                                  Appendix E

                       Non-Codified Study Justifications
                                   (11/5/15)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION	3
TERRESTRIAL & AQUATIC NON-TARGET ORGANISMS	3
Insect & Pollinator Data	3
Pollinator Acute Oral Toxicity, Adult	3
Pollinator Acute Oral Toxicity, Larvae	4
Pollinator Chronic Oral Toxicity, Adult	5
Pollinator Chronic Oral Toxicity, Larvae	6
Pollinator Tier II Semi-Field Toxicity Testing (tunnel/enclosure studies)	6
Pollinator Tier II Semi-Field Toxicity Testing (feeding studies)	7
Residues in Pollen and Nectar	9
Pollinator Acute Vapor Exposure Toxicity	9
Beneficial Insects Toxicity	10
Avian & Mammalian Testing	11
Avian Acute Inhalation Toxicity	11
Aquatic Organisms (Fish & Invertebrates)	11
Acute Freshwater Fish and/or Invertebrate Toxicity (Synergism)	11
NON-TARGET PLANTS (TERRESTRIAL & AQUATIC)	12
Non-Target Plant Reproductive Toxicity	12
Terrestrial Plant Vapor Exposure Toxicity	13
WASTE WATER SYSTEMS (ENVIRONMENTAL FATE & TOXICITY)	13
Drinking Water Treatability	13
ENVIRONMENTAL FATE & TRANSPORT	14
Dissipation Study in Compost	14
Foliar Dissipation	15
Dissolution Kinetics Study in Aqueous Media	15
Rate of Deposition and Aggregation in Aqueous Media	16
Zeta Potential in Aqueous Media	17
Water Chlorination Study	18
Measurement of Henry's Law Constant	19
Outdoor Lysimeter Test For Toxicity of Leachate	20
Leaching Study	20
HUMAN HEALTH TOXICITY	21
Comparative Cholinesterase Assay (CCA)	21
Comparative Thyroid/Developmental Assay (CTA)	22
An in-vitro micronucleus assay for mutations in genetic material	22
Extended One-Generation Reproduction Study (Inhalation)	23
OCCUPATIONAL & RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE	24
Water Concentration Studies (Swimming Pools & Spas)	24
Monitoring Data on Fumigated Commodities	24
Ambient Air Monitoring	25
Small Air Chamber Emissions Study	26
RESIDUE DATA	26
Residue Dissipation	26
Attrition Study	27
Nature of the Residue in Paper	28
Pet Fur Residue Transfer	29
USE PATTERN ON PRODUCT LABEL	29
Use Summary Data	29

INTRODUCTION
This document presents a list of non-codified studies required or to be required by a data call-in (DCI) issued or expected to be issued by the EPA along with a rationale for requiring the data and an explanation of the practical utility of the data. The studies are grouped by scientific discipline.
TERRESTRIAL & AQUATIC NON-TARGET ORGANISMS
Insect & Pollinator Data
Pollinator Acute Oral Toxicity, Adult
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
Terrestrial invertebrates are likely to be impacted if exposed to pesticides in various use settings.   Pesticide residues may be transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants and subsequently brought back to the hive.  Therefore, potential acute effects to adult honeybees and other pollinators from oral exposure to some pesticides could exist.  Currently available toxicity studies do not address possible effects of oral exposure on adult terrestrial insect survival.  Because of the potential for pollen and nectar to be contaminated with pesticide residues, and subsequently brought back to the hive, it is important to determine the acute oral toxicity of this compound to adult honeybees and other insect pollinators.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for terrestrial invertebrates using the honeybee as a surrogate test species.  The guidance discusses Tier I laboratory-based acute oral toxicity studies of individual adult bees as a critical component of the screening-level risk assessment process for examining potential adverse effects from specific routes of exposure.  The guidance can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/pollinator-risk-assessment-guidance .  Additional guidance on the honeybee oral toxicity test design can be found in OECD Test Guideline 213 http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test-no-213-honeybees-acute-oral-toxicity-test_9789264070165-en  .
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
The Tier I acute oral toxicity data on adult bees serve as a foundation for the screening-level assessment of potential risk to non-target organisms such as federally listed threatened or endangered and non-listed terrestrial invertebrate insects, including pollinators, from acute oral exposures to pesticides.  The data will be used to reduce uncertainties associated with the risk assessment for terrestrial invertebrates and will improve EPA's understanding of the potential direct and indirect effects on a broad range of taxa.  This study will also provide information with which to compare whether oral toxicity estimates differ from contact toxicity estimates obtained from other Tier I studies.  If acute oral effects data for adult honeybees and insect pollinators are not available, risks to terrestrial insects from acute oral exposure will be assumed.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is likely to adversely affect listed threatened or endangered species and/or modify their designated critical habitat.  Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in use restrictions.

Pollinator Acute Oral Toxicity, Larvae
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
Terrestrial invertebrates are likely to be impacted if exposed to pesticides in various use settings.  Pesticide residues may be transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants and subsequently brought back to the hive where larvae and pupae may be exposed.  Therefore, potential adverse effects to developing bees and other insect pollinators could result from exposure to pesticide residues.  Available toxicity studies do not address possible effects on brood (larvae and pupae) survival/development.  Because of the potential for pollen and nectar to be contaminated with pesticide residues, and subsequently brought back to the hive, it is important to determine the acute oral toxicity of this compound to bee brood.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for terrestrial invertebrates using the honeybee as a surrogate test species.  The guidance discusses Tier I laboratory-based acute toxicity studies of individual honeybee larvae as a critical component of the screening-level risk assessment process for examining potential risks from specific routes of exposure.  The guidance can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/pollinator-risk-assessment-guidance .  Additional guidance on larval honeybee toxicity test design can be found in OECD Test Guideline 237 http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test-no-237-honey-bee-apis-mellifera-larval-toxicity-test-single-exposure_9789264203723-en  .
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
The Tier I acute oral toxicity data on honeybee larvae serve as a foundation for the screening-level assessment of potential risk to non-target organisms such as federally listed threatened or endangered and non-listed terrestrial invertebrate insects, including pollinators, and/or modify their designated critical habitat from acute oral exposures to pesticides.  The data will be used to reduce uncertainties associated with the risk assessment for terrestrial invertebrates and will improve EPA's understanding of the potential effects on terrestrial species and whether there is a differential sensitivity of larval bees relative to adult bees.  If acute oral effects data for larvae are not available, risks to terrestrial insects from acute oral exposure will be assumed.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is likely to adversely affect listed threatened or endangered species and/or modify their designated critical habitat.  Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in use restrictions.

Pollinator Chronic Oral Toxicity, Adult
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
Terrestrial invertebrates are likely to be impacted if exposed to pesticides in various use settings.   Pesticide residues may be transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants and subsequently brought back to the hive.  Therefore, potential chronic effects to adult honeybees and other pollinators from oral exposure to some pesticides could exist.  Currently available toxicity studies do not address possible lethal and sublethal effects of chronic oral exposure on adult terrestrial invertebrates and will assist in determining whether the sensitivity of adult bees differs from that of earlier life stages.  Because of the potential for pollen and nectar to be contaminated with pesticide residues, and subsequently brought back to the hive, it is important to determine the chronic oral toxicity of this compound to adult honeybees and other pollinators.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for invertebrates with the honeybee.  The guidance discusses Tier I laboratory-based chronic oral toxicity studies of individual adult honeybees as a critical component of the screening-level risk assessment process for examining potential risks from specific routes of exposure.  The guidance can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/pollinator-risk-assessment-guidance .  Study design elements for the chronic 10-day oral toxicity test with honeybees are similar to the OECD Test Guideline 213 acute oral toxicity test http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test-no-213-honeybees-acute-oral-toxicity-test_9789264070165-en.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
The Tier I chronic oral toxicity data on adult bees serve as a foundation for the screening-level assessment of potential risk to non-target organisms including federally listed threatened or endangered species and non-listed terrestrial invertebrate insects, including pollinators, from chronic oral exposures to pesticides.  The data will be used to reduce uncertainties associated with the risk assessment for terrestrial invertebrates and will improve EPA's understanding of the potential direct and indirect lethal and sublethal effects on a broad range of terrestrial species, particularly insect pollinators and to determine whether adult toxicity differs substantially from other life stages evaluated in other Tier I tests.  If chronic oral effects data for adults are not available, risks to terrestrial insects from chronic oral exposure will be assumed.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is likely to adversely affect listed threatened or endangered species and/or their designated critical habitat.  Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in use restrictions.

Pollinator Chronic Oral Toxicity, Larvae
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
Terrestrial invertebrates are likely to be impacted if exposed to pesticides in various use settings.  Pesticide residues may be transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants and subsequently brought back to the hive where larvae and pupae may be exposed.  Therefore, potential effects to developing bees could result from chronic oral exposure to pesticide residues.  Available toxicity studies do not address possible chronic effects on brood (larvae and pupae) survival.  Because of the potential for pollen and nectar to be contaminated with pesticide residues, and subsequently brought back to the hive, it is important to determine chronic larval/pupal toxicity and whether adult emergence is adversely affected.  This study will provide information on whether honeybee larvae differ in sensitivity from adult bees following chronic exposure.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for invertebrates with the honeybee.  The guidance discusses Tier 1 laboratory-based chronic oral toxicity studies of individual honeybee larvae as a critical component of the screening-level risk assessment process for examining potential risks from specific routes of exposure.  The guidance can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/pollinator-risk-assessment-guidance.
Additional information on larval honeybee toxicity repeat exposure test design can be found in the OECD draft guidance http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/testing/Draft_GD_honeybees_rep_exp_for_2nd_CR_25_November_2013.pdf .
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
The Tier I chronic oral toxicity data on bee larvae serve as a foundation for the screening-level assessment of potential risk to non-target organisms including federally listed threatened or endangered and non-listed terrestrial invertebrate insects, including pollinators, from chronic oral exposures to pesticides.  The data will be used to reduce uncertainties associated with the risk assessment for terrestrial invertebrates and will improve EPA's understanding of the potential direct and indirect lethal and sublethal effects on a broad range of terrestrial species, particularly insect pollinators.  These data will also assist in determining whether early life stages of the bee differ in their sensitivity to pesticides relative to adults.  If chronic oral effects data for larvae are not available, risks to terrestrial insects from chronic oral exposure will be assumed.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is likely to adversely affect listed threatened or endangered species and/or modify their designated critical habitat.  Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in use restrictions.

Pollinator Tier II Semi-Field Toxicity Testing (tunnel/enclosure studies)
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
Tier II studies are conditional on the outcome of the screening-level assessment where acute and/or chronic risk levels of concern have been exceeded for terrestrial invertebrates.  Terrestrial invertebrates are likely to be impacted if exposed to pesticides in various use settings.  Pesticide residues may be transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants and subsequently brought back to the hive and may adversely affect developing brood (egg, larvae, and pupae) and adult bees.  Screening-level (Tier I) studies of individual bees do not address possible effects and/or exposure to pesticide residues at the colony-level.  Because of the potential for pollen and nectar to be contaminated with pesticide residues, and subsequently brought back to the hive, it is important to determine whether bee colonies may be negatively affected under relatively controlled exposure conditions of a semi-field study. In addition to providing effects data, these studies can provide data on exposure as pesticide residues in pollen/nectar of treated plants.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for invertebrates with the honeybee.  The guidance describes the tiered testing process and can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/pollinator-risk-assessment-guidance .  Additional information on honeybee colony studies under semi-field conditions can be found in the OECD Guidance 75 http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono%28 .
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
Tier II colony-level data will be used to assess potential risk to non-target organisms including listed and non-listed terrestrial social invertebrate species and to determine whether effects observed in the screening-level (Tier I) laboratory-based studies of individual bees are evident in colony-level studies under semi-field conditions.  The Tier II semi-field test of whole colonies is a relatively controlled study, i.e., bees are confined to a specific area, that is designed to represent potential field-level exposure and account for hive dynamics, which are not achievable from other pollinator studies.  This study will be used to determine whether adverse effects to insect pollinators at the whole colony level, may result for the use of pesticides and will help to refine risk estimates derived in the screening-level risk assessment for beneficial terrestrial invertebrates.  Measured residues in pollen/nectar can also be used to refine risk estimates derived from model-based or default values in the screening-level assessment.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is likely to adversely affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or their designated critical habitat.  Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in significant use restrictions.

Pollinator Tier II Semi-Field Toxicity Testing (feeding studies)
                        Rationale for Requiring the Data
Pesticide residues may be transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants and subsequently brought back to the hive, and may adversely affect developing brood (egg, larvae, and pupae) and adult bees. Tier II feeding studies are conditional on the outcome of the screening-level assessment where acute and/or chronic risk levels of concern have been exceeded for terrestrial invertebrates based on Tier I studies of individual bees. Feeding studies utilize free foraging bee colonies that are "dosed" with specific quantities of test material and represent a means of ensuring exposure to the test material through spiked pollen and/or sugar solutions fed to the colony while still allowing the bees to forage freely.  Since bee colonies are not confined to enclosures, colonies can be exposed for longer duration periods without subjecting the bees to stress that typically results from Tier II tunnel studies.  Available toxicity studies of individual bees (Tier 1) conducted to support screening-level assessments do not address possible effects and/or exposure to pesticide residues at the colony-level.  Because of the potential for pollen and nectar to be contaminated with pesticide residues, and subsequently brought back to the hive, it is important to determine whether bee colonies may be negatively affected where bees are free foraging and have the option to collect/consume alternative forage items beyond the spiked food. Since multiple dose levels can be more readily tested, feeding studies can help to define dose-response relationships at the whole colony level.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for invertebrates with the honeybee.  The guidance describes the tiered testing process and can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/pollinator-risk-assessment-guidance .  Additional information on honeybee colony feeding studies can be found in the EPPO Guidance 170 at: http://www.nationalbeeunit.com/index.cfm?pageId=187 .
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
Tier II colony feeding data will be used to assess potential risk to non-target organisms including listed and non-listed terrestrial social invertebrate species.  The colony feeding study is designed to represent potential field-level exposure and account for hive dynamics using longer duration exposure periods than are possible in Tier II tunnel studies.  The study will be used to determine whether potential adverse effects to insect pollinators at the whole colony level when bees are able to forage naturally beyond the spiked food.  Results from the feeding study will help to refine the screening-level risk assessment for beneficial terrestrial invertebrates that were based on Tier I studies on individual bees.  Since feeding studies can help to define a dose-response relationship at the colony level, the studies can provide a means of determining exposure thresholds below which the likelihood of adverse effects on colonies may be low.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
Tier II colony-level data will be used to refine screening-level risk estimates derived using Tier I laboratory-based data on individual bees.  The Tier II data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is likely to adversely affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or their designated critical habitat.  Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in significant use restrictions.

Residues in Pollen and Nectar
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
Terrestrial invertebrates are likely to be impacted if exposed to pesticide residues in various use settings.  Pesticide residues may be transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants and subsequently brought back to hive where all life stages may be exposed.  For some pesticides, the quantification of pollinator-relevant residues in treated flowering plants is needed, since pollinators will be exposed to residues from either current or prior season applications (due to the potential for residues to accumulate in plants and trees).  Residues in edible/transportable-to-hive parts of treated trees and plants, including (where appropriate), but not limited to, guttation water, sap/resins, whole plant tissue (e.g., leaves, stems), as well as blooming, pollen-shedding, and nectar producing parts (i.e., flowers and, if present, extra-floral nectaries) of plants may inform the potential for risk.  Studies should be designed to provide residue data for crops and application methods of concern.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for invertebrates with the honeybee.  The guidance can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/pollinator-risk-assessment-guidance.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
Measured residue data will be used to refine conservative estimates of pesticide exposure and reduce uncertainties associated with the Tier I exposure assessment by providing direct measurements of pesticide concentrations resulting from actual use settings.  Measured residues may provide a more realistic understanding of exposure through contact or ingestion with which to calculate risk quotients for individual bees as well as to characterize exposure to the colony.  If measured residue data are not available, risk estimates for terrestrial insects will be based on model-generated or default values used to support the screening-level assessment.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is likely to adversely affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or their designated critical habitat.  Without these data, EPA will have to rely on conservative estimates of exposure which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in use restrictions.

Pollinator Acute Vapor Exposure Toxicity
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
Pesticide chemicals can come in the form of solids, liquids or gases.  Some pesticides are highly volatile or are gases (e.g., fumigants).  Conducting toxicity testing based on contact and ingestion routes such as might occur with liquid or solid pesticides is not appropriate for evaluating the toxicity of highly volatile compounds or gases.  If environmentally-relevant concentrations are possible, such as may be the case for most pesticides used as fumigants, evaluation of the impact on non-target species, such as terrestrial invertebrates, including pollinators, provides valuable information for mitigating that risk in the use labeling. Therefore, to assess the toxicity of highly volatile pesticides and gases to terrestrial invertebrates, an acute vapor exposure toxicity study is appropriate in lieu of the toxicity testing through other delivery methods.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for invertebrates with the honeybee.  These can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/pollinator-risk-assessment-guidance.  Design elements from Tier I laboratory-based studies of individual adult bees (OCSPP 850.3020, OECD Test Guideline 213, and OECD Test Guideline 214) and larval bees (OECD Test Guideline 237 as well as draft OECD guidance on chronic larval bee toxicity testing) may also provide useful information.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
Tier I data on individual bees serve as a foundation for the screening-level risk assessment process used to determine the potential for a pesticide (in the form of a gas/vapor) to affect non-target terrestrial invertebrate insects, including pollinators, in their environment.  These data will be used to reduce uncertainties associated with the risk assessment for terrestrial invertebrates and will improve EPA's understanding of the potential effects on terrestrial species.  If inhalation toxicity data are not available, risks to terrestrial insects from vapor exposure will be assumed.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is likely to adversely affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat.  Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in use restrictions.

Beneficial Insects Toxicity
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
Pesticides are intended, for example, to prevent, destroy, repel or mitigate pests. The physical and chemical properties of some pesticides may result in broad exposure and affect non-targeted species.  It is important to determine if the use of some pesticides will affect other species that are beneficial to the environment. Beneficial insects are critical to maintaining environmental balance and in sufficient numbers, can often reduce pests and the need for pesticides.  Knowing the impact of pesticides on beneficial and non-target insects is essential to mitigating risk to these organisms, informing the use labeling and parameters for pesticides.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
The data from this study will be used to determine the exposure and effects to assess the risk to beneficial non-target and ESA-listed species from a pesticide use. This information will also allow the Agency to refine the risk assessment and, if necessary, mitigate any risk identified.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is not likely to jeopardize listed or endangered species or its critical habitat.  Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in significant use restrictions.
Avian & Mammalian Testing
Avian Acute Inhalation Toxicity
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
Pesticide chemicals can come in the form of solids, liquids or gases.  Some pesticides are highly volatile or are gases.  Conducting toxicity testing based on contact and ingestion routes such as might occur with liquid or solid pesticides is not appropriate for evaluating the toxicity of highly volatile compounds or gases.  If environmentally relevant concentrations are possible, such as may be the case for most pesticides used as fumigants, evaluation of the impact on non-target species, such as birds, provides valuable information for mitigating that risk in the use labeling. Therefore, to assess the toxicity of highly volatile pesticides and gases to birds, an avian inhalation toxicity study is appropriate in lieu of the toxicity testing through other delivery methods.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
The results of this study will be used to determine the potential for a pesticide in the form of a gas to affect non-target birds, in their environment. This study is designed to quantify the toxicity endpoint in order to calculate the risk to birds.  Should the study determine the risk is a concern, the Agency can use these data to inform the pesticide label to mitigate the risks.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is not likely to jeopardize listed or endangered species or its critical habitat.  Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in significant use restrictions.

Aquatic Organisms (Fish & Invertebrates)
Acute Freshwater Fish and/or Invertebrate Toxicity (Synergism)
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
Pesticide synergists are incorporated into pesticide products to enhance their effectiveness (toxicity) to target organisms.  Assessing potential ecological risks of pesticides may requires evaluation of potential exposure and toxicity of the active ingredient alone and evaluating the enhanced toxicity that results from the addition of synergists.  The goal of obtaining this data is to determine the potential range of magnitudes of synergistic effects for pesticide active ingredients that are co-applied [or co-formulated] with synergists.   Acute toxicity data for pesticide Typical End-use Products (TEPs) with synergists may be needed to evaluate exposure to water bodies which can potentially impact aquatic communities.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
EPA will use these data to determine the likelihood that acute risks can potentially impact aquatic communities. The data will be used to refine the screening-level ecological risk assessment to determine whether the synergistic effects of pesticides causes unreasonable adverse ecological effects to non-target species.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is not likely to jeopardize listed or endangered species or its critical habitat.  Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in significant use restrictions.
NON-TARGET PLANTS (TERRESTRIAL & AQUATIC)
Non-Target Plant Reproductive Toxicity
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
Plants exposed to some pesticides during their reproductive stages may exhibit adverse effects on reproduction.  Plants provide food and habitat vital to ecological processes.  In some cases, information may suggest that the plant reproductive effects are manifested at lower concentrations than the standard vegetative vigor effects.  Therefore, a full understanding of the potential risks to non-target plants is essential in order to assess the potential environmental risks from the use of some pesticides.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
EPA will use the data to determine the concentration at which plants exposed to pesticides during their reproductive stages are likely to exhibit adverse effects.  These data will be used to characterize the risk posed to plant reproductive processes in terrestrial ecosystems.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is not likely to jeopardize listed or endangered species or its critical habitat.  Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in significant use restrictions.

Terrestrial Plant Vapor Exposure Toxicity
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
Pesticide chemicals can come in the form of solids, liquids or gases.  Some pesticides are highly volatile or are gases.  Conducting toxicity testing based on contact and ingestion routes such as might occur with liquid or solid pesticides, including the standard toxicity studies with terrestrial plants (i.e., Tier I and tier II vegetative vigor), is not appropriate for evaluating the toxicity of highly volatile compounds or gases.  If environmentally relevant concentrations are possible, such as may be the case for most pesticides used as fumigants, evaluation of the impact on non-target species, such as plant, provides valuable information for mitigating that risk in the use labeling. Therefore, to assess the toxicity of highly volatile pesticides and gases, a terrestrial plant vapor exposure toxicity study is appropriate in lieu of the toxicity testing through other delivery methods.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
The results of this study will be used to determine the potential for a pesticide in the form of a gas to affect non-target plants, in their environment. This study is designed to quantify the toxicity endpoint in order to calculate the risk to plants.  Should the study determine the risk is a concern, the Agency can use these data to inform the pesticide label to mitigate the risks.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is not likely to jeopardize listed or endangered species or its critical habitat.  Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in significant use restrictions.
WASTE WATER SYSTEMS (ENVIRONMENTAL FATE & TOXICITY)
Drinking Water Treatability
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
The use of some pesticides may result in the presence of this chemical in the drinking water reservoirs and rivers by off-target spray drift and runoff.  For drinking water exposure assessment, the Agency uses models to estimate exposures in the receiving water body to derive the estimated drinking water concentrations.  Without drinking water treatment data to quantify the removal mechanism, the Agency will need to assume in the risk assessment that no removal occurs in water treatment.
                        Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
The data will be used to assess the removal efficiency of the pesticide in typical drinking water treatment facilities through the processes of chemical addition, coagulation and sedimentation.  The removal efficiency derived from the water treatment test will be used to refine the expected drinking water exposure assessment.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects.  Without these data, the Agency would have to assume that the pesticide is not removed or reduced in concentration in drinking water treatment facilities.  This assumption would lead to high drinking water exposure values estimates.  These values, if used in a dietary risk assessment, could yield risk estimates above the Agency's level of concern, which could necessitate the implementation of mitigation measures, such as reduced application rates and cancellation of some uses.  Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and could result in significant use restrictions.
ENVIRONMENTAL FATE & TRANSPORT
Dissipation Study in Compost
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
The application of pesticides to vegetative matter that is subsequently used as compost or animal feed has been found to retain pesticide residues and affect non-target plants.  For example, this route of exposure is common across the picolinc acid herbicides (aminopyralid, clopyralid, and picloram), but may also apply to others.  These data may be needed for some pesticides to demonstrate the rates of degradation and leaching in vegetative and manure composts.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
A compost dissipation study would be instrumental in interpreting the monitoring data that will become available after this method is disseminated.  This data, if received, could assist the Agency in understanding the degradation of some pesticides in compost, and thusly, enhance our knowledge on the time and type of environment needed to allow for safe use of contaminated compost.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will be used to characterize risk from pesticide residues in compost and may inform potential mitigation including compost holding times.  The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is not likely to jeopardize listed or endangered species or its critical habitat.  Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in significant use restrictions.

Foliar Dissipation
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
The Agency has a limited understanding of how some pesticides behave on crop foliage once applied.  Depending on how quickly and to what extent the compound dissipates from foliage, residues may or may not pose potential exposure concern on and around foliage.  Because dissipation on foliage and release rates are not well understood, foliar dissipation data is needed.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
Understanding of the foliar dissipation of a pesticide informs the fate of the pesticide in terms of the rate of dissipation and identity of the residues at the site of application.  These data permit refinement of the ecological animal risk assessment with chemical-specific information that will characterize the dietary exposure of mammals, birds, terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles to resultant residues. Furthermore, the data may also be used to characterize the exposure of non-target plants, resulting from its use on a treated field. In the absence of these data, default assumptions will be utilized in the risk assessment which may overestimate available residues.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will be used to characterize risk from pesticide residues in compost and may inform potential mitigation including compost holding times.  The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is not likely to jeopardize listed or endangered species or its critical habitat.  Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in significant use restrictions.

Dissolution Kinetics Study in Aqueous Media
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
Nanosized pesticides potentially have unusual or unique properties as compared to the dissolved or coarser particle and bulk pesticide forms, which may also affect its environmental fate and ecotoxicity.  Some nanosized pesticides may pass through various protective barriers of living organisms (e.g., cell membranes, brain barrier) which would not occur or would not occur to the same degree as with the dissolved or coarser particle and bulk forms of the pesticide.  Dissolution kinetics of a nanosized pesticide in aqueous media forms part of the foundation for understanding the environmental fate and ecotoxicity of the nanosized pesticide. The rate at which a nanosized pesticide dissolves after being released into water determines the length of time that the nanosized pesticide will potentially reside in the environment.  Results of the dissolution kinetics study are used to help determine if exposure of the environment and non-target organisms to the nanosized pesticide and/or its aged particles is likely and to inform and refine environmental fate and ecotoxicity testing required with the nanosized pesticide and/or aged particles.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
This study will yield the rate and form of the transformation products released from the nanosized pesticide after mixing or immersion of the nanosized pesticide into aqueous media representing use and/or environmentally relevant conditions of temperature, pH, and hardness or salinity. This data will be used to determine the stability and persistence of the nanosized pesticide in the environment and the transformation products to which the environment is exposed.

Dissolution kinetics will be used by the Agency to determine if the environment is exposed to potentially nanosized pesticide particulates of concern and to provide input for exposure characterization and modeling. Additionally, results of the dissolution kinetics study are used to inform and refine environmental fate and ecotoxicity testing required with the nanosized pesticide and/or aged particles.  For example, if the nanosized pesticide is found to completely dissolve after release before it reaches environments of concern, conducting higher tier ecotoxicity tests based specifically on exposure to the nanosized pesticide would not be required.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
Without the dissolution study the Agency would have to assume that the nanosized pesticide is of sufficient stabilty in aqueous media to reach the environment and for non-target aquatic and terrestrial organisms to be exposed.  This would trigger requiring both lower and higher tier environmental fate and ecotoxicity testing be conducted with the nanosized pesticide form.  The lower and higher tier environmental fate and ecotoxicity data with the nanosized pesticide form will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is likely to adversely affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or their designated critical habitat.

Rate of Deposition and Aggregation in Aqueous Media
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
Nanosized pesticides potentially have unusual or unique properties as compared to the dissolved or coarser particle and bulk pesticide forms, which may also affect its environmental fate and ecotoxicity.  Some nanosized pesticides may pass through various protective barriers of living organisms (e.g., cell membranes, brain barrier) which would not occur or would not occur to the same degree as with the dissolved or coarser particle and bulk forms of the pesticide.  Aggregation (also referred to as coagulation) of particles which have been dispersed in aqueous media refers to the formation of clusters of the particles suspended in water.  Over the course of aggregation, clusters can grow in size, from the nanoscale to much larger particles.  As a consequence of this change in size, particles may settle to the bottom of the container.  This process can occur in a matter of seconds to hours.  The rate at and the degree to which nanosized pesticides aggregate, agglomerate and precipitate from aqueous suspensions is required to determine if benthic and water column organisms are exposed to the nanosized pesticide or a nanosized aggregate, and to determine potential removal from to drinking water supplies.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
The study will yield aggregation rate coefficient(s) and/or stability ratios of a nanosized pesticide in aqueous media under environmentally relevant conditions of temperature, pH, conductivity, hardness or salinity, and concentrations of the nanosized pesticide.  Information on the size of aggregates formed is also measured.  This data will be used by the Agency to determine how long the nanosized pesticide will remain suspended in water or the rate of aggregation and sedimentation of the nanosized pesticide in the aquatic environment which is used to further inform and refine environmental fate, mammalian toxicity, and ecotoxicity data requirements.  If the nanosized pesticide is found to rapidly form large aggregates and precipitate from water then its presence in drinking water is unlikely and toxicity testing required to support a drinking water assessment such as a chronic mammalian toxicity and a mammalian cancer study using the nanosized pesticide may not be needed, depending on if other exposure routes of concern for these exist.  Benthic sediment toxicity testing may potentially be waived depending on the size of aggregates formed or if the nanosized pesticide is expected to stay suspended in the water column.  If the nanosized pesticide or if nanosized aggregates are found to remain suspended in water then impacts to groundwater and exposure of water column species are expected and ecotoxicity data with the nanosized pesticide would be required.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
Without these data, the Agency would have to assume that the nanosized pesticide is not removed or reduced in concentration in drinking water treatment facilities and would have to assume that both benthic organisms and water column organisms are exposed to the nanosized pesticide.  Mammalian chronic and mammalian cancer data would be required to assess human health risks from drinking water exposure.  This assumption would also potentially lead to high drinking water exposure value estimates.  These values, if used in a dietary risk assessment, could yield risk estimates above the Agency's level of concern, which could necessitate the implementation of mitigation measures, such as reduced application rates and cancellation of some uses.  Additionally, both lower and higher tier environmental fate and water column and sediment ecotoxicity testing be conducted with the nanosized pesticide form would be required.  The lower and higher tier environmental fate and ecotoxicity data with the nanosized pesticide form will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is likely to adversely affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or their designated critical habitat.

Zeta Potential in Aqueous Media
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
Nanosized pesticides potentially have unusual or unique properties as compared to the dissolved or coarser particle and bulk pesticide forms, which may also affect its environmental fate and ecotoxicity.  Zeta potential of a nanosized pesticide with and without associated product stabilization conditions, or protective coatings or capping material in aqueous media forms part of the foundation for characterization of the nanosized pesticide object itself and its surface chemistry, and for understanding its environmental fate and ecotoxicity.  The zeta potential reflects the net surface charge of the nanosized pesticide object suspended in water and is used to predict if a nanosized pesticide object is expected to remain suspended or will agglomerate, aggregate or precipitate from water.  This data is also used to predict if the nanosized pesticide object will partition to sediments. For example, stable and positively charged particles are likely to partition to sediments while stable and negatively charged particles are likely to remain suspended in the water column.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
This study will yield the net surface charge of a nanosized pesticide in aqueous media under environmentally relevant conditions of temperature, pH, and conductivity and the impact to these in the presence of any associated protective coatings or capping material.  From this information the iso-electric point(s) under relevant environmental conditions are established.  This is a basic property of the nanosized pesticide which is used to characterize and define the nanosized pesticide.  This data will be used by the Agency to determine if nanosized pesticide particles released into water will remain suspended in the water column or partition to the sediments.  If the zeta potential indicates that under environmentally relevant conditions the nanosized pesticide objects are expected to partition to sediment then exposures to sediment dwelling species and plants will be expected.  In this case, the Agency will require whole sediment tests with invertebrates and rooted vascular plant studies conducted using the nanosized pesticide.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
Without the zeta potential study the Agency would have to assume that the nanosized pesticide released in aqueous media would partition to both sediment and stay suspended in the water column, resulting in exposure of both benthic organisms and organisms in the water column.  This would trigger requiring benthic organism sediment toxicity testing, food chain transfer studies, and sediment fate studies.  The benthic organisms sediment toxicity studies, food web chain transfer studies, and environmental fate studies will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is likely to adversely affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or their designated critical habitat.

Water Chlorination Study
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
It has been qualitatively demonstrated that the parent compounds of some pesticide active ingredients can be oxidized to the oxon form through chlorination during water treatment, and that this oxon may persist long enough to pass through the distribution system to the tap.  The oxon may be more toxic to human health than the parent compound.  Quantitative data on the formation and persistence of the oxon form in chlorinated water are necessary to estimate concentrations in treated drinking water and to evaluate human health risk from this exposure.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
Data on rates of transformation and on persistence of the oxon degradate will be used in estimating drinking water concentrations of the parent compound and the oxon form in order to evaluate risks to human health.  In the absence of acceptable data, a quantitative assessment will be based on the assumption that all of the parent compound estimated to be present in raw water will be transformed to the oxon form during treatment, and that the oxon is persistent and will not dissipate prior to reaching the tap.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects.  Without these data, the Agency would have to assume that all of the parent compound will be transformed to the oxon form during treatment and will not dissipate.  This assumption would lead to high drinking water exposure values estimates.  These values, if used in a dietary risk assessment, could yield risk estimates above the Agency's level of concern, which could necessitate the implementation of mitigation measures, such as reduced application rates and cancellation of some uses.  Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and could result in significant use restrictions.

Measurement of Henry's Law Constant
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
A measured Henry Law Constant value is needed to confirm the potential for a pesticide to dissolve in aquatic surfaces/bodies via atmospheric deposition.  For pesticides that are persistent in the environment or with other fate properties, there may be the potential for aquatic exposure via atmospheric deposition for which this data is needed to assess potential exposures in aquative environments.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
These data will be used to determine the potential for exposure and unreasonable adverse effects in aquatic environments.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will be used to characterize risk from pesticide residues in compost and may inform potential mitigation including compost holding times.  The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is not likely to jeopardize listed or endangered species or its critical habitat.  Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in significant use restrictions.

Outdoor Lysimeter Test For Toxicity of Leachate
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
An outdoor lysimeter study on the toxicity of a compound's leachate to the ecological system is needed to determine the composition of the leachate and environmental exposure levels possible to inform the ecological risk assessment.  This information is particularly useful with compounds having complex degradate profiles.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
The data may be used to further characterize the toxicity of this compound to non-target and endangered species, either by direct effects or by indirect effects, and to reduce uncertainties associated with the ecological risk assessment.  By refining the assessment, the Agency will be able to determine whether current labeling is appropriate and whether further mitigation is necessary.  In the absence of these data, uncertainty may remain related to the effects of this compound and its leachate and degradates to non-target and endangered species.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will be used to characterize risk from pesticide residues in compost and may inform potential mitigation including compost holding times.  The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is not likely to jeopardize listed or endangered species or its critical habitat.  Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in significant use restrictions.

Leaching Study
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
Determining if a pesticide or its degradate leaches is important in determining if that compound can migrate over time and result in exposures to the environment.  EPA has already codified the requirement for a leaching study for antifoulant coating/paint and wood preservative uses (40 CFR 158.2280).  A leaching study may also be needed for other use patterns without a codified requirement to assess potential exposures (such as, but not limited to, direct environmental contact to a materials preservative in plastics, adhesives, building materials, and textiles, or down-the-drain exposure, e.g., when a textile treated with a pesticide is laundered and wash water is sent down the drain). There are often no leaching studies available to assess these exposures.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
EPA may need the data to conduct the ecological effects and environmental fate assessments to determine the rate at which a pesticide or its degradate leaches into the environment and whether the amount of pesticide in the leachate would be of toxicological concern.  The use of actual empirical data for assessment inputs will address critical limitations of risk modeling (i.e., assumptions based on estimated inputs), resulting in more accurate risk assessments.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
Conservative estimates of pesticide leaching, such as 100 percent leaching, will be used unless information on leaching is submitted or found from open literature to refine estimates of leaching.   The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is not likely to jeopardize listed or endangered species or its critical habitat.  Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in significant use restrictions.
HUMAN HEALTH TOXICITY
Comparative Cholinesterase Assay (CCA)
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
For some compounds, such as the organophosphate and N-methyl carbamate pesticides, acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibition is the most sensitive toxicological effect for either the parent compound or the environmental degradate, the oxon.  In order to address the potential differences in potency of the oxon as well as life stage sensitivities to these compounds, the Agency needs AChE inhibition data for specific life stages in order to address the FQPA safety factor for infants and children.  The CCA study is designed to provide specific AChE measurements at the compounds time to peak inhibition at different life stages and therefore provides a robust measurement of inhibition in young adult, juvenile, fetal and pregnant rats.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
The new AChE data generated in the CCA study would be used to either confirm an existing FQPA factor or used to derive a data specific FQPA factor directly from the CCA study and be used in both the single chemical and cumulative risk assessments.  The updated FQPA factor could therefore either reduce or increase risk estimates in the dietary assessments.  If the dietary risk is increased based on information in the new CCA study, then additional mitigation may be needed to address potential risks of concern.  If the dietary risk is decreased, then uses may be able to be expanded.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects.  Without these data, the Agency is required to retain the 10x FQPA safety factor for a dietary risk assessment, which could yield risk estimates above the Agency's level of concern and necessitate the implementation of mitigation measures, such as reduced application rates and cancellation of some uses.  Moreover, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and could result in significant use restrictions.

Comparative Thyroid/Developmental Assay (CTA)
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
Chemicals that perturb thyroid homeostasis and result in hypothyroidism are known to be associated with neurological disorders and alterations in neurological development, both in animals and humans.  Thyroid susceptibility may be suggested for some pesticides necessitating data to adequately characterize the potential of the pesticide to disrupt thyroid hormone homeostasis, growth and development, and neurodevelopment. Thus, if there is evidence that a pesticide produces effects on thyroid function or structure, the comparative thyroid/developmental assay would be required in lieu of the rat Developmental Neurotoxicity Study (DNT) in order to obtain specific data on thyroid function. The test substance would be administered to groups of pregnant rats during gestation and lactation with measurements made of triiodothyronine (T3), thyroxine (T4), and thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) as well as histopathology of the thyroid gland. The EPA's Guidance for Thyroid Assays in Pregnant Animals, Fetuses and Postnatal Animals and Adult Animals addresses the issue of disruption of thyroid hormone homeostasis during development. The CTA is critical to addressing the potential sensitivity of infants and children under the FQPA safety factor in risk assessment.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
The Agency will use these data to confirm or revise the FQPA safety factor and/or dose used in the risk assessment.  If the dietary risk is increased based on information in the new CTA study, then additional mitigation may be needed to address potential risks of concern.  If the dietary risk is decreased, then uses may be able to be expanded.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects.  Without these data, the Agency is required to retain the 10x FQPA safety factor for the dietary risk assessment, which could yield risk estimates above the Agency's level of concern and necessitate the implementation of mitigation measures, such as reduced application rates and cancellation of some uses.  Moreover, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and FQPA, and could result in significant use restrictions.

An in-vitro micronucleus assay for mutations in genetic material
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
Oxygen radical species generated by pesticide chemicals can interfere with cell division and disrupt spindle tubules and potentially lead to genotoxic effects such as DNA damage and/or chromosomal aberrations. An in vitro micronucleus assay may be more relevant for assessment of genotoxicity as compared to traditional in vitro assays. The data from this test can be used to determine if the pesticide chemical is a clastogenic or aneugenic chemical.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
Positive results from the in vitro micronucleus test indicate that the test substance induces chromosome damage, or damage to the cell division apparatus, in cultured mammalian somatic cells. Negative results indicate that, under the test conditions, the test substance does not induce chromosome structural and or numerical aberrations in cultured mammalian somatic cells. If this tests shows that the nanoparticle has the potential to cause genetic mutations, then the Agency would require additional testing.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects.  Without these data, the Agency may need to apply a 10x FQPA safety factor to the compound in a dietary risk assessment, which could yield risk estimates above the Agency's level of concern and necessitate the implementation of mitigation measures, such as reduced application rates and cancellation of some uses.  Moreover, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and FQPA, and could result in significant use restrictions.

Extended One-Generation Reproduction Study (Inhalation)
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
A reproductive study provides critical scientific information needed to characterize potential hazards during in utero fetal development as well as development of infants and children.  Exposure to pesticides that are highly volatile or are gases, such as fumigants, occurs via the inhalation route, and data evaluating the potential impact of these compounds on the reproductive system is not available, therefore an extended one- generation reproductive toxicity study via the inhalation route is needed.  Given that there could be potential repeat inhalation exposure to subpopulations residing near fumigant application sites (i.e. women that could potentially become pregnant, infants and children), an inhalation reproductive toxicity study is needed to conduct a complete and comprehensive inhalation assessment of potential critical post-natal toxicological effects.  The extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study (EOGRTS) would allow for the integrated evaluation of multiple organ systems (with an emphasis on the nervous, immune, and reproductive systems) across several periods of development from conception through adulthood.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
The Agency will use these data to confirm or revise the FQPA safety factor used in the risk assessment.  In the absence of inhalation data, significant uncertainties remain concerning pre- and post-natal exposures.  The availability of an EOGRTS would be used by the Agency to address these uncertainties.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects.  Without these data, the Agency may need to retain the FQPA safety factor to the compound in the risk assessment, which could yield risk estimates above the Agency's level of concern and necessitate the implementation of mitigation measures, such as reduced application rates and cancellation of some uses.  Moreover, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and FQPA, and could result in significant use restrictions.
OCCUPATIONAL & RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE
Water Concentration Studies (Swimming Pools & Spas)
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
The concentration in the water of the parent material itself is known based on the label application rate (i.e., most pool chemicals provide a rate to be maintained or rate for shock treatments). However, under certain conditions (e.g., U.V. light, oxidation, temperature, etc.), certain pesticides used to treat swimming pools & spas can break down to form degradates as toxic as or more toxic than the parent compound.  Data on degradates are needed to determine potential exposure to those chemicals and to develop a conversion rate of the degradate, if applicable.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
The data will be used to develop a risk assessment and make a safety finding.  The available degradate concentrations in swimming pool & spa water will be used to determine the magnitude of incidental oral exposure and risk.  Based on these data, the Agency can determine if labels need to be adjusted or refined.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects.  Without these data, the Agency may need to apply an FQPA safety factor to the compound in the risk assessment, which could yield risk estimates above the Agency's level of concern and necessitate the implementation of mitigation measures, such as reduced application rates and cancellation of some uses.  Moreover, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and FQPA, and could result in significant use restrictions.

Monitoring Data on Fumigated Commodities
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
The potential post-application exposures associated with commodity fumigation were not quantitatively assessed when these uses were established.  The Agency did not have monitoring data to directly measure emissions from fumigated commodities/materials.  These data will ensure that the Agency has the most accurate information possible on exposure to evaluate emission rates from treated commodities.  Post-application risks estimates will be calculated for workers and will be used to determine if the potential for occupational exposure due to those emissions (i.e., for post-application workers who must handle or receive treated commodities) is below the Agency's level of concern.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
These data will be used to determine if the exposure from handling treated commodities/materials is below the Agency's level of concern.  In addition, these data will be used to inform emissions factors and buffer zone estimates during the treatment and aeration phases of the fumigations of commodities.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects.  Without these data, the Agency may need to apply an FQPA safety factor to the compound in the risk assessment, which could yield risk estimates above the Agency's level of concern and necessitate the implementation of mitigation measures, such as reduced application rates and cancellation of some uses.  Moreover, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and FQPA, and could result in significant use restrictions.

Ambient Air Monitoring
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
Exposure to pesticides that are highly volatile or are gases, such as fumigants, occurs via the inhalation route.  Post-application inhalation exposure is predicted to occur for community populations near fumigated fields.  This study is to determine whether exposures in high use areas from ambient levels are a concern.  This data will also help EPA consider the proximity of use to populations, the proximity of use to sensitive sites, and the proximity of use to minority populations to address environmental justice concerns when making risk management decisions.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
These data will be used to in risk assessments to evaluate post-application inhalation exposure for communities near fumigation sites; potential maximum peak air concentrations in areas of high seasonal use; and potential community-level exposure to air concentrations.  These data will ensure that the Agency has the most accurate information possible to protect communities near fumigation sites.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects.  Without these data, the Agency may need to apply an FQPA safety factor to the compound in the risk assessment, which could yield risk estimates above the Agency's level of concern and necessitate the implementation of mitigation measures, such as reduced application rates and cancellation of some uses.  Moreover, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and FQPA, and could result in significant use restrictions.

Small Air Chamber Emissions Study
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
Inhalation exposures to pesticide vapors may be expected during and after application of liquids (e.g., paints, detergents, metalworking fluids) treated with certain pesticides.  Exposures to both professional applicators and do-it-yourself consumer products could be anticipated.  Chamber emission data may be needed to determine if these exposures exceed applicable toxicological points of departure (PODs) and are a risk to human health.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
The chamber emission data will be used along with appropriate source models in the EPA's Indoor Air Quality Model (IAQX) to assess inhalation exposures.  The results of the assessment will be compared to the toxicological POD for the pesticide to determine if the risk to human health is a concern.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The chamber emissions data will be used to decide if the exposure to the pesticide vapors from the use of that pesticide in liquid products generate a risk of concern that requires mitigation. This mitigation could include reduction of the application rate or elimination of the use.  If chamber emissions data are not available, then default assumptions of the pesticide's emission rate will be used in the IAQX model which might overestimate the risk, which could yield risk estimates above the Agency's level of concern and necessitate the implementation of mitigation measures, such as reduced application rates and cancellation of some uses.  Moreover, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and FQPA, and could result in significant use restrictions.
RESIDUE DATA
Residue Dissipation
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
When the currently registered uses of a pesticide or its degradate may result in incidental exposure during uses (such as, but not limited to, a materials preservative in wood, textiles, leather, plastics, flooring, carpets, building materials, and finishes or coatings), EPA must evaluate potential exposure and risk.  When residue data are unavailable on the leaching of the pesticide or its degradate, the Agency must conduct high-end deterministic screening-level assessments to estimate potential exposure.  Risk assessment outputs based on estimated inputs are designed to be overestimations resulting from the numerous assumptions made in the absence of chemical-specific post-application dissipation and persistence rates.  These assumptions need to be refined with the residue dissipation study.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
Data collected will be used to establish rate of residue transfer or release to refine or confirm human exposure predictions.  The new data generated in the residue dissipation study may be used to assess possible dermal and incidental oral human exposure to the residue and will provide a better understanding of the potential exposure and risk for individuals handling, contacting, and/or using items treated with chemicals and finishes preserved with a pesticide. For example, the data may be used to assess the risks to children mouthing and chewing treated textiles or plastic or children playing on play sets built from treated wood.  The use of actual empirical data for assessment inputs will address critical limitations of risk modeling (i.e., assumptions based on estimated inputs).

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
These refined data will allow the Agency to conduct human-health risk assessments using real-world, chemical-specific inputs and thus, minimize the potential for underestimating or overestimating risk. The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects.  Additionally, without these data, the Agency may need to apply an FQPA safety factor to the compound in the risk assessment, which could yield risk estimates above the Agency's level of concern and necessitate the implementation of mitigation measures, such as reduced application rates and cancellation of some uses.  Moreover, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and FQPA, and could result in significant use restrictions.

Attrition Study
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
An attrition study is used to inform whether a solid material has the potential to break up into small particles (dust) or if a nano-sized pesticide is likely to become airborne. The study purpose is to define dust levels and may be used to determine human inhalation exposure potential or to bridge between different exposure datasets. Submitting a protocol to the Agency prior to conducting the study may be necessary. To determine the resistance to attrition of granular carriers and granular pesticides, using the latest version of the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) Test Method E728-91 (2009) "Standard Test Method for Resistance to Attrition of Granular Carriers and Granular Pesticides" may be used.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
Data collected will be used to establish attrition potential of the pesticide in order to refine or confirm human exposure predictions. The new data generated may be used to assess possible inhalation human exposure and will provide a better understanding of the potential exposure and risk for individuals handling, contacting, and/or using items treated with chemicals and finishes preserved with a pesticide. For example, the data may be used to assess the occupational exposure when pouring the pesticide or inhalation exposure during drying or cutting of articles treated with the pesticide.  The use of actual empirical data for assessment inputs will address critical limitations of risk modeling (i.e., assumptions based on estimated inputs).

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects.  Without these data, the Agency may need to apply an FQPA safety factor to the compound in the risk assessment, which could yield risk estimates above the Agency's level of concern and necessitate the implementation of mitigation measures, such as reduced application rates and cancellation of some uses.  Moreover, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and FQPA, and could result in significant use restrictions.

Nature of the Residue in Paper
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
The nature of residue in paper chemistry study will allow the Agency to conduct chemical-specific, quantitative dietary risk assessments that utilize measured quantities of pesticide and its metabolite(s) that will be available for dietary consumption when pesticide-containing products are used during production of paper and paperboard used for food packaging. The Nature of the Residue in Paper study will determine whether residues persist in treated paper, the identity of those residues, and a measured upper limit on the total residue level that could migrate to food. The Migration Studies are automatically required but may be waived depending on the outcome of the Nature of the Residue in Paper study. Migration Studies determine the concentrations of specific residues of toxicological concern transferred from treated food-contact paper packaging to various types of food coming in contact with treated paper/paperboard.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
The Nature of the Residue in Paper study will be used to determine whether a pesticide or its metabolite(s) remain in the paper/paperboard manufactured from pesticide-treated pulp, whether it degrades, to what it degrades, and the upper limit on residues of concern that are available to migrate to food. This study may negate the need for assessing the dietary risk due to use as a slimicide in the pulp slurry used to make food-contact packaging, may be used as an upper (yet refined) exposure limit, and may be used to either waive or provide direction for the Paper Migration Study. Migration Studies determine the concentrations of specific residues of toxicological concern transferred from treated food-contact paper and paperboard to various types of food coming in contact with these surfaces.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects.  Without these data, the Agency may need to apply an FQPA safety factor to the compound in the risk assessment, which could yield risk estimates above the Agency's level of concern and necessitate the implementation of mitigation measures, such as reduced application rates and cancellation of some uses.  Moreover, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and FQPA, and could result in significant use restrictions.

Pet Fur Residue Transfer
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
These data are necessary in order to allow the Agency to refine dermal and incidental post-application exposure and risks from pesticide containing pet collars.  The use of pesticidal pet collars can result in dermal exposure to adults and children and incidental oral exposure to children following contact with a treated pet.
                        Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
The data would be used with the toxicological endpoints of concern to evaluate the residential risks associated with dermal and incidental oral exposure to pesticidal pet collars.  Without this data, risk estimates will be based on best professional default assumption for pet fur residue transfer.  Based on these data, the Agency can determine if the estimated risk is valid and what additional risk mitigation measures, if any, would be necessary to result in acceptable residential post-application exposure/risk from pesticidal pet collars

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?
The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects.  Without these data, the Agency may need to apply an FQPA safety factor to the compound in the risk assessment, which could yield risk estimates above the Agency's level of concern and necessitate the implementation of mitigation measures, such as reduced application rates and cancellation of some uses.  Moreover, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and FQPA, and could result in significant use restrictions.
USE PATTERN ON PRODUCT LABEL
Use Summary Data
                       Rationale for Requiring the Data
Use summary data are needed to determine the uses registrants intend to support under the Registration Review process. Additionally, these data are needed clarify ambiguous or missing data on labels for supported uses such that human health and ecological risk assessments for those supported uses can be conducted as part of the Registration Review process. These data may include use sites, use pattern information, application methods, and any other use restrictions pertinent for consideration in conducting risk assessments to evaluate the safety of the use of the pesticide.
                         Practical Utility of the Data
How will the data be used?
Data will be used to assess potential risk to people and non-target organisms from exposures to pesticides.  The data will be used to reduce uncertainties associated with the human health and ecological risk assessments and will improve EPA's understanding of the potential effects on people and non-target organisms.  It is expected that this information will ultimately be incorporated into an electronic labeling system (SmartLabel) currently under development by EPA to make label information more quickly available to the public in an easily searchable format.

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision making?
These data are necessary to inform the determination required under FIFRA, FQPA, and/or ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects.  This information will improve the quality of the risk assessment by being more representative of the registrant supported use, which will also reduce the need for unnecessary mitigation work.  The lack of these data will limit the flexibility that the Agency and registrants have in complying with FIFRA, FQPA and ESA, and could result in significant use restrictions.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11963-11965]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4907]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0517; FRL-9275-7]

Updating Cross-References for the Oklahoma State Implementation
Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendments.

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

SUMMARY: In this rule, EPA is making a minor correction to the final
rule titled, ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in
State Implementation Plans'' to correct the regulatory text related to
Oklahoma's State Implementation Plan (SIP). Region 6 approved revisions
to the Oklahoma SIP that recodified the regulations. This approved
recodification took effect on December 27, 2010. This rule updates
cross-references in the regulatory text in light of this
recodification.

DATES: Effective Date: These correcting amendments are effective on
March 4, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0517. All documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential
business information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. 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 EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael S. Brooks, U.S. EPA, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, C504-
05, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On December 30, 2010, EPA published a final rule titled,
``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State
Implementation Plans'' (SIP Narrowing Rule) (75 FR 82536). This rule
was signed on December 23, 2010. This final rule narrowed EPA's
previous approval of SIP Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
programs in 24 states that apply to GHG-emitting sources. Specifically,
in that rule EPA withdrew its previous approval of those programs to
the extent they applied PSD to GHG-emitting sources below the
thresholds in the final Tailoring Rule, which EPA promulgated by
Federal Register notice dated June 3, 2010.
    For a detailed description of the rule titled, ``Limitation of
Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans,'' please see the rulemaking action which is available in the
Federal Register at (75 FR 82536).

II. Why are the corrections needed?

    In the SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA amended its approval of Oklahoma's
SIP in 40 CFR 52.1929 by adding provision 40 CFR 52.1929(c), in which
it cross-referenced specific provisions of Oklahoma's approved state
PSD program.
    Separately, EPA Region 6 approved revisions to the Oklahoma SIP
that recodified the regulations, including the provisions that were
cross-referenced by the aforementioned SIP Narrowing Rule. This
approved recodification took effect on December 27, 2010, in between
the dates the SIP Narrowing Rule was signed and published. As a result,
the regulatory text within the SIP Narrowing Rule related to the
Oklahoma SIP is no longer accurate as the SIP provisions listed in the
SIP Narrowing Rule no longer cross-reference to the portions of the
state PSD program. Therefore, EPA is correcting this error.

III. What is the rulemaking procedure?

    The EPA is issuing this final rule without prior proposal or the
opportunity for public comment because EPA finds that it is unnecessary
and not in the public interest to provide such notice and opportunity
for comment. Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that when an Agency for good cause finds
that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to public interest, the Agency may issue a rule without
providing notice and an opportunity to comment. Section 307(d)(1) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA), among other things, further provides that CAA
subsection 307(d) does not apply when EPA has made a good cause finding
pursuant to subparagraph (B) of APA subsection 553(b). (See 42 U.S.C.
7607(d)(1).) In this rule, EPA finds that it is unnecessary and would
serve no useful purpose for EPA to provide an opportunity for public
comment because the changes merely correct minor, inadvertent, and
nonsubstantive errors. As explained above, the correction to 40 CFR
52.1929(c)(4)(iii) corrects minor, inadvertent errors in the regulatory
text. For these reasons, EPA finds pursuant to APA section 553 that
good cause exists to promulgate this final rule without publishing
notice of a proposed rule or providing an opportunity for public
comment.
    Section 553(d)(3) also allows an agency, upon a finding of good
cause, to make a rule effective immediately. Because this action
corrects minor, inadvertent errors and helps to clarify requirements in
the underlying rules, EPA finds good cause exists to make these
corrections effective immediately.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action only corrects minor, inadvertent and nonsubstantive
errors. For that reason, this rule: Is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 Regulatory
Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2); and does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Because EPA found that
for this action it is unnecessary to issue a proposed rule and invite
public comment, this action is also not subject to the regulatory
flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a
significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and
204 of the UMRA.
    The corrections do not have substantial direct effects on the
States, or on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132,
Federalism (64 FR 43255; August 10, 1999).
    This action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Tribal governments, as specified in Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The corrections also are not subject to
Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because this action is
not economically significant.
    The corrections are not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because this action is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
    The corrections do not involve changes to technical standards
related to test methods or monitoring methods; thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply.
    The corrections also do not involve special consideration of
environmental justice-related issues as required by Executive Order
12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA),
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing
this final action and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
U.S. prior to publication of this action in the Federal Register. This
action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final
rule will be effective on March 4, 2011.
    The EPA's compliance with the above statutes and Executive Orders
for the

underlying rules is discussed in section VII of the rule titled,
``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State
Implementation Plans'' at 75 FR 82549.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Carbon dioxide, Carbon dioxide equivalents, Environmental protection,
Greenhouse gases, Hydrofluorocarbons, Intergovernmental relations,
Incorporation by reference, Methane, Nitrous oxide, Perfluorocarbons,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur hexafluoride.

    Dated: February 24, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below.

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart LL--Oklahoma

0
2. Section 52.1929 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(4)(iii) to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.1929  Significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iii) The term emissions increase shall mean that both a
significant emissions increase (as calculated using the EPA-approved
procedures in Oklahoma Air Pollution Control Regulation Title 252,
Chapter 100, Subchapter 8, Part 7) and a significant net emissions
increase (as defined in the EPA-approved Oklahoma Air Pollution Control
Regulation 252:100-8-31, definitions for ``net emissions increase'' and
``significant'' occur. For the pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase
shall be based on tpy CO2e, and shall be calculated assuming
the pollutant GHGs is a regulated NSR pollutant, and ``significant'' is
defined as 75,000 tpy CO2e instead of applying the value in
252:100-8-31 of the EPA-approved definition for ``significant'' of
Oklahoma's Air Pollution Control Regulations.

[FR Doc. 2011-4907 Filed 3-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P