental conditions as well as work and living design ergonomics. Examples include virtual reality and three-dimensional computer aided design (JACK; SAMMIE; etc.). Use of such simulation tools is encouraged as they allow early and more cost effective evaluation of various aspects of design.

 Environmental conditions also extend across structural design, propulsion, hull forms and   several other aspects of design. Often, constructive solutions may be employed to improve environmental conditions. For example, the transmission of noise can be dampened by the insertion of acoustic insulation; similarly, resilience techniques can be used to alleviate vibration problems.

 There are a variety of design tools available for this and include recommended guides, prescriptive and evaluation standards. Design software such as Finite Element Analysis (FEA) can assist the ship designer in ensuring that specified limits are not exceeded. These tools can be used for:

    * Calculating noise limits;     * Calculating vibration limits;     * Calculating seakeeping qualities/quality of ride;     * Analysing ventilation flows; and     * Performing model tests.

 6.     What rules and guidance are available for designing/building a fatigue resistant ship?

 There are a number of rules, regulations, standards and guidelines designed to enhance environmental shipboard conditions, which can be used by the ship designer to reduce fatigue. This is a developing field.

 Accommodation  	  Some aspects of crew accommodation, for instance minimum size and acoustic insulation, are subject to regulation such as the International Labour Organization (ILO), Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) 2006.  The MLC, 2006 addresses crew accommodation in Title 3 (Accommodation, Recreational Facilities, Food and Catering).  The purpose is to ensure that seafarers have decent accommodation and recreational facilities on board. Regulation 3.1  -  Accommodation and recreational facilities and Standard A3.1  -  Accommodation and recreational facilities, incorporates prescriptive requirements for accommodation spaces (i.e. crew will have for example fewer or no cabin mates, a larger cabin floor area and more convenient access to showers, water closets, and lavatories).       The MLC, as it relates to habitability, institutes minimum standards of living through the provision of crew accommodation areas that   are:    * free from hazardous levels of noise and vibration;    * provide appropriate levels of lighting and indoor climatic qualities; and    * offers improved crew accommodation design.

 The MLC (2006), Guideline B3.1 (Accommodation and recreational facilities) provides more specific guidelines for ship design, covering the following aspects:    * Ventilation;    * Heating;    * Lighting;    * Sleeping rooms;    * Mess rooms;    * Sanitary accommodation;    * Hospital accommodation; and    * Prevention of noise and vibration.

       oo         oo         oo         oo         oo         oo         oo

Crew accommodation is also subject to National Standards.

Environmental conditions in living and working spaces

 Some Classification Societies have rules, most of them being optional rules, for aspects of environmental conditions (i.e. noise and vibration) for certain ship types.           A number of these Rules include crew-only spaces as well as passenger spaces. Crew-only spaces are defined as follows:        * accommodation spaces (e.g. cabins, corridors, offices, mess rooms, recreation rooms)        * work spaces        * navigation spaces

 These Rules are contained in:

      * Comfort Class: Rules for Classification of Ships. Part 6, Chapter 33. Det Norske Veritas (DNVGL). January 2014                 * Rules for Passenger and Crew Accommodation Comfort. Part 7, Chapter 12. July 2014. Lloyd's Register of Shipping

      * Rules for the Evaluation of Noise and Vibration Comfort on Board Passenger Ships. January 1999. Registro Italiano Navale

Noise              IMO developed requirements and Resolutions aimed to protect the seafarer from unacceptable levels of noise:                      * SOLAS Regulation II-1/3-12 Protection against noise.        * Res. MSC. 337(91) Code on noise levels onboard ships (This code is mandatory under regulation II-1/3-12 with entry into force on 1 July 2014).         * Resolution A.468(XII) (1981), Code on noise levels onboard ship fixes permissible maximum limits of noise depending on the type of space.

Relevant Standards on Noise

     ISO 2923:1996 Acoustics - Measurement of noise onboard vessels           ISO 1999:2013 Acoustics - Estimation of noise-induced hearing loss                     ISO 717-1; 717-2: 2013 Acoustics - Rating of sound insulation in buildings and of building elements:             oo Part 1: Airborne sound insulation.             oo              oo Part 2: Impact sound insulation.

      ISO 15186-2:2003 Acoustics - Measurement of sound insulation in buildings and of building elements using sound.        Part 2: Field measurements               ISO 140-5:1998 Acoustics - Measurement of sound insulation in buildings and of building elements. Part 7:        Field measurements of airborne impact insulation of floors

      IEC Publication 60651 Sound level meters              IEC Publication 60225 Octave, half-octave and third octave band filters intended for the analysis of sound and vibrations              IEC Publication 60804:Ed. 2.0 Integrating-average in sound level meters              IEC Publication 60942:2003 Electroacoustics Sound calibrators

Other Standards on Vibration:

ISO 2041:2009 Mechanical vibration, shock and condition monitoring 	 -  vocabulary

      ISO 2631 (Series) Mechanical vibration and shock - E	valuation of human exposure to whole-body vibration              ISO 20283 Mechanical vibration - Measurement of vibration on ships.             oo Part 2 (2008): Measurement of structural vibration             oo Part 3 (2006): Pre-installation vibration measurement of shipboard equipment       Part 4 (2012): Measurement and evaluation of vibration of the ship propulsion machinery              ISO 6954:2000 Mechanical vibration - Guidelines for the measurement, reporting and evaluation of vibration with regard to habitability on passenger and in merchant ships

Classification Societies' Guidelines for Noise and Vibration

      In addition to the Comfort Notation described above, Classification Societies have guidelines for noise and vibration limits onboard ship, as listed below:

           NK	Noise and Vibration Guideline, July 2011            	                        ABS	Noise and Vibration control for inhabited spaces, July 2014                        ABS	Guidance notes on ship vibration, April 2006

           KR	Guide to control of ship vibration and noise, 2[nd] edition, 1997            IACS	Unified Interpretation SC82 Protection against noise, 1993                   BV		Recommendation  designed  to  limit  the  effects  of  vibrations     onboard, Guidance note, NI38 A-RD3, 1979                                      VERITEC  Vibration control in ships, 1985                        LR	Guidance notes on acceptable vibration levels and their measurement, 1990

      In addition to the guidelines above, classification societies have guidelines for crew Habitability on ships, offshore installations, workboats and mobile offshore drilling units, developed with the objective of improving the quality of crew member performance and comfort by improving working and living environments in terms of accommodation area design as listed below:

      ABS	Guide for crew habitability on ships, July 2012                    ABS	Guide for crew habitability on offshore installations, September 2012              ABS	Guide for crew habitability on workboats                    ABS	Guide for crew habitability on mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs), September 2012

Working spaces

 Regulations and standards exist for dealing with improvements to working spaces which may help in reducing fatigue. Some of the standards are still under development. These measures include bridge layout and navigation equipment, engine rooms, and general ergonomics, as follows.

Bridge Layout and Navigation Equipment

           IMO MSC/Circular.982, Guidelines on Ergonomic criteria for bridge equipment and layout                               ISO 8468:2007 Ships and marine technology - Ship's bridge layout and associated equipment - Requirements and Guidelines

                                                             IACS	Unified N1 requirements for One Man Bridge Operated (OMBO) Ships. International Association of Classification Societies. 1992                                                  ABS	Guidance notes on Ergonomic Design of Navigational Bridges, Oct 2003                                                  IMO	Resolution A.708(17), Navigation bride visibility and functions, adopted on 6 November 1991                                                  SOLAS	Bridge Design, Equipment arrangement and procedures (BDEAP)                                    MSC.1/Circ. 1512 Guidelines of software quality assurance and human centred design for e-navigation.

          Engine Rooms

          IMO MSC/Circular.834, Guidelines for engine room layout, design and arrangement.17

          ISO 8861 Shipbuilding -- Engine-room ventilation in diesel-engine ships -- Design requirements and basis of calculations.

          General Ergonomics

ABS Guidance Notes on  the  Application  of  Ergonomics  to  Marine   Systems.            American Bureau of Shipping, January 1998

          CEN EN 614-1 (2006) Safety of machinery -- Ergonomic design principles Part 1: Terminology and general principles.

          CEN EN 563 (1994).Safety of machinery -- Temperatures of touchable surfaces -- Ergonomics data to establish temperature limit values for hot surfaces.

           ILO International data on anthropometry. Eds. Jurgens, H., Aune, I. and Pieper, U. Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Dartmund. Federal Republic of Germany. 92-2-106449-2. Occupational Safety and Health Series: No. 65, (19

          ISO 26800:2011 Ergonomics -- General approach, principles and concepts.                      ISO/TS 20646:2014 Ergonomics guidelines for the optimization of musculoskeletal workload.                      ISO 6385:2004 	 Ergonomics principles in the design of work systems.

          ISO 10551:1995 Ergonomics of the thermal environment -- Assessment of the influence of the thermal environment using subjective judgment scales.

          ISO 11399:1995 Ergonomics of the thermal environment -- Principles and application of relevant International Standards.                       ISO 9241-110:2006 Ergonomics of human-system interaction  -  Part 110: Dialogue principles                       ISO 9241 Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs):             oo Part 5 (1998): Workstation layout and postural requirements             oo Part 6 (1999): Guidance on the work environment                      ISO 11064 Ergonomic design of control centres. Part 1 (2000): Principles for the design of control centres                      ISO 15535:2012 General requirements for establishing anthropometric databases

References

   1.     Allen, P., Wadsworth, E. & Smith, A. (2008). Seafarers' fatigue: A review of the recent literature. Internat. Marit. Health, 2008, 59, 1  -  4.         2.     Xhelilaj, E. & Lapa, K. (2010). The Role of Human Fatigue Factor Towards Maritime Casualties. Maritime Transport & Navigation Journal, Vol. 2 (2010), No. 2.

   3.     Calhoun, S. R. (2009), Human factors in ship design: Preventing and reducing shipboard operator fatigue. University of Michigan, Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering. U.S. Coast Guard Research Project.

   4.     Jurgens, H. W., Aune, I. A. & Ursula, P. (1990). International data on anthropometry. Geneva [Switzerland] : International Labour Office, 1990

   5.     ASTM F1166-07(2013), Standard Practice for Human Engineering Design for Marine Systems, Equipment, and Facilities, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013, www.astm.org.


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: [Reuben Baris at<PHONE_NUMBER>]

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please insert "NA-Remove" and maintain the outline. Please do not change the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace the instructions that appear in green, i.e., "[insert company name]," with the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

[BASF Corporation]

[Insert petition number, PP-xxxxxx]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([Insert petition number, PP-xxxxxx]) from [BASF Corporation], [26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709] requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.361 by establishing a tolerance for residues of [the herbicide pendimethalin, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on food commodities. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified is to be determined by measuring only pendimethalin, N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6 dinitrobenzenamine, and its metabolite, 4-[(1-ethylpropyl)amino]-2-methyl-3,5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of pendimethalin] in or on the raw agricultural commodities [fig] at [0.1] parts per million (ppm) and [fig, dried] at [3.0] parts per million (ppm).  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of the FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. [The qualitative nature of the residues of pendimethalin in plants is understood based on adequate studies conducted with 14C pendimethalin on various crops.  Pendimethalin and its 3,5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol metabolite (M455H025) are the established residues of concern.]

	2. Analytical method. [Section 408 (b)(3) of the amended FDCA requires EPA to determine that there is a practical method for detecting and measuring levels of the pesticide chemical residue in or on food and that the tolerance be set at a level at or above of the limit of detection of the designated method.  In plants, the method is aqueous organic solvent extraction, column clean up, and quantitation by GC.  The current enforcement method (method 996/0) has a limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.05 ppm for pendimethalin and the alcohol metabolite.]

	3. Magnitude of residues. [Field trials in major growing areas were conducted in an orchard floor use, in order to determine the magnitude of residues in fig commodities. The field trials were carried out using the maximum label rate and two preharvest intervals (PHI) in figs. Based on the residue results in figs for an orchard floor use, the proposed tolerance for Fig is supported.   The field trials also included processing for dried figs which supports the proposed tolerance for Fig, dried..]

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  [Pendimethalin technical demonstrates low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure.  The acute toxicity studies place technical pendimethalin in toxicity category III for the acute oral, category IV for acute dermal, and category IV for acute inhalation.  The acute reference dose is based on reduced motor activity at Day 0 in the acute neurotoxicity study. Technical pendimethalin is category IV for skin irritation and category III for eye irritation. Pendimethalin did not cause skin sensitization in guinea pigs.  The formulated end use product has an acute oral category of III, an acute dermal category of IV, an acute inhalation category of IV, eye and skin irritation category of IV, and has both positive (in mouse local lymph node assay) and negative (in Buehler assay) skin sensitization results.]

	2. Genotoxicty. [Extensive mutagenicity studies conducted to investigate point and gene mutations, DNA damage and chromosomal aberration, using in vitro and in vivo test systems demonstrate pendimethalin to be non-genotoxic.

Pendimethalin has been classified as a Group C "possible human carcinogen," based on a statistically significantly increased incidence of benign follicular cell adenomas of the thyroid gland in male and female rats at 5000 ppm (250 mg/kg b.w./day) (highest concentration tested).  For risk assessment, OPP recommends using the RfD (non-linear) approach for quantification of human risk.  The Agency Committee has determined that the hypothesis, that benign thyroid tumors associated with pendimethalin are due to a thyroid-pituitary imbalance, can be supported.  Finally, pendimethalin's mechanism of threshold oncogenic activity only occurs at high doses in rats, a mammalian species that is expected to be much more sensitive than humans to the induction of thyroid tumors via conditions which result in hypothyroidism.]

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [Pendimethalin is not a selective developmental toxicant.  There is no indication of increased susceptibility following prenatal/postnatal exposure to pendimethalin.

In a developmental (teratology) toxicity study in the rat, the results demonstrated that the NOAELs for both maternal toxicity and fetal (prenatal)/developmental toxicity were 500 mg/kg b.w./day (highest dose tested) (HDT).  In addition, there were no indications of any teratogenic effects in the rat fetuses at 500 mg/kg b.w./day (HDT).  Therefore, pendimethalin is considered to be neither a developmental toxicant nor a teratogenic agent in the rat.

In a developmental (teratology) toxicity study in the rabbit, the results demonstrated the NOAEL for maternal toxicity was 30 mg/kg b.w./day, based on increased clinical signs of toxicity and decreased body weight gain during the treatment period at 60 mg/kg b.w./day (HDT).  The NOAEL for fetal (prenatal)/developmental toxicity was 60 mg/kg b.w./day (HDT).  In addition, there were no indications of any teratogenic effects in the rabbit fetuses at 60 mg/kg b.w./day.  Therefore, pendimethalin is considered to be neither a developmental toxicant nor a teratogenic agent in the rabbit.

A two-generation reproductive toxicity study in the rat demonstrated an absence of increased sensitivity for the developing offspring to pendimethalin.  The NOAEL for parental toxicity was 500 ppm (approximately 38.5 mg/kg b.w./day), based on reduced food consumption and decreased body weight/weight gain at 2500 ppm (mid-dietary concentration).  The NOAEL for pup/offspring toxicity was also 500 ppm, based on decreased pup body weight gain at 2500 ppm.  Lastly, the NOAEL for reproductive toxicity was 2500 ppm (approximately 194 mg/kg b.w./day), based on reduced mean live litter size at 5000 ppm (highest concentration tested) (HCT).  These reductions in mean live litter size and pup body weight gain were only observed at dietary concentrations that were parentally toxic.  As such, there is no evidence that prenatal or postnatal exposure to pendimethalin results in an increased sensitivity to developing offspring.]

	4. Subchronic toxicity. [Sub-chronic (90-day) feeding studies were conducted in rats and dogs.  For the rat, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 500 ppm (41 mg/kg b.w./day), based on slightly decreased body weight, increased absolute and relative liver weights, and liver histopathology (hepatocellular hypertrophy) in males and females at 5000 ppm (HCT).  For the dog, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 62.5 mg/kg b.w./day, based on decreased body weight at 250 mg/kg b.w./day.]

	5. Chronic toxicity. [The chronic Reference Dose (RfD) was established based on the results of sub-chronic special studies demonstrating the thyroid hormone related endpoint in rats.  The NOAEL of 10 mg/kg b.w./day was established from the collective results of the sub-chronic oral 92-day thyroid function study, the sub-chronic oral 56-day thyroid function study, and the 14-day intrathyroidal metabolism study.  A LOAEL of 31 mg/kg b.w./day was based on hormonal and histopathological changes in the thyroid gland.  The chronic RfD was calculated to be 0.3 mg/kg b.w./day using an Uncertainty Factor (UF) of 30X (3X for interspecies extrapolation and 10X for intraspecies variability).  EPA/HED currently recommends a FQPA Safety Factor of 1X.  Therefore, the chronic Population Adjusted Dose (PAD) is 0.3 mg/kg b.w./day.

Chronic toxicity studies were conducted in rats, mice, and dogs.  For the 2-year rat feeding study, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 500 ppm (25 mg/kg b.w./day), based on decreased body weight gain (approximately 20-30%), increased clinical signs of toxicity, increased relative liver weights, and slight but statistical increase in the incidence of benign follicular cell adenomas of the thyroid gland in males and females at 5000 ppm (250 mg/kg b.w./day) (HCT).  For the 18-month mouse feeding study, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 500 ppm (75 mg/kg b.w./day), based on slightly decreased mean body weights and reduced survival at 5000 ppm (750 mg/kg b.w./day) (HCT).  There were no oncogenic effects up to 5000 ppm (750 mg/kg b.w./day) (HCT).  Lastly, for the 1-year oral (via gelatin capsules) chronic dog study, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 200 mg/kg b.w./day, the highest dose tested.]

	6. Animal metabolism. [Adequate goat and poultry metabolism studies are available for pendimethalin. In the rat, pendimethalin is metabolized mainly through oxidation of the 4-methyl group attached to the benzene ring as well as oxidation of the alkyl side chain of the N-substituted dinitroaniline compound.  When [14]C-pendimethalin is administered to rats, about 70% of the administered radioactivity is excreted via feces and 20% via urine within 24 hours.  Within 96 hours, the total radioactive residues (TRR) found in the tissues was 0.3 ppm, except fat which was 0.9 ppm.  The major portion of the radioactivity that was excreted in the feces was identified as the unchanged parent compound.  In the goat metabolism study following administration of radiolabeled pendimethalin equivalent to 15.35 ppm in the diet for 5 consecutive days, approximately 94% of the administered radioactivity was recovered in feces, urine and tissues.  Among the edible tissues, only liver (0.32 ppm) and kidney (0.042 ppm) contained residues >0.01 ppm.  With the exception of Goat metabolite 6 (M455H029 at 13% TRR), no other component exceeded 10% of the TRR in liver.  M455H029 was identified in feces, bile and urine by LC/MS and high-resolution mass spectrometry.  Only trace levels of unchanged parent were detected.]

	7. Metabolite toxicology. [The main pendimethalin plant metabolite, M455H025, has been tested for acute oral toxicity in the mouse, as well as genotoxicity (Ames assay).  The acute oral LD50 in the mouse was determined to be 2140 mg/kg bw, which is considered to be "slightly toxic by ingestion in single doses."  An Ames assay demonstrated that the plant metabolite is non-mutagenic.  In addition, goat Metabolite 6 (M455H029) was observed in a recent rat metabolism study and is included as an analyte in cow and hen feeding studies.]

	8. Endocrine disruption. [It is known that pendimethalin affects the hypothalamus-pituitary-thyroid axis.  However, as the chronic RfD (0.3 mg/kg b.w./day) is based on the thyroid hormone related endpoint in rats, as noted in the sub-chronic special studies in Section 5 above, which additionally demonstrated reversibility of the thyroid effects in the oral 56-day thyroid function study, these effects are already taken into consideration in the characterization of potential risks to humans.]

C. Aggregate Exposure

[Pendimethalin is primarily a pre-emergent herbicide used to control broadleaf and grass weeds in food and non-food crops, as well as non-agricultural use sites including residential lawns. In examining aggregate exposure, FQPA directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and water (dietary) and all other non-occupational exposures. The primary non-food sources of exposure are through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses). The potential for aggregate exposure from all registered and proposed uses is discussed below.]

	1. Dietary exposure. [As a starting point for this assessment, the input files from the EPA HED September 19, 2019 dietary assessment DP 449631 were employed.   Both the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model- Food Consumption Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) version 4.02 and CARES NG version 1.2.2 were used for comparison.

	i. Food. [An assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential risk due to dietary exposure of the U.S. population to residues of pendimethalin.  The current tolerance values are listed in the U.S. 40 CFR § 180.361.  The unrefined and conservative dietary exposure estimates were based on established and proposed tolerance values, and 100% crop treated values.  An updated analysis included all the crops with established tolerance values as of October 2019 and the proposed tolerances for:

      -Fig
      -Fig, dried

Acute Dietary (food + drinking water) Exposure Assessment
No special dietary assessment for females age 13  -  49 years old is required by EPA because no endpoint was identified for sensitive populations.  EPA has determined that an acute dietary assessment is required for the general populations which cover infants and children. The acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) is 1 mg/kg bw/day based on a NOAEL of 100 mg/kg bw/day and a total safety factor of 100.  The acute dietary exposure to pendimethalin residues was low for all populations.  At the 95[th] percentile, the most highly exposed sub-population in DEEM was infants (<1 year old), and this group utilized 2.10% of the aPAD.  In CARES, the most highly exposed sub-population was also infants (< 1 year old) at the 95[th] percentile; this group utilized 2.12% of the aPAD.  The two dietary models employ the same WWEIA 2005 to 2010 consumption data and are in good agreement.]

 Table 1. 	Summary of Acute Dietary Exposure (food + drinking water) Assessment considering crops with established and proposed tolerances for pendimethalin.

 Population
 Subgroups
                               Exposure Estimate
                               (mg/kg b.w./day)
                                     DEEM
                                 %aPAD@ 95th%
                                     DEEM
                               Exposure Estimate
                               (mg/kg b.w./day)
                                     CARES
                                 %aPAD@ 95th%
                                     CARES
                                 US Population
                                   0.009066
                                     0.91
                                   0.009069
                                     0.91
                           All infants (< 1 year)
                                   0.021009
                                     2.10
                                    0.02119
                                     2.12
                                 Children 1-2
                                   0.017324
                                     1.73
                                   0.017306
                                     1.73
                                 Children 3-5
                                   0.013031
                                     1.30
                                   0.013029
                                      1.3
                                 Children 6-12
                                   0.009049
                                     0.90
                                   0.009046
                                      0.9
                                  Youth 13-19
                                   0.006298
                                     0.63
                                   0.006307
                                     0.63
                                 Adults 20-49
                                   0.007168
                                     0.72
                                    0.00717
                                     0.72
                                Adults 50+ yrs
                                   0.006474
                                     0.65
                                   0.006465
                                     0.65
                              Females 13 - 49 yrs
                                   0.007205
                                     0.72
                                   0.007212
                                     0.72
 %aPAD = percent of acute population adjusted dose
 Exposure estimates based on tolerance values and 100 % CT values

Chronic Dietary (food + water) Exposure Assessment
Dietary exposure estimates were assessed against the chronic Population Adjusted Dose (cPAD) of 0.3 mg/kg b.w./day for all population subgroups. Results of the chronic dietary assessments are listed in Table 2 below. The estimated chronic dietary exposure from crops and animal commodities (both established and proposed tolerances) was <2.35% of the cPAD for all subpopulations.  Additional refinements such as the use of anticipated residues, PDP data and percent crop treated values for the established crop uses would further reduce the estimated chronic dietary exposure. The results in Table 2 below demonstrate there are no risk concerns for any subpopulation based on established and new uses, and that the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable certainty of no harm.  The table below also indicates that the two chronic models of DEEM 4.02 and CARES 1.2.2 agree.

 Table 2. 	Summary of Chronic Dietary Exposure (food + drinking water) Assessment considering crops with established and proposed tolerances for pendimethalin.

 Population
 Subgroups
                               Exposure Estimate
                               (mg/kg b.w./day)
                                     DEEM
                                     %cPAD
                                     DEEM
                               Exposure Estimate
                               (mg/kg b.w./day)
                                     CARES
                                     %cPAD
                                     CARES
                                 US Population
                                   0.002022
                                      0.7
                                   0.002023
                                     0.67
                           All infants (< 1 year)
                                   0.003958
                                      1.3
                                   0.004031
                                     1.34
                                 Children 1-2
                                   0.007046
                                      2.3
                                   0.007047
                                     2.35
                                 Children 3-5
                                   0.005148
                                      1.7
                                   0.005148
                                     1.72
                                 Children 6-12
                                   0.002952
                                      1.0
                                    0.02952
                                     0.98
                                  Youth 13-19
                                   0.001660
                                      0.6
                                    0.00166
                                     0.55
                                 Adults 20-49
                                   0.001559
                                      0.5
                                   0.001559
                                     0.52
                                Adults 50+ yrs
                                   0.001512
                                      0.5
                                   0.001512
                                     0.50
                              Females 13 - 49 yrs
                                   0.001534
                                      0.5
                                   0.001534
                                     0.51
 %cPAD = percent of chronic population adjusted dose
 Exposure estimates based on tolerance values and 100 % CT values

	ii. Drinking water. [The most recent EPA EFED drinking water exposure assessment from February 12, 2019 DP 448587 was a streamlined assessment which recommended use of the previous assessment published January 8[th], 2015 (DP 421275). The proposed fig use pattern is similar to the assessed and approved grape uses.  Thus, the use of the drinking water estimated from DP 421275 is sufficient for this petition.  The estimated acute and chronic water concentrations from EPA models were 96.4 ug/L and 9.73 ug/L, respectively. These estimated drinking water exposures were included directly in the dietary assessments. The DEEM and CARES critical exposure contribution analysis indicate that estimated model water contributions (indirect and direct) makeup over 75% of the potential exposure of pendimethalin for infants within the acute assessment.  The modelled water estimates are understood to be conservative.]

	2. Non-dietary exposure. [The post-application short-term dermal and incidental oral exposure and risk assessment was previously assessed by EPA. This petition does not include any new residential uses.  The previous Residential MOEs (Margin of Exposure) of Table 6.1 in DP 448588 remain applicable and are above the Agency's level of concern.

Acute Aggregate Exposure and Risk (Food and water)
It has been previously determined by EPA that the acute aggregate assessments include only food and drinking water exposure (DP390457).  Residential exposure is not included in the acute aggregate assessment.  The results showed that the acute aggregate exposure from pendimethalin residues does not exceed the level of concern for any population.

Short- and Intermediate-Term Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food, water, and residential)
Short-term aggregate risk from pendimethalin takes into account exposures from dietary consumption (food and water) and residential exposure.  Post application exposure from the turf use is considered short-term.  The residential exposure used in this assessment is from the most recent EPA human health risk assessment published September 19, 2019; no new residential uses impact the aggregate, so only an update to the dietary components is needed.  The residential assessment was conducted using the updated Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Pesticide Exposure Assessment.  The post-application residential exposure was determined for the use on residential turf, residential gardens, and golf course turf.  The highest post-application exposure from adults was from the garden use and residential turf use for children 1-2 years old.  The children exposure included dermal and hand-to-mouth exposure.  The aggregate MOE from food, water, and residential exposure is 92 and 127 for children 1-2 years and adults, respectively.  These numbers align well with the EPA's previous assessment. These MOEs are greater than the EPA established LOC of 30, which indicates there is no risk concern from the aggregate exposure from pendimethalin.  The results of the analysis are shown in Tables 3.

Table 3. 	Estimated short/intermediate term aggregate exposure and risk of pendimethalin.
                                  Population
                               NOAEL (mg/kg/day)
                                 Target MOE[1]
           Food + Drinking Water Exposure               (mg/kg/day)

                      Residential Exposure[2] (mg/kg/day)
                          Total Exposure (mg/kg/day)
                                    MOE[3]

                                 US Population
                                      10
                                      30
                                   0.002022
                                     0.077
                                    0.07902
                                      127
                                     Child
                                  1-2 yr old
                                      10
                                      30
                                   0.007046
                                     0.102
                                   0.109046
                                      92

1 HED's LOC for the MOE is 30.
[2] Residential values are from Table 6.1 of EPA D448588
[3] Aggregate MOE = (NOAEL / (Food + Water + Residential Exposure); See Table 4.5.3 of EPA D448588 for NOAEL values.

Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food and water)
It has been previously determined by EPA that the chronic aggregate assessments include only food and drinking water exposure (Table 1) because exposure is not expected for residential (dermal and inhalation) exposure pathway (DP390457). Exposures from residential uses are not included in the chronic aggregate assessment.  The results demonstrate there are no risk concerns for any subpopulation based on established and new uses.]

D. Cumulative Effects

	[In 2016, EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs released a guidance document entitled, Pesticide Cumulative Risk Assessment:  Framework for Screening Analysis.  This document provides guidance on how to screen groups of pesticides for cumulative evaluation using a two-step approach beginning with the evaluation of available toxicological information and if necessary, followed by a risk-based screening approach.  The EPA has utilized this framework for pendimethalin and determined that although pendimethalin shares some chemical and /or toxicological characteristics with other pesticides, the toxicological database does not support a testable hypothesis for a common mechanism of action.   No further data are required to determine that no common mechanism of toxicity exists for pendimethalin, and other pesticides and no further cumulative evaluation is necessary for pendimethalin.  (DP 448588, Pendimethalin Human Health Risk Assessment, Sept 19, 2019)]

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. [Based on these risk assessments, there is a reasonable certainty that the aggregate exposure to the general population or any subpopulation from pendimethalin residues does not result in an unacceptable risk.]

	2. Infants and children. [EPA has previously recommended the 10X FQPA safety factor be removed (reduced to 1X) based on reliable data.  Based on these risk assessments, there is a reasonable certainty that the aggregate exposure to infants or children, or any subpopulation from pendimethalin residues does not result in an unacceptable risk.]

F. International Tolerances

	[Canada has default MRLs of 0.1 ppm for pendimethalin in many orchard crop uses that are aligned with the current proposed request.  These Canadian MRLs include fig.  Currently there are no CODEX or Mexican International Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) established for residues of pendimethalin in fig.]


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 51533]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20908]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0003; FRL-9359-8]

SFIREG POM Working Committee; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Association of American Pesticide Control Officials
(AAPCO)/State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG),
Pesticides Operations and Management (POM) Working Committee will hold
a 2-day meeting, beginning on September 17, 2012, and ending September
18, 2012. This notice announces the location and times for the meeting
and sets forth the tentative agenda topics.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Monday, September 17, 2012, from
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon on Tuesday, September 18,
2012.
    To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT, preferably at least 10
days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at EPA, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), First Floor South Conference Room, 2777 Crystal Dr., Arlington,
VA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Kendall, Field External Affairs
Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Grier Stayton, SFIREG Executive
Secretary, P.O. Box 466, Milford, DE 19963; telephone number: (302)
422-8152; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
stayton.grier<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
interested in pesticide regulation issues affecting States and any
discussion between EPA and SFIREG on FIFRA field implementation issues
related to human health, environmental exposure to pesticides, and
insight into EPA's decision-making process. You are invited and
encouraged to attend the meetings and participate as appropriate.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
    Those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of
chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act
(FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) and those who sell, distribute or use pesticides, as well as
any Non Government Organization.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0003, is available either electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OPP Docket in
the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), located in
EPA West, 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.

II. Tentative Agenda Topics

    1. State Lead Agency (SLA) label improvement activities/efforts;
    2. Next steps as the result of the label improvement workshop. Do
we need a workshop focusing on structural labels?
    3. Identifying/negotiating regional commitments in cooperative
agreements;
    4. Reconciling SLA referrals to EPA for enforcement vs. SLA efforts
to fix violative labels in a timely manner;
    5. Risk mitigation on seed bag tags;
    6. Persistent herbicides in compost (sources);
    7. Methomyl issue paper;
    8. Non-crop issue paper;
    9. SLA availability to answer EPA/Registration Division questions.
What process can be effective?
    10. Update on Insect Repellency Mark Initiative.

III. How can I request to participate in this meeting?

    This meeting is open for the public to attend. You may attend the
meeting without further notification.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection.

    Dated: August 14, 2012.
R. McNally,
Director, Field External Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-20908 Filed 8-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P