From:
BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Thursday, April 13, 2017 11:04:56 AM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Shappley, Ned; Lowe, Theresa; Seidman, Emily; Kakade, Seema
Subject:
RE: EPA Review of Test Plan for SunCoke Gateway By-pass Stack

Thank you, Donna Lee.

With the removal of the requirement for simultaneous testing, we believe we can conduct the testing in accordance with the methods.  We are revising our internal test plan based on our previous discussions.  We are currently planning to conduct the testing in May at our Granite City facility and in June at our Middletown facility.  We plan to have the data entered into the Electronic Reporting Tool no later than Nov 1st.

Please let me know if you  have any questions.

Thanks,
Katie

From: Jones, DonnaLee
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:30 PM
To<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Shappley, Ned<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Lowe, Theresa<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Seidman, Emily<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Kakade, Seema<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: EPA Review of Test Plan for SunCoke Gateway By-pass Stack

Hello  -  As per the last issue remaining on the submitted SunCoke Test Plan for upcoming tests at Gateway at the by-pass stack, we have considered your request for a modification of the upcoming testing to only use two ports with a 7-foot probe, a less than a full traverse in each port, as opposed to the EPA method requirement for a full traverse with a 9-ft probe in two ports or 4 ports using the 7-ft probe. We retain the requirement for a full traverse with either 9-foot probes out of two ports, or 7-ft probes in all four ports. This is standard measurement testing protocol from which we cannot deviate, especially for a rulemaking ICR. However, we are offering one modification of your testing requirements to alleviate the difficulty of the testing as well as three suggestions to address safety.

 Remove the requirement in the ICR for simultaneous testing, as per Table 1-C and section 1.3 in the ICR, Enclosure 2 (dated 6/24/16). All the required tests still need to be done, just not simultaneously. However, we retain the requirement for a full traverse with either 9-foot probes out of two ports, or 7-ft probes in all four ports.
 A suggestion from the test team to make it easier to test on both sides of the stack is to leave the impingers half-way between the two sets of ports so that the impingers do not have to be moved when switching from one side of the stack to the other.
 A suggestion to address issue of protecting testers from hot gases possibly coming down onto the test platform is to install a temporary (or permanent) cover or roof on the test platform to shield workers from any down flowing gas.
 Another suggestion to address hot gases coming down onto test platform is to install a second level of the test platform below the existing platform to enable workers to descend for safety in case of sudden wind change. This design was used recently by Arcelor Mittal at their Monessen facility to successfully test their quench tower for the ICR, another ICR test unit that has safety issues with hot gases.

If you would like a contact at Arcelor Mittal to discuss their two-story test platform, I can provide you with the information. Alternatively, David Ailor also has the Arcelor contact information.

If you have any questions about the above, please feel free to contact me.
_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.


Technical Support Document (TSD) For

Emissions Inventories for the Reading Pennsylvania

8 Hour Ozone Redesignation Request, Maintenance Plan, and,

State Implementation Plan (SIP) Base Year Inventory.

Submitted January 2007 by the Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection

TSD Prepared April 2007 by

Janet C. Kremer

Air Quality Analysis Branch, 3AP22

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

S/S

____________________________________________

Reviewed by Walter Wilkie, Chief

Air Quality Analysis Branch (3AP22)

____4/30/07______

Date Signed

Introduction

The purpose of this document is to provide a technical summary of the
Air Quality Analysis Branch’s (AQAB) review of the emissions
inventories submitted with the Reading Pennsylvania 8 Hour Ozone
Redesignation Request, Maintenance Plan and State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Base Year Inventory by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP).  This review does not determine the
approvability of the Redesignation Request or Maintenance Plan; but it
does determine the approvability of the SIP Base Year Inventory.
Emissions inventories in a redesignation request are used to show
permanent and enforceable emission reductions between the year the area
was designated as a  nonattainment area and the year the area came into
attainment.  In a maintenance plan, the emissions inventories are used
to reflect the emissions during the time the area came into attainment
and are then projected to show that the area will remain in attainment.
A SIP Base Year Inventory is the starting point from which other SIP
inventories are derived as well as serving as the benchmark for other
SIP planning activities, such as the establishment of an emissions
reduction credit program.  Berks County was designated as an 8 hour
ozone nonattainment area with a Subpart 1 classification.  Subpart 1
area(s) are required to submit SIP base year inventories to EPA by June
15, 2007.  PADEP has included this early submission of SIP base year
with the redesignation request and maintenance plan package and has
requested EPA’s approval.

Any questions pertaining to this technical summary should be directed to
Walter K. Wilkie, Chief, Air Quality Analysis Branch, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
via email at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

II 	Emissions Inventories for Redesignation Request (Base Year
Inventory)

	In a redesignation request, emissions inventories are used to support
the States claim that the area has permanent and enforceable emissions
reductions.  In order to do this, the state should estimate the percent
reduction (from the year that was used to determine the design value for
designation and classification) achieved from federal and state control
measures; this is usually termed as the “base year” inventory. The
base year inventory contains VOC and NOx emissions for all source
categories, which includes point, area, onroad mobile, and nonroad
mobile for the ozone season.

	In the Reading redesignation request, the base year used was 2002.  The
Point Source data for 2002 is derived from the Pennsylvania Air
Information Management System (AIMS).  The AIMS database is comprised of
sources identified and inventoried by PADEP’s regional and central
offices through permitting, field inspections, and surveys.  Surveys are
conducted annually as facilities must submit emission estimates for
various operations, throughputs, work hours, as well as process data,
such as combustion unit data and fuel characteristics. For its
redesignation request, PADEP provided its 2002 actual summer weekday
emissions for NOx and VOC at the facility level and by Source
Classification Codes (SCCs).  “Summer weekday emissions” is defined
by PADEP as an average day’s emissions for a typical summer day during
the ozone season.

	For the 2002 Nonpoint Source emissions, also known as “area
sources,” PADEP provided an inventory that contained estimations of
emissions by multiplying an emission factor by some known indicator or
activity level for each category at the county level.  These emissions
are typically calculated on an annual basis because the activity data
are generally only available on an annual basis.  PADEP further
converted these annual emissions to seasonal emissions, for ozone, the
summer season is defined as peak ozone season months of June, July, and
August.  Seasonal estimates were calculated using default monthly and
weekly profiles from EPA’s Emissions Modeling Clearing House (EMCH).
Nonpoint source estimates were provided by SCC.

	The Nonroad Mobile Source 2002 inventory was prepared with EPA’s
NONROAD2005 model.  NONROAD estimates fuel consumption and emissions of
total hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,
and particulate matter for all nonroad mobile source categories except
for aircraft, locomotives, and commercial marine vessels.  PADEP
provided emission estimates for locomotive engines and aircraft
emissions separately.  For locomotive engine emissions, PADEP projected
emissions from a 1999 survey using national fuel consumption information
and EPA emission and conversion factors.  For aircraft emissions, there
were no commercial  aircraft operations in Berks County, but PADEP
estimated emissions using small airport operation statistics and
emission factors and operational characteristics in EPA’s Emissions
and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS).  All Nonroad mobile source
emissions were provided by SCC and classification.

	The Onroad Mobile Source 2002 emissions inventory was developed using
the most current version of EPA’s highway mobile source emissions
model MOBILE 6.2. PADEP also used PPSUITE, an enhanced version of the
Post Processor for Air Quality software systems used for previous
inventory and conformity submissions in Pennsylvania.  Traffic data
source and fleet data inputs were supplied by the 2002 PENNDOT Roadway
Management System.  PADEP provided Mobile6.2 input and output files for
review as a part of their redesignation request.  Mobile emissions
values were given in units of tons per summer day and were provided by
SCC.

AQAB staff reviewed the files and the emission results provided by PADEP
and found them to be reasonable for use in this redesignation request.

III.	Emissions Inventories for Maintenance Plan

2004 Attainment Year Inventory and Maintenance Plan Base Year Inventory

As stated earlier, emissions inventories are used to show emission
reductions for the area between the year of designation to nonattainment
and the year of attainment.  The inventory used for the year of
attainment is called the Attainment Year Inventory and also is referred
to as the Maintenance Plan Base Year Inventory.  This inventory is used
as the basis for the projected inventories that are used to show the
area will remain in attainment.  This section will discuss the 2004
Attainment Year Inventory that was used in the Reading Redesignation
Request and Maintenance Plan submitted by PADEP.

PADEP compiled an actual 2004 Point Source inventory for the Reading
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan.  The 2004 point source
inventory contained point source emissions derived from the Pennsylvania
Air Information Management System (AIMS).  As previously discussed, AIMS
houses all point source data compiled by various programs (permitting,
enforcement, etc.).  For its redesignation request, PADEP provided its
2004 actual summer weekday emissions for NOx and VOC at the facility
level and by Source Classification Codes (SCCs).  “Summer weekday
emissions” is defined by PADEP as an average day’s emissions for a
typical summer day during the ozone season.

For the 2004 Nonpoint Source emissions, PADEP provided a projected
inventory from the 2002 inventory.  The factors used for the temporal
allocation of projections were provided by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air
Management Association (MARAMA).  The factors were from EPA’s Sparse
Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) v2.2 input files.  Data from
2004 area sources is a linear interpolation of between the 2002 base
year and the 2009 projected inventory.  Emissions were provided by SCC
and units were in tons per summer day.

	The 2004 emissions for Nonroad Mobile Source emissions were estimated
using the EPA NONROAD2005 model.  The NONROAD model estimates emissions
of total hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,
and particulate matter for diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum
gasoline and compressed natural gas-fueled nonroad equipment categories.
 Locomotives and aircraft were developed separately by PADEP.  Just as
with the 2002 nonroad inventory, for locomotive emissions in 2004, PADEP
projected emissions from a 1999 survey using national fuel consumption
information and EPA emission and conversion factors.  For aircraft
emissions, PADEP estimated emissions using small airport operation
statistics and emission factors and operational characteristics in
EPA’s Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS).  Nonroad mobile
source emissions were provided by SCC and classification and were given
in units of tons per summer day.

	The Onroad Mobile Source 2004 emissions inventory was developed using
the most current version of EPA’s highway mobile source emissions
model MOBILE 6.2.  In addition, PADEP uses a MOBILE pre- and post-
processing software package, PPSUITE, to process and compile
Pennsylvania’s highway data.  PPSUITE has been used in previous
inventory and conformity submittals from Pennsylvania.  Traffic data
source and fleet data inputs were supplied by the 2002 PENNDOT Roadway
Management System.  PADEP provided sample Mobile6.2 input and output
files for review.  Mobile emissions values were given in units of tons
per summer day and were provided by SCC.

AQAB staff reviewed the files and emission results and believes them to
be reasonable for use in the maintenance plan.

2009 and 2018 Projection Emission Inventories

Projection inventories are used to show that the area will remain in
attainment.  Projection inventories for the years 2009 and 2018 were
used for the Reading Maintenance Plan.  Inventories were developed for
all emission sources for both years.

PADEP used projection inventories for point and nonpoint sources
prepared by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc., for MARAMA.  MACTEC’s
projected inventories were from 2002, not 2004. PADEP’s 2004 inventory
was not available at the time of MACTEC’s work.

The Point Source emissions for 2009 and 2018 were projected, for both
EGUs and non EGUs, using growth factors from EPA’s Economic Growth and
Analysis System, Version 5.0 (EGAS 5.0) and the Department of Energy’s
Annual Energy Outlook 2005 fuel consumption forecasts.  In addition, for
non-EGUs, state-supplied population, employment and other emission
projection data were also applied to account for changes in economic
activity.  Then, control factors were applied to account for future
emission reductions from on-the-books (OTB) control regulations and
on-the-way (OTW) control regulations.

	The Nonpoint Source emissions for 2009 and 2018 were projected using
growth factors to account for population and economic activity.  Then,
as with point sources, control factors were used to account for future
emission reductions from on-the-books OTB control regulations and OTW
control regulations.

For the 2009 and 2018 Nonroad Mobile Source inventories, PADEP used
EPA’s NONROAD2005 model to generate these future inventories.  The
NONROAD model allows for the calculation of past year, present year, and
future year inventories (up to the year 2050) to be generated.  Growth
for locomotives came from the Association of American Railroads and
compared well with EGAS; and, small aircraft growth was estimated from
the Federal Aviation Administration’s APO Terminal Area Forecast
Detailed Report.

The 2009 and 2018 Onroad Mobile Source inventories were generated using
EPA’s MOBILE6.2.  In addition, PADEP used a PENNDOT study completed in
2005, “Statistical Evaluation of Projected Traffic Growth, Traffic
Growth Forecasting System:  Final Report, March 14, 2005” that
provided information used to forecast traffic volumes.  Growth rates for
vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and four functional road classifications
in each Pennsylvania county:  urban interstate, urban non-interstate,
rural interstate, and rural non-interstate were incorporated with
traffic data and socioeconomic forecasts which is inputted in PPSUITE to
calculate VMT and speeds; the output is then run in MOBILE6.2 to
calculate emissions.

AQAB staff reviewed the procedures, and found them to be reasonable for
development of these inventories.

IV.	2002 SIP Base Year Inventory

	The SIP base year inventory is the primary inventory from which other
inventories (3-year cycle inventories, reasonable further progress
inventories, modeling inventories) are derived.  The Clean Air Act calls
for State, local, and Tribal agencies to ensure that the base year
inventory is comprehensive, accurate, and current for all actual
emissions.  The base year inventory includes emissions estimates from
stationary point and nonpoint sources, onroad mobile sources, and
nonroad mobile sources.  For the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the pollutants to
be inventoried are VOC, NOx and CO (carbon monoxide).  For the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, VOC, NOx and CO emissions should be reported as actual
annual and actual summer weekday emissions (defined as an average
day’s emissions for a typical summer day during the ozone season).
PADEP’s base year inventory is for 2002.  A significant amount of
documentation is required for these SIP base year estimates which PADEP
has provided.

In the case of Reading, it was designated as an 8 hour ozone
nonattainment area with a Subpart 1 classification.  Subpart 1 area(s)
are required to submit SIP base year inventories to EPA by June 15,
2007.  PADEP elected to include this early submission of the SIP base
year with its redesignation request and maintenance plan package and has
requested EPA’s approval.

	PADEP’s methodologies concerning the generation of point, nonpoint,
onroad mobile and nonroad mobile emissions for the SIP base year are the
same as for the 2002 base year redesignation request.  However, EPA
guidance required, in addition to the NOx and VOC summer day emissions,
annual emissions for NOx and VOCs.  Further, the EPA guidance required
annual and summer day estimates for CO.

	PADEP also applied rule effectiveness and rule penetration for its 2002
8-hour ozone SIP base year inventories.  Rule effectiveness reflects the
actual ability of a regulatory program to achieve the emission
reductions required by regulation (or perhaps voluntarily adopted).  In
the 2005, EPA developed recommendations to revise EPA’s existing rule
effectiveness guidance; due to the fact that PADEP’s inventory was
developed prior to the issuance of the new rule effectiveness policy,
EPA’s previous policy was followed, which assumed an 80% rule
effectiveness for applicable sources unless otherwise specified.  Rule
penetration is an estimate of percentage of emissions in a source
category that are emitted at facilities subject to the requirements of a
rule.  PADEP applied rule penetration for its nonpoint sources at 60%.

AQAB staff reviewed the results, procedures, and methodologies for the
SIP base year, and found them to be approvable.  The following table
summarizes PADEP’s 2002 SIP Base Year for Reading.

Reading 2002 SIP Base Year

 	VOC Emissions	NOx Emissions	CO Emissions

Source Type	Tons/yr	Tons/day	Tons/yr	Tons/day	Tons/year	Tons/day

Point Sources	1774.7	4.7	5362.7	14.5	80961.8	212.7

Nonpoint Sources 	8410.5	21.8	1501.6	2.1	7858.4	14.4

Onroad Mobile Sources	6309.4	20.1	11546.3	34.1	97816.5	235.4

Nonroad Mobile Sources	2331.4	8.4	3323.1	10.9	27523.0	102.4

TOTAL Emissions	39808.6	55.0	21733.1	61.6	214159.7	564.9

 “Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
Regional Haze Regulations” EPA-454/R-05-001, August 2005


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

DATE:  	19 January 2010

SUBJECT:	Thifensulfuron Methyl.  Acute and Chronic Aggregate Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Section 3 Registration Action Associated with Food/Feed Use of the Herbicide on Safflower.

™ Harmony® SG

REVIEWER:	William T. Drew, Chemist

		Risk Assessment Branch 2 (RAB2)

		Health Effects Division (HED), 7509P

THROUGH:	Debra Rate, PhD, Biologist

		Thurston Morton, Chemist

		Dietary Exposure Science Advisory Council (DESAC)

		HED, 7509P

			and

		Michael Doherty, PhD, Senior Scientist

		RAB2/HED, 7509P

TO:		William T. Drew, Chemist and Risk Assessor

		RAB2/HED, 7509P

			and

		Barbara Madden, RM Team 5  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

		Risk Integration, Minor Use and Emergency Response Branch (RIMUERB)

		Registration Division (RD), 7505P

Executive Summary

	Acute and chronic aggregate dietary (food and drinking water) exposure and risk assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID™), Version 2.03, which uses food consumption data from the US Department of Agriculture’s Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII), collected from 1994 to 1996, and 1998.  These analyses were performed to support the Section 3 request for thifensulfuron methyl use on safflower in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Montana (East of Route 87 or East of I-15), and Wyoming (East of I-25 or North of I-90).  All registered, pending and proposed uses of thifensulfuron methyl, as of the date of this memorandum, are included in these assessments.

	According to OPPTS Residue Chemistry Test Guideline 860.1000, Table 1 Feedstuffs (June 2008), safflower meal is the only animal feedstuff associated with the current petition.  Safflower meal may constitute up to 5% of beef cattle diet, 10% of dairy cattle diet, 25% of poultry diet, and 5% of swine diet.  In consideration of the proposed regional use of thifensulfuron methyl on safflower, and the observed residues of <0.050 ppm in safflower meal, the potential contribution to the maximum reasonably balanced dietary burdens of livestock is negligible.

	Tolerances have been established for thifensulfuron methyl (40CFR §180.439[a]) in canola, flax, cotton, soybean, and cereal grain commodities.  The residue of concern (ROC), for both tolerance enforcement and risk assessment, is the parent compound, thifensulfuron methyl.  Both the acute and chronic assessments are highly conservative, and assume 100% crop treated (%CT), along with tolerance-level residues for all agricultural commodities.  The default processing factor from DEEM 7.81 was used for corn syrup in the analyses.

	Based on these highly conservative assumptions, the acute dietary risk estimate, at the 95th percentile of exposure, is less than 1% of the acute population-adjusted dose (aPAD) for the population subgroup, females 13-49.  This is the only subgroup for which an acute dietary endpoint was identified.

	Chronic dietary risk estimates are less than or equal to 1% of the chronic population-adjusted dose (cPAD) for all population subgroups.  Children 3 to 5 years of age are the most highly-exposed subgroup, utilizing 1% of the cPAD, while the general US population also utilizes 1% of the cPAD.  Generally, the Agency is concerned when risk estimates exceed 100% of the PAD; therefore, all acute and chronic dietary risk estimates are below HED’s level of concern (LOC).

	Thifensulfuron methyl has been classified by the Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) as “not likely to be a human carcinogen.”  Therefore, cancer risk is not of concern.

1.	Introduction

	Dietary risk assessment incorporates both exposure and toxicity of a given pesticide.  For acute and chronic assessments, the risk is expressed as a percentage of a maximum acceptable dose (the dose which HED has concluded will result in no unreasonable adverse health effects).  This dose is referred to as the population-adjusted dose (PAD).  The PAD is equivalent to the point of departure (POD), such as the NOAEL or LOAEL, divided by the requisite uncertainty and/or safety factors.

	For acute and non-cancer chronic exposures, HED is concerned when estimated dietary risk exceeds 100% of the PAD.  References which discuss the acute and chronic risk assessments in more detail are available on the EPA pesticides web site, Available Information on Assessing Exposure from Pesticides, A User’s Guide (21 June 2000), which can be accessed via the web link http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/July/Day-12/6061.pdf (or see SOP 99.6, dated 20 August 1999).

	The most recent dietary risk assessment for thifensulfuron methyl was conducted by Douglas Dotson (D332686; 12 December 2006).  That assessment appended the previous assessment to include residue estimates in rice and sorghum, supporting the establishment of permanent tolerances for thifensulfuron methyl in the raw agricultural commodities (RACs), and their associated commodities.  This current document includes residue estimates in safflower oil, supporting the requested Section 3 registration of thifensulfuron methyl for use on safflower in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Montana (East of Route 87 or East of I-15), and Wyoming (East of I-25 or North of I-90).

2.	Residue Information

	The Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), has submitted a tolerance petition, 9F7523, proposing the establishment of a tolerance for residues of the herbicide, thifensulfuron methyl, in or on safflower seeds (RAC) at 0.05 ppm.  Permanent tolerances have been established for thifensulfuron methyl (40CFR §180.439[a]) in cereal grains (barley, field corn, oat, rice, sorghum, triticale and wheat), canola, cotton, flax and soybeans.  The ROC, for both tolerance enforcement and risk assessment, is the parent compound, thifensulfuron methyl.  Both the acute and chronic assessments are highly conservative, and assume 100%CT, along with tolerance-level residues for all agricultural commodities.  The default processing factor from DEEM 7.81 was used for corn syrup in the analyses.

	The lowest limit of method validation (LLMV) was 0.050 ppm in safflower seeds, meal and refined oil.  Thifensulfuron methyl residues were <LLMV in all samples from both the field trial and processing studies.  Because thifensulfuron methyl does not concentrate in safflower oil, the RAC tolerance (0.05 ppm) was entered into the acute and chronic DEEM input files for safflower oil (and safflower oil - baby food).  In consideration of the proposed regional use of thifensulfuron methyl on safflower, and the observed residues of <0.050 ppm in safflower meal, the potential contribution to the maximum reasonably balanced dietary burdens of livestock is negligible.

3.	Drinking Water Data

	The thifensulfuron methyl drinking water residues used in these dietary risk assessments were provided in Drinking Water Assessments (DWAs) by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED), and incorporated directly into the dietary assessments.  Water residues were incorporated in DEEM-FCID™ via entry into the food categories “water, direct, all sources” and “water, indirect, all sources.”

	The highest estimated drinking water concentration (EDWC) for acute scenarios was in surface water, at 0.0044 ppm.  This concentration was derived via utilization of the FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) model (D363089; Andrew Shelby and Nelson Thurman; 29 September 2009).  The highest EDWC for chronic scenarios was also in surface water, at 0.0015 ppm.  This concentration was also obtained by utilizing the FIRST model (D332797; James Breithaupt; 26 October 2006).

	In order to be more conservative, the highest of the acute, and the highest of the chronic EDWCs (among all the various acute and chronic scenarios modeled) were taken from EFED’s two most recent DWAs.  The acute and chronic EDWCs used in the respective dietary analyses are shown in Tables 1 and 2 (below), respectively, along with the other scenarios assessed by EFED.

Table 1	Maximum EDWCs for Drinking Water Risk Assessment, Based upon Ground Application 		of Thifensulfuron Methyl.*

Drinking Water Source [Model Used]	Use [Rate Modeled]	Scenario	Maximum EDWC (ppb)

Groundwater [SCIGROW]	Safflower [0.0188 lbs ai/A]	Acute and Chronic 0.0326

	Barley, fallow [0.056 lbs ai/A]	Acute and Chronic	0.0972

Surface water [FIRST]	Safflower [0.0188 lbs ai/A]	Acute	1.656

Chronic	0.336

	Barley, fallow [0.056 lbs ai/A]	Acute	4.429

Chronic	0.900

* D363089; Andrew Shelby and Nelson Thurman; 29 September 2009.

Table 2	Maximum EDWCs for Drinking Water Risk Assessment, Based upon Aerial Application 		of Thifensulfuron Methyl.*

Drinking Water Source [Model Used]	Use [Rate Modeled]	Scenario	Maximum EDWC (ppb)

Surface water [FIRST]	Soybean [0.032 lbs ai/A]	Acute	3.9

Chronic	1.5

* D332797; James Breithaupt; 26 October 2006.

	The various models used by EFED in conducting DWAs, and their descriptions, are available at the EPA website via the web link,   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/"  http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/ .  No surface or ground water monitoring data were available for thifensulfuron methyl.

4.	DEEM-FCID™ Program and Consumption Information

	Thifensulfuron methyl acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted using DEEM-FCID™ (Version 2.03), which incorporates consumption data from USDA’s CSFII, 1994 to 1996, and 1998.  The 1994-96, 1998 data are based on the reported consumption of more than 20,000 individuals over two non-consecutive survey days.  Foods “as consumed” (such as apple pie) are linked to EPA-defined food commodities (such as apples, peeled fruit - cooked, fresh/unspecified, or baked; or wheat flour - cooked, fresh/unspecified, or baked) using publicly available recipe translation files developed jointly by USDA/ARS and EPA.  For chronic exposure assessment, consumption data are averaged for the entire US population, and within population subgroups, but for acute exposure assessment, they are retained as individual consumption events (which is why it is appropriate to add residue values together for the acute assessment, while separate exposure estimates are summed for the chronic assessment).  Based on analysis of the 1994-96, 1998 CSFII consumption data, which took into account dietary patterns and survey respondents, HED concluded that it is most appropriate to report risk for the following population subgroups: the general US population, all infants (<1 year old), children 1-2, children 3-5, children 6-12, youth 13-19, adults 20-49, females 13-49, and adults 50+ years old.

	For chronic dietary exposure assessment, an estimate of the residue level in each food or food-form (such as orange or orange juice) on the food commodity residue list is multiplied by the average daily consumption estimate for that food/food form.  The resulting residue consumption estimate for each food/food form is summed with the residue consumption estimates for all other food/food forms on the commodity residue list to arrive at the total average estimated exposure.  Exposure is expressed in mg/kg body weight/day, and as a percent of the cPAD.  This procedure is performed for each population subgroup.

	For acute exposure assessments, individual one-day food consumption data are used on an individual-by-individual basis.  The reported consumption amounts of each food item can be multiplied by a residue point estimate, and summed to obtain a total daily pesticide exposure for a deterministic exposure assessment, or “matched” in multiple random pairings with residue values, and then summed in a probabilistic assessment.  The resulting distribution of exposures is expressed as a percentage of the aPAD on both a user (those who reported eating relevant commodities/food forms) and a per-capita (those who reported eating the relevant commodities as well as those who did not) basis.  In accordance with HED policy, per capita exposure and risk are reported for all levels of refinement of the analysis.  However, for analyses which are largely unrefined, significant differences in user versus per capita exposure and risk are identified, and noted in the risk assessment.

5.	Toxicological Information

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1  For detailed information, please refer to the human health risk assessment conducted for thifensulfuron methyl’s use on safflower (D361902; William T. Drew; 29 January 2010).  The database adequately characterizes thifensulfuron methyl as having low acute oral, dermal and inhalation toxicity.  It has low (Category IV) acute toxicity via the oral route.  By inhalation and dermal routes of exposure in the rat, there was relatively low (Category III) acute toxicity.  There was moderate eye irritation (Category III), and slight dermal irritation (Category IV).  It is not a dermal sensitizer.

	The risk assessment team evaluated the toxicology database for thifensulfuron methyl, and selected doses and endpoints for acute and chronic dietary exposure risk assessments.  The acute and chronic dietary reference doses and PADs are summarized in Table 3 (below).  The risk assessment team also evaluated the potential for increased susceptibility of infants and children from exposure to thifensulfuron methyl.  The team concluded that the FQPA Safety Factor should be reduced to 1X, as there are no residual uncertainties for pre- or post-natal toxicity.

	Thifensulfuron methyl was classified as not likely to be a human carcinogen, based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in both the rat and the mouse.  Therefore, cancer dietary risk is not of concern.

Table 3	Summary of Thifensulfuron Methyl Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Use in Dietary 		Exposure and Risk Assessments.

Exposure/

Scenario	Point of Departure	Uncertainty/FQPA Safety Factors	LOC for Risk Assessment	Study and Toxicological Effects

Acute dietary

(females 13-49 only)	NOAEL = 159

mg/kg/day	UFA = 10X

UFH = 10X

FQPA SF = 1	aRfD = 1.59 mg/kg/day

aPAD = 1.59 mg/kg/day	Developmental oral toxicity in rats.  LOAEL = 725 mg/kg/day, based on decreased mean body weight, and increased incidence of small renal papillae.

Chronic dietary

(all populations)	NOAEL = 4.3

mg/kg/day	UFA = 10X

UFH = 10X

FQPA SF = 1	cRfD = 0.043 mg/kg/day

cPAD = 0.043 mg/kg/day	Carcinogenicity oral toxicity in mice.

LOAEL = 128 mg/kg/day, based on decreased body weight and body weight gain.

Cancer (oral) 	Not likely to be a human carcinogen, based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice.

Point of Departure (POD) = a data point or estimated point derived from observed dose-response data, which is used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally relevant human exposures.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 UF = Uncertainty Factor.  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies).  UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).  UFDB = database uncertainty factor to account for the absence of key data (such as the lack of a critical study).  FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor.  NOAEL = No Observed Adverse Effect Level.  LOAEL = Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level.  PAD = Population Adjusted Dose (a = acute, c = chronic).  RfD = Reference Dose.  MOE = Margin Of Exposure.  LOC = Level Of Concern.

6.	Results/Discussion

	As previously stated, for acute and chronic assessments, HED is concerned when dietary risk exceeds 100% of the PAD.  The DEEM-FCID™ analyses estimate the dietary exposure of the US population, and various population subgroups.  The results of the acute analysis are summarized in Table 4 (below) for females 13-49, the only subgroup for which an acute dietary endpoint was identified.  As shown in Table 4, the risk estimate associated with acute dietary exposure to thifensulfuron methyl is below HED’s LOC.  The acute dietary risk estimate at the 95th percentile of exposure is less than 1% of the aPAD for females 13-49.

TABLE 4	Summary of Acute Dietary Exposure and Risk Estimates for Thifensulfuron Methyl.

Population Subgroup

[Years of Age]	DEEM Acute Dietary Analysis (95th Percentile)

	aPAD (mg/kg/day)	Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/day)	% aPAD

General US Population	NA*	NA	NA

All Infants [< 1]

	Children [1-2]

	Children [3-5]

	Children [6-12]

	Youths [13-19]

	Adults [20-49]

	Adults [50+]

	Females [13-49]	1.59	0.000544	<1

* NA = Not Applicable.

	The results of the chronic analysis are summarized in Table 5 (below) for the general US population, all infants (<1 year old), children 1-2, children 3-5, children 6-12, youth 13-19, females 13-49, adults 20-49, and adults 50+ years.  Chronic dietary risk estimates are less than or equal to 1% of the cPAD for all population subgroups, as shown in Table 5.  Children 3 to 5 years of age are the most highly-exposed subgroup.

TABLE 5	Summary of Chronic Dietary Exposure and Risk Estimates for Thifensulfuron Methyl.

Population Subgroup*

[Years of Age]	DEEM Chronic Dietary Analysis

	cPAD (mg/kg/day)	Exposure Estimate (mg/kg/day)	% cPAD

General US Population	0.043	0.000284	1

All Infants [<1]

0.000487	1

Children [1-2]

0.000602	1

Children [3-5]

0.000621	1

Children [6-12]

0.000447	1

Youth [13-19]

0.000310	1

Adults [20-49]

0.000239	1

Adults [50+]

0.000175	<1

Females [13-49]

0.000226	1

* Values for the population subgroup with the highest risk are in bold type.

	All acute and chronic dietary risk estimates are below HED’s LOC.

7.	Characterization of Inputs/Outputs

	This assessment is based on tolerance-level residues in all agricultural commodities, and assumes that all crops with existing or proposed tolerances are treated (100%CT).  These assumptions result in highly conservative, health-protective estimates of dietary exposure and risk.

8.	Conclusions

	There are no dietary exposure considerations that would preclude the establishment of a permanent tolerance for residues of thifensulfuron methyl in/on safflower seeds.

9.	List of Attachments

Attachment 1.	Thifensulfuron Methyl Residues Used for Acute Dietary Exposure Estimates.

Attachment 2.	Summary of the Acute Dietary Exposure and Risk Estimates for Thifensulfuron 			Methyl.

Attachment 3.	Thifensulfuron Methyl Residues Used for Chronic Dietary Exposure Estimates.

Attachment 4.	Summary of the Chronic Dietary Exposure and Risk Estimates for Thifensulfuron 		Methyl.

Attachment 1.	Thifensulfuron Methyl Residues Used for Acute Dietary Exposure 				Estimates.

Filename: C:\Documents and Settings\wdrew\My Documents\ThifensulfuronMethylDEEM102809AcuteInput.R98

Chemical: Thifensulfuron methyl

RfD(Chronic): .043 mg/kg bw/day  NOEL(Chronic): 4.3 mg/kg bw/day

RfD(Acute): 1.59 mg/kg bw/day  NOEL(Acute):  159 mg/kg bw/day

Date created/last modified: 10-23-2009/14:00:23/8          Program ver. 2.03

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

  EPA    Crop                                   Def Res     Adj.Factors   Comment

  Code    Grp  Commodity Name                    (ppm)       #1    #2

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

15000250 15   Barley, pearled barley             0.050000   1.000  1.000

15000251 15   Barley, pearled barley-babyfood    0.050000   1.000  1.000

15000260 15   Barley, flour                      0.050000   1.000  1.000

15000261 15   Barley, flour-babyfood             0.050000   1.000  1.000

15000270 15   Barley, bran                       0.050000   1.000  1.000

15001200 15   Corn, field, flour                 0.050000   1.000  1.000

15001201 15   Corn, field, flour-babyfood        0.050000   1.000  1.000

15001210 15   Corn, field, meal                  0.050000   1.000  1.000

15001211 15   Corn, field, meal-babyfood         0.050000   1.000  1.000

15001220 15   Corn, field, bran                  0.050000   1.000  1.000

15001230 15   Corn, field, starch                0.050000   1.000  1.000

15001231 15   Corn, field, starch-babyfood       0.050000   1.000  1.000

15001240 15   Corn, field, syrup                 0.050000   1.500  1.000

15001241 15   Corn, field, syrup-babyfood        0.050000   1.500  1.000

15001250 15   Corn, field, oil                   0.050000   1.000  1.000

15001251 15   Corn, field, oil-babyfood          0.050000   1.000  1.000

95001280 O    Cottonseed, oil                    0.020000   1.000  1.000

95001281 O    Cottonseed, oil-babyfood           0.020000   1.000  1.000

20001630 20   Flaxseed, oil                      0.020000   1.000  1.000

15002310 15   Oat, bran                          0.050000   1.000  1.000

15002320 15   Oat, flour                         0.050000   1.000  1.000

15002321 15   Oat, flour-babyfood                0.050000   1.000  1.000

15002330 15   Oat, groats/rolled oats            0.050000   1.000  1.000

15002331 15   Oat, groats/rolled oats-babyfood   0.050000   1.000  1.000

20003190 20   Rapeseed, oil                      0.020000   1.000  1.000

20003191 20   Rapeseed, oil-babyfood             0.020000   1.000  1.000

15003230 15   Rice, white                        0.050000   1.000  1.000

15003231 15   Rice, white-babyfood               0.050000   1.000  1.000

15003240 15   Rice, brown                        0.050000   1.000  1.000

15003241 15   Rice, brown-babyfood               0.050000   1.000  1.000

15003250 15   Rice, flour                        0.050000   1.000  1.000

15003251 15   Rice, flour-babyfood               0.050000   1.000  1.000

15003260 15   Rice, bran                         0.050000   1.000  1.000

15003261 15   Rice, bran-babyfood                0.050000   1.000  1.000

20003300 20   Safflower, oil                     0.050000   1.000  1.000

20003301 20   Safflower, oil-babyfood            0.050000   1.000  1.000

15003440 15   Sorghum, grain                     0.050000   1.000  1.000

15003450 15   Sorghum, syrup                     0.050000   1.000  1.000

06003470 6    Soybean, seed                      0.100000   1.000  1.000

06003480 6    Soybean, flour                     0.100000   1.000  1.000

06003481 6    Soybean, flour-babyfood            0.100000   1.000  1.000

06003490 6    Soybean, soy milk                  0.100000   1.000  1.000

06003491 6    Soybean, soy milk-babyfood or in   0.100000   1.000  1.000

06003500 6    Soybean, oil                       0.100000   1.000  1.000

06003501 6    Soybean, oil-babyfood              0.100000   1.000  1.000

86010000 O    Water, direct, all sources         0.004429   1.000  1.000

86020000 O    Water, indirect, all sources       0.004429   1.000  1.000

15004010 15   Wheat, grain                       0.050000   1.000  1.000

15004011 15   Wheat, grain-babyfood              0.050000   1.000  1.000

15004020 15   Wheat, flour                       0.050000   1.000  1.000

15004021 15   Wheat, flour-babyfood              0.050000   1.000  1.000

15004030 15   Wheat, germ                        0.050000   1.000  1.000

15004040 15   Wheat, bran                        0.050000   1.000  1.000

15004050 15   Wild rice                          0.050000   1.000  1.000

Attachment 2.	Summary of the Acute Dietary Exposure and Risk Estimates for Thifensulfuron Methyl.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency                                  Ver. 2.02

DEEM-FCID ACUTE Analysis for THIFENSULFURON METHYL               (1994-98 data)

Residue file: ThifensulfuronMethylDEEM102809AcuteInput.R98

Adjustment factor #2 NOT used.

Analysis Date: 10-28-2009/14:17:09    Residue file dated: 10-28-2009/14:03:14/8

NOEL (Acute) = 159.000000 mg/kg body-wt/day

Daily totals for food and foodform consumption used.

Run Comment: ""

======================================================================== =======

Summary calculations (per capita):

      95th Percentile             99th Percentile             99.9th Percentile

 Exposure  % aRfD     MOE    Exposure  % aRfD     MOE    Exposure  % aRfD     MOE

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

U.S. Population:

  0.000790    0.05  201329    0.001202    0.08  132237    0.002047    0.13   77661

All infants:

  0.001815    0.11   87615    0.002571    0.16   61845    0.003896    0.25   40812

Children 1-2 yrs:

  0.001369    0.09  116148    0.001865    0.12   85250    0.004932    0.31   32238

Children 3-5 yrs:

  0.001265    0.08  125643    0.001766    0.11   90038    0.003927    0.25   40492

Children 6-12 yrs:

  0.000933    0.06  170425    0.001240    0.08  128245    0.002007    0.13   79203

Youth 13-19 yrs:

  0.000703    0.04  226112    0.000948    0.06  167751    0.001585    0.10  100314

Adults 20-49 yrs:

  0.000585    0.04  271798    0.000816    0.05  194939    0.001211    0.08  131305

Adults 50+ yrs:

  0.000427    0.03  372470    0.000564    0.04  282102    0.000898    0.06  176978

Females 13-49 yrs:

  0.000544    0.03  292158    0.000745    0.05  213285    0.001097    0.07  144884

Attachment 3.	Thifensulfuron Methyl Residues Used for Chronic Dietary Exposure Estimates.

Filename: C:\Documents and Settings\wdrew\My Documents\ThifensulfuronMethylDEEM102309ChronicInput.R98

Chemical: Thifensulfuron methyl

RfD(Chronic): .043 mg/kg bw/day  NOEL(Chronic): 4.3 mg/kg bw/day

RfD(Acute): 1.59 mg/kg bw/day  NOEL(Acute):  159 mg/kg bw/day

Date created/last modified: 10-23-2009/13:57:26/8          Program ver. 2.03

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

  EPA    Crop                                   Def Res     Adj.Factors   Comment

  Code    Grp  Commodity Name                    (ppm)       #1    #2

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

15000250 15   Barley, pearled barley             0.050000   1.000  1.000

15000251 15   Barley, pearled barley-babyfood    0.050000   1.000  1.000

15000260 15   Barley, flour                      0.050000   1.000  1.000

15000261 15   Barley, flour-babyfood             0.050000   1.000  1.000

15000270 15   Barley, bran                       0.050000   1.000  1.000

15001200 15   Corn, field, flour                 0.050000   1.000  1.000

15001201 15   Corn, field, flour-babyfood        0.050000   1.000  1.000

15001210 15   Corn, field, meal                  0.050000   1.000  1.000

15001211 15   Corn, field, meal-babyfood         0.050000   1.000  1.000

15001220 15   Corn, field, bran                  0.050000   1.000  1.000

15001230 15   Corn, field, starch                0.050000   1.000  1.000

15001231 15   Corn, field, starch-babyfood       0.050000   1.000  1.000

15001240 15   Corn, field, syrup                 0.050000   1.500  1.000

15001241 15   Corn, field, syrup-babyfood        0.050000   1.500  1.000

15001250 15   Corn, field, oil                   0.050000   1.000  1.000

15001251 15   Corn, field, oil-babyfood          0.050000   1.000  1.000

95001280 O    Cottonseed, oil                    0.020000   1.000  1.000

95001281 O    Cottonseed, oil-babyfood           0.020000   1.000  1.000

20001630 20   Flaxseed, oil                      0.020000   1.000  1.000

15002310 15   Oat, bran                          0.050000   1.000  1.000

15002320 15   Oat, flour                         0.050000   1.000  1.000

15002321 15   Oat, flour-babyfood                0.050000   1.000  1.000

15002330 15   Oat, groats/rolled oats            0.050000   1.000  1.000

15002331 15   Oat, groats/rolled oats-babyfood   0.050000   1.000  1.000

20003190 20   Rapeseed, oil                      0.020000   1.000  1.000

20003191 20   Rapeseed, oil-babyfood             0.020000   1.000  1.000

15003230 15   Rice, white                        0.050000   1.000  1.000

15003231 15   Rice, white-babyfood               0.050000   1.000  1.000

15003240 15   Rice, brown                        0.050000   1.000  1.000

15003241 15   Rice, brown-babyfood               0.050000   1.000  1.000

15003250 15   Rice, flour                        0.050000   1.000  1.000

15003251 15   Rice, flour-babyfood               0.050000   1.000  1.000

15003260 15   Rice, bran                         0.050000   1.000  1.000

15003261 15   Rice, bran-babyfood                0.050000   1.000  1.000

20003300 20   Safflower, oil                     0.050000   1.000  1.000

20003301 20   Safflower, oil-babyfood            0.050000   1.000  1.000

15003440 15   Sorghum, grain                     0.050000   1.000  1.000

15003450 15   Sorghum, syrup                     0.050000   1.000  1.000

06003470 6    Soybean, seed                      0.100000   1.000  1.000

06003480 6    Soybean, flour                     0.100000   1.000  1.000

06003481 6    Soybean, flour-babyfood            0.100000   1.000  1.000

06003490 6    Soybean, soy milk                  0.100000   1.000  1.000

06003491 6    Soybean, soy milk-babyfood or in   0.100000   1.000  1.000

06003500 6    Soybean, oil                       0.100000   1.000  1.000

06003501 6    Soybean, oil-babyfood              0.100000   1.000  1.000

86010000 O    Water, direct, all sources         0.001500   1.000  1.000

86020000 O    Water, indirect, all sources       0.001500   1.000  1.000

15004010 15   Wheat, grain                       0.050000   1.000  1.000

15004011 15   Wheat, grain-babyfood              0.050000   1.000  1.000

15004020 15   Wheat, flour                       0.050000   1.000  1.000

15004021 15   Wheat, flour-babyfood              0.050000   1.000  1.000

15004030 15   Wheat, germ                        0.050000   1.000  1.000

15004040 15   Wheat, bran                        0.050000   1.000  1.000

15004050 15   Wild rice                          0.050000   1.000  1.000

Attachment 4.	Summary of the Chronic Dietary Exposure and Risk Estimates for 				Thifensulfuron Methyl.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency                                 Ver. 2.00

DEEM-FCID Chronic analysis for THIFENSULFURON METHYL            (1994-98 data)

Residue file name: C:\Documents and Settings\wdrew\My Documents\ThifensulfuronMethylDEEM102309ChronicInput.R98

                                                 Adjustment factor #2 NOT used.

Analysis Date 10-23-2009/14:03:18     Residue file dated: 10-23-2009/13:57:26/8

Reference dose (RfD, Chronic) = .043 mg/kg bw/day

======================================================================== =======

                    Total exposure by population subgroup

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

                                                    Total Exposure

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

          Population                         mg/kg             Percent of

           Subgroup                       body wt/day             Rfd

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

U.S. Population (total)                     0.000284                 0.7%

U.S. Population (spring season)             0.000288                 0.7%

U.S. Population (summer season)             0.000288                 0.7%

U.S. Population (autumn season)             0.000280                 0.7%

U.S. Population (winter season)             0.000281                 0.7%

Northeast region                            0.000273                 0.6%

Midwest region                              0.000296                 0.7%

Southern region                             0.000274                 0.6%

Western region                              0.000298                 0.7%

Hispanics                                   0.000308                 0.7%

Non-hispanic whites                         0.000276                 0.6%

Non-hispanic blacks                         0.000291                 0.7%

Non-hisp/non-white/non-black                0.000335                 0.8%

All infants (< 1 year)                      0.000487                 1.1%

Nursing infants                             0.000185                 0.4%

Non-nursing infants                         0.000602                 1.4%

Children 1-6  yrs                           0.000602                 1.4%

Children 7-12 yrs                           0.000429                 1.0%

Females 13-19 (not preg or nursing)         0.000270                 0.6%

Females 20+ (not preg or nursing)           0.000196                 0.5%

@

B

x

à

ú

ਁ䠃愀϶H瑹嘧Xᄀ@

B

F

d

h

v

x

|

à

ä

ø

ú

hä

hä

¶

¶

¶

愀Ĥ摧فÂz欀

¥欀ﱤ

h`

摧䈕

h`

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

Females 13-50 yrs                           0.000239                 0.6%

Females 13+ (preg/not nursing)              0.000244                 0.6%

Females 13+ (nursing)                       0.000261                 0.6%

Males 13-19 yrs                             0.000348                 0.8%

Males 20+ yrs                               0.000236                 0.5%

Seniors 55+                                 0.000170                 0.4%

Children 1-2 yrs                            0.000602                 1.4%

Children 3-5 yrs                            0.000621                 1.4%

Children 6-12 yrs                           0.000447                 1.0%

Youth 13-19 yrs                             0.000310                 0.7%

Adults 20-49 yrs                            0.000239                 0.6%

Adults 50+ yrs                              0.000175                 0.4%

Females 13-49 yrs                           0.000226                 0.5%

Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessment

Thifensulfuron Methyl			     PC Code 128845		 	       DP Barcode D369038

 PAGE

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  14

DRAFT – Confidential, Internal, and Deliberative Material

[Chemical Name]	Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessment	DP Number: [xxxxxxx]

PC Code:  [xxxxxx]

Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessment

Thifensulfuron Methyl			     PC Code 128845		 	       DP Barcode D369038

Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessment

Thifensulfuron Methyl			     PC Code 128845		 	       DP Barcode D369038


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10058-10059]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05048]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC19-13-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-715); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection FERC-715 (Annual Transmission Planning and
Evaluation Report) and submitting the information collection to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any interested person
may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those
comments to the Commission as explained below. On December 27, 2018 (83
FR 66697), the Commission published a Notice in the Federal Register in
Docket No. IC19-13-000 requesting public comments. The Commission
received one comment, which is addressed in this Notice and will be
included in the submittal to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due April 18,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by OMB Control No. 1902-
0171, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in
Docket No. IC19-13-000, by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-715, Annual Transmission Planning and Evaluation
Report.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0171.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-715 information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
    Abstract: Acting under FPA section 213,\1\ FERC requires each
transmitting utility that operates integrated transmission system
facilities rated above 100 kilovolts (kV) to submit annually:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824l.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Contact information for the FERC-715;
     Base case power flow data (if it does not participate in
the development and use of regional power flow data);
     Transmission system maps and diagrams used by the
respondent for transmission planning;
     A detailed description of the transmission planning
reliability criteria used to evaluate system performance for time
frames and planning horizons used in regional and corporate planning;
     A detailed description of the respondent's transmission
planning assessment practices (including, but not limited to, how
reliability criteria are applied and the steps taken in performing
transmission planning studies); and
     A detailed evaluation of the respondent's anticipated
system performance as measured against its stated reliability criteria
using its stated assessment practices.
    The FERC-715 enables the Commission to use the information as part
of their regulatory oversight functions which include:
     The review of rates and charges;
     The disposition of jurisdictional facilities;
     The consolidation and mergers;
     The adequacy of supply and;
     Reliability of the nation's transmission grid.
    The FERC-715 enables the Commission to facilitate and resolve
transmission disputes. Additionally, the Office of Electric Reliability
(OER) uses the FERC-715 data to help protect and improve the
reliability and security of the nation's bulk power system. OER
oversees the development and review of mandatory reliability and
security standards and ensures compliance with the approved standards
by the users, owners, and operators of the bulk power system. OER also
monitors and addresses issues concerning the nation's bulk power system
including assessments of resource adequacy and reliability.
    Without the FERC-715 data, the Commission would be unable to
evaluate planned projects or requests related to transmission.
    Summary and Response to Public Comment: In response to the Notice
of Information Collection and Request for Comments published in the
Federal Register on December 27, 2018, the Commission received one
comment from the American Public Power Association (APPA). The comment
recommended enhancing the current FERC Form No. 715 collection process

to have each of the six submission parts better segregated from each
other to allow for more granular responses to data requests and limit
the release of components of the report which are Critical Energy/
Electric Infrastructure Information (CEII).
    These recommendations will be taken under consideration in the
event of potential future revisions of the FERC Form No. 715 process.
    Type of Respondent: Integrated transmission system facilities rated
at or above 100 kilovolts (kV).
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \2\ The Commission estimates the total
annual burden and cost \3\ for this information collection as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Burden'' is the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further
explanation of what is included in the information collection
burden, refer to Title 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

                                                                  FERC-715--Annual Transmission Planning and Evaluation Report
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Annual number
                                             Number of     of responses    Total number       Average burden & cost per response       Total annual burden hours & total annual      Cost per
                                            respondents   per respondent   of responses                                                                  cost                     respondent ($)
                                                     (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4).......................................  (3) * (4) = (5)...........................       (5) / (1)
                                                                                (3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Transmission Planning and                     111               1             111  160 hrs.; $11,897.60......................  17,760 hrs.; $1,320,633.60................      $11,897.60
 Evaluation Report \4\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The hourly cost (for salary plus benefits) uses the figures
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2017. These figures include
salary (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm) and benefits
(http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm) and are:
    --Management (Code 11-0000), $94.28/hr.
    --Computer and mathematical (Code 15-0000), $63.25/hr.
    --Electrical Engineers (Code 17-2071), $66.90/hr.
    --Economist (Code 19-3011), $71.98/hr.
    --Computer and Information Systems Managers (Code 11-3021),
$96.51/hr.
    --Accountants and Auditors (Code 13-2011), $56.59/hr.
    --Transportation, Storage, and Distribution Managers (Code 11-
3071), $88.61/hr.
    --Power Distributors and Dispatchers (Code 51-8012), $56.74/hr.
    We are using the average hourly cost (for wages plus benefits,
for these categories) of $74.36/hour.
    \4\ In 2018, FERC had 111 direct filings (responses) from
entities. However there were 239 total respondents if Transmitting
Utilities that have their filing submitted by a designated reporting
agent, such as a regional entity, are counted independently.

    Dated: March 12, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-05048 Filed 3-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


               NFIP Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

                             PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES

FEMA has gone through a National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Reform process that has allowed the Agency to scope different changes to the program.  In addition, FEMA is concerned about its responsibilities under various environmental planning laws including, but not limited to, the Endangered Species Act of 1973.  The following alternatives have been developed for further analysis.

   1. Program with Enhanced Floodplain Management Standards Including Provisions to Address Endangered Species and Habitat Concerns Alternative  -  Under this alternative FEMA would modify the NFIP in the following areas:

         a. Increase elevation standards for new construction
         b. Floodplain management standards for critical facilities
         c. Strengthen restrictions on floodway development
         d. Integrate future conditions and residual risk in floodplain management
         e. Discourage fill in floodplains
         f. Account for the impacts of floodplain development on the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains to include endangered and threatened species

   2. No Action Alternative  -  Under this alternative FEMA would continue to administer and implement the NFIP as it stands today. This encompasses FEMA's administration of the program and States, Tribes, and local governments' implementation of the program.

   3. Discontinuation Alternative  -  Under this alternative Congress would discontinue the program as of a particular date. This alternative is used to provide a comparison of the without program scenario.

   4. Request for Legislative Authority to Remove Existing Subsidies and Cross Subsidies for Flood Insurance Policies Alternative  -  Under this alternative FEMA would modify the NFIP in the following areas:

         a. Remove subsidies/cross subsidies for non primary residences
         b. Remove subsidies/cross subsidies for non residential
         c. Phase out subsidies/cross subsidies for remaining structures

   5. Program with Enhanced Floodplain Management Standards Including Provisions to Address Endangered Species and Habitat Concerns and Legislative Authority to Remove Existing Subsidies and Cross Subsidies for Flood Insurance Policies Alternative