[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 146 (Tuesday, August 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41836-41837]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16506]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0720; FRL-8674-01-OCSPP]

Pesticide Registration Review; Pesticide Dockets Opened for
Review and Comment; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of the EPA's
preliminary work plans for the following chemicals: allyl
isothiocyanate (AITC) and Oriental mustard seed. With this document,
the EPA is opening the public comment period for registration review
for these chemicals.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 4, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to the docket identification (ID)
number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the Table in
Unit IV. using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional instructions on
commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about
dockets generally, are available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA/DC
and Reading Room is closed to visitors with limited exceptions. The
staff continues to provide remote customer service via email, phone,
and webform. For the latest status information on the EPA/DC and docket
access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For pesticide specific information, contact: The Chemical Review
Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in the Table in Unit
IV.
    For general questions on the registration review program, contact:
Melanie Biscoe, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the Chemical Review Manager identified in the Table in Unit IV.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA
through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. Background

    Registration review is the EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. Registration review dockets contain
information that will

assist the public in understanding the types of information and issues
that the agency may consider during the course of registration reviews.
As part of the registration review process, the Agency has completed
preliminary workplans for all pesticides listed in the Table in Unit
IV. Through this program, the EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's
registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge,
including its effects on human health and the environment.

III. Authority

    The EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals
listed in the Table in Unit IV pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural
Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C.
Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the
registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under
FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only
if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must
perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

IV. Registration Reviews

A. What action is the Agency taking?

    A pesticide's registration review begins when the agency
establishes a docket for the pesticide's registration review case and
opens the docket for public review and comment. Pursuant to 40 CFR
155.50, this notice announces the availability of the EPA's preliminary
work plans for the pesticides shown in the following table and opens a
60-day public comment period on the work plans.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Chemical review manager
 Registration review case name and No.                   Docket ID No.                  and contact information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allyl isothiocyanate (AITC) and          EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0251                          Natalie Bray,
 Oriental mustard seed, Case Number<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 7481.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Docket Content

    The registration review docket contains information that the agency
may consider in the course of the registration review. The agency may
include information from its files including, but not limited to, the
following information:
     An overview of the registration review case status.
     A list of current product registrations and registrants.
     Federal Register notices regarding any pending
registration actions.
     Federal Register notices regarding current or pending
tolerances.
     Risk assessments.
     Bibliographies concerning current registrations.
     Summaries of incident data.
     Any other pertinent data or information.
    Each docket contains a document summarizing what the agency
currently knows about the pesticide case and a preliminary work plan
for anticipated data and assessment needs. Additional documents provide
more detailed information. During this public comment period, the
agency is asking that interested persons identify any additional
information they believe the agency should consider during the
registration reviews of these pesticides. The agency identifies in each
docket the areas where public comment is specifically requested, though
comment in any area is welcome.
    The registration review final rule at 40 CFR 155.50(b) provides for
a minimum 60-day public comment period on all preliminary registration
review work plans. This comment period is intended to provide an
opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any
necessary changes to a pesticide's workplan. All comments should be
submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES, and must be received by the
EPA on or before the closing date. These comments will become part of
the docket for the pesticides included in the Table in Unit IV.
Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked
``late.'' The EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
    The agency will carefully consider all comments received by the
closing date and may provide a ``Response to Comments Memorandum'' in
the docket. The final registration review work plan will explain the
effect that any comments had on the final work plan and provide the
agency's response to significant comments.
    Background on the registration review program is provided at:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.
    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: July 26, 2021.
Mary Reaves,
Acting Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2021-16506 Filed 8-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 24 (Monday, February 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 5096]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02227]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP18-360-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: DPEs--New York Bay to be
effective 2/25/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/25/18.
    Accession Number: 20180125-5042.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-361-000.
    Applicants: Big Sandy Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Big Sandy Fuel Filing Effective 3-1-
2018.
    Filed Date: 1/25/18.
    Accession Number: 20180125-5045.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-362-000.
    Applicants: Southern LNG Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Dredging Surcharge Cost
Adjustment--2018 to be effective 3/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/25/18.
    Accession Number: 20180125-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-363-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule S-2 Tracker
effective 02-01-18 to be effective 2/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/25/18.
    Accession Number: 20180125-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-364-000.
    Applicants: Stagecoach Pipeline & Storage Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Stagecoach Pipeline & Storage
Company LLC--Filing of Tariff Changes to be effective 3/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/26/18.
    Accession Number: 20180126-5078.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/7/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to
the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 29, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-02227 Filed 2-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78237-78238]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31419]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Proposed Restricted Service List for a Programmatic
Agreement for Managing Properties Included in or Eligible for Inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places

December 8, 2010.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uniontown Hydro,                    Project No. 12958-001 and
and Newburgh Hydro, LLC...........  Project No. 12962-001--Kentucky and
                                     Indiana
                                    Uniontown Hydroelectric Project and
                                    Newburgh Hydroelectric Project.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR section 385.2010,
provides that, to eliminate unnecessary expense or improve
administrative efficiency, the Secretary may establish a restricted
service list for a particular phase or issue in a proceeding. The
restricted service list should contain the names of persons on the
service list who, in the judgment of the decisional authority
establishing the list, are active participants with respect to the
phase or issue in the proceeding for which the list is established.
    The Commission staff is consulting with the Kentucky State Historic
Preservation Officer (hereinafter, SHPO), the Indiana SHPO, and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (hereinafter, Advisory
Council) pursuant to the Advisory Council's regulations, 36 CFR part
800, implementing section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. section 470 f), to prepare a Programmatic
Agreement for managing properties included in, or eligible for
inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places at the Uniontown
Hydroelectric Project and the Newburgh Hydroelectric Project.
    The Programmatic Agreement, when executed by the Commission, the
Kentucky SHPO, the Indiana SHPO, and the Advisory Council, would
satisfy the Commission's section 106 responsibilities for all
individual undertakings carried out in accordance with the license
until the license expires or is terminated (36 CFR section 800.13[e]).
The Commission's responsibilities pursuant to section 106

for the project would be fulfilled through the Programmatic Agreement,
which the Commission staff proposes to draft in consultation with
certain parties listed below.
    Uniontown Hydro, LLC and Newburgh Hydro, LLC, as the applicants for
Project Nos. 12958-001 and 12962-001, respectively, are invited to
participate in consultations to develop the Programmatic Agreement and
to sign as concurring parties to the Programmatic Agreement. For
purposes of commenting on the Programmatic Agreement, we propose to
restrict the service list for Project Nos. 12958-001 and 12962-001 as
follows:

John Fowler, Executive Director, Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, The Old Post Office Building, Suite 803, 1100
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.
Jill A. McNutt, Kentucky Heritage Council, 300 Washington Street,
Frankfort, KY 40601.
Phillip Johnson, Kentucky Heritage Council, 300 Washington Street,
Frankfort, KY 40601.
Cathy Draeger-Williams, Indiana Division of Historic Preservation &
Archaeology, 402 W. Washington Street, W274, Indianapolis, IN 46204.
Chad Slider, Indiana Division of Historic Preservation & Archaeology,
402 W. Washington Street, W274, Indianapolis, IN 46204.
Chairman Ron Sparkman, Shawnee Tribe P.O. Box 189, Miami, OK 74355
Governor Scott Miller, Absentee Shawnee Tribe, 2025 S. Gordon Cooper
Drive, Shawnee, OK 74801.
Chief Thomas E. Gamble, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, P.O. Box 1326, Miami,
OK 74355.
Chief John P. Froman, Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, P.O. Box
1527, Miami, OK 74355.
Chief Michell Hicks, The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, P.O. Box
455, Cherokee, NC 28719.
Governor Bill Anoatubby, Chickasaw Nation, P.O. Box 1548. Ada, OK
74821.
Principal Chief Chad Smith, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, P.O. Box 948,
Tahlequah, OK 74465.
Dr. James Kardatzke, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 545 Marriott Drive,
Suite 700, Nashville, TN 37214.
Chief Glenna J. Wallace, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, P.O. Box
350, Seneca, MO 64865.
Ken Lamkin or Representative, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box
59, Louisville, KY 40201-0059.
Erik Steimle or Representative, Symbiotics, 2950 SE Stark Street, Suite
110, Portland, OR 97214.

    Any person on the official service list for the above-captioned
proceedings may request inclusion on the restricted service list, or
may request that a restricted service list not be established, by
filing a motion to that effect within 15 days of this notice date. An
original plus seven copies of any such motion must be filed with the
Secretary of the Commission (888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426) and must be served on each person whose name appears on the
official service list. If no such motions are filed, the restricted
service list will be effective at the end of the 15-day period.
Otherwise, a further notice will be issued ruling on the motion.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-31419 Filed 12-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES CERTIFIED MAIL March 7, 2006 Dear Registrant:

SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO PROPANIL RED The Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) document for propanil was signed on 9/ 30/ 2003. A public comment period for the Propanil RED ( and the supporting assessment) was conducted from 2/ 25/ 2004 to 4/ 26/ 2004. The risk assessments, benefit assessment, and public comments can be found on the federal docket system, available at www. Regulations. gov ( docket # EPA HQ OPP 2003 0348). The Agency has reviewed the public comments submitted and has responded to those that relate specifically to the propanil RED. The Agency= s responses are available for viewing under the same docket number on the Regulations. gov system. As a result of its review of the public comments and review of additional data submitted by the Propanil Task Force, the Agency is amending the Propanil RED, where appropriate. These revisions include label changes and an updated AAppendix B: Data Supporting Guideline Requirements for the Reregisrtaion of <EMAIL_ADDRESS>The label changes related to dry flowable closed systems are contingent on the outcome of exposure data that are due in December 2006.

In addition, the Agency has received a request from the California Rice Commission to reexamine the tolerance that was proposed in the 2003 RED on rice of 10 ppm. In order to facilitate trade in the Pacific region, the California Rice Commission would like to maintain the existing tolerance of 2 ppm. At this time, the Agency is moving forward with this Propanil Amendment decision, but will look into this request further as more information or supporting data are submitted.

Risk Mitigation Measures Dependent on Worker Monitoring Studies In the 9/ 30/ 2003 Propanil RED, two handler exposure mitigation measures depended upon the outcome of worker monitoring ( exposure) studies that, at the time the RED was signed, were under review by the Agency. The first proposed measure would have reduced the seasonal application rate of propanil from 8 lbs a. i. per acre to 6 lbs a. i. per acre. The second measure would have limited the maximum number of acres treated per day to 500. These measures were Page 2 of 13 to be implemented unless the data from exposure monitoring studies indicate that lesser or no further mitigation was warranted. As explained below, the results of the worker monitoring study were of only limited utility and comments from stakeholders raised concerns about the feasibility of the proposed measures. Thus EPA has modified the mitigation measures.

The Propanil Task Force II ( PTF II) submitted both a bio monitoring study in August 2003 and a passive dosimetry study in December 2003, to refine the exposure estimates for workers handling propanil. Upon completion of the review of the data in May 2004, the Agency accepted comments from the PTF II and has responded to the concerns raised by the PTF II in the November 23, 2004 memo from Alan Nielsen. The Agency has determined that, due to an insufficient number of acceptable replicates and other shortcomings, data from these two worker exposure studies could not be relied on exclusively to quantify the risk to workers using propanil. However, the results do help to characterize exposure under actual field conditions to aerial applicators and the mixer/ loaders supporting aerial applications of propanil. For example, calculations based on passive dosimetry measurements from the study indicate that margins of exposure ( MOEs) for aerial applicators could be up to 20 fold greater than those calculated based on the Pesticide Handler Exposure Database ( PHED) that was used in the initial risk assessment; mixer/ loader MOEs would be about three fold greater. While the Agency believes that the passive dosimetry data represent only low end exposures, they are useful in concluding that the existing assessment does not underestimate risk and, in fact likely represents worst case exposures. PHED is a database containing voluntarily submitted empirical exposure data for workers involved in the handling or application of pesticides in the field; it currently contains data for over 2000 monitored exposure events.

The following is an update on the two pending mitigation measures that were proposed in the 2003 RED to address risk to handlers of propanil. These proposed mitigation measures were specifically targeting risk to workers participating in mixing and loading liquid and dry flowable propanil for aerial application, and applying sprays for aerial application.

1. Mitigation measure in the 2003 Propanil RED:

The Agency proposed reducing the maximum seasonal application rate from 8 lbs a. i. / acre to 6 lbs a. i./ acre.

Comments and issues:

The proposed rate reduction from 8 lbs a. i./ acre per season to 6 lbs a. i./ acre per season was intended to reduce the over all amount of propanil workers would be handling in a year and thus reduce worker exposure. Comments were received from growers concerned with limiting the maximum seasonal application rate of propanil to 6 lbs a. i./ acre. Page 3 of 13 While this 6 lb a. i./ acre per season rate is the typical seasonal rate, it is sometimes necessary to apply up to 8 lbs a. i./ acre per season. In some areas of the U. S. it is more effective to control weeds with two 4 lbs a. i./ acre applications of propanil in a season, while in other areas it is more effective to apply one application of propanil at 6 lbs a. i./ acre. Despite the varying application rates, the Agency= s use data ( see page 6 of the BEAD memo from V. Werling, 9/ 30/ 2003) indicates that less than 5% of all applications of propanil are made at rates greater then 4 lbs a. i./ acre on a national basis.

Given the benefits of propanil use and the information from the Agency= s use data, the Agency is retaining the original 8 lbs a. i./ acre seasonal application rate and establishing a maximum for a single application rate at 6 lbs a. i./ acre which will continue to allow flexibility for growers in all regions of the United States to effectively control weeds in rice. Previously there was no maximum single application rate restriction on all propanil product labels. MOE are not calculated on yearly maximum rates, only single application rates, assuming that rate is used consistently over 30 90 days. Mixer/ loader MOEs at 6 lbs ai/ acre range from 50 to 1000 using only the PHED data ( with a target of 300) depending on the formulation, equipment and number of acres treated. Based on usage information, it is unlikely that any single applicator uses the 6 lb rate consistently for 30 days. The most likely application scenario is 3 4 lbs/ ai/ acre, yielding MOEs in the 100 2000 range. The lowest MOE represents 3 lbs ai/ acre, 1,200 acres treated daily for 30 days.

Amended mitigation measure and data requirement:

The maximum single application rate for rice is 6 lbs a. i./ acre, with a maximum seasonal application rate of 8 lbs a. i./ acre.

A new Data Call In requirement for confirmatory usage and application data spanning a period of 2 years is also being required by the Agency.

2. Mitigation measure in the 2003 Propanil RED:

The Agency proposed to restrict the number of acres treated per day for aerial applications to 500 acres.

Comments and issues:

The Agency received comments concerned with the difficulties a 500 acre daily application restriction would create for rice growers and state enforcement agencies. Rice growers and aerial applicators are concerned with being able to effectively treat the rice crop with an acreage restriction in place. The propanil application season is short and aerial applicators sometimes need to apply propanil to a large number of acres in a day in order to effectively control weeds in the rice crop due to early season wet weather Page 4 of 13 conditions which are conducive to weed germination. Comments received by the Agency ranged from suggesting the restriction be eliminated all together, to establishing a flexible weekly limit, a moving 7 day average, or a 30 day acreage average.

According to the May 2004 APesticide Use Survey Report for Agricultural Aviation@ from the National Agricultural Aviation Association, the average acres of rice treated with any type of pesticide per day was 725 acres, while the maximum number of acres treated per day was 1,344 acres in 2003. EPA's assessment calculated MOEs assuming up to 3,200 acres treated per day. While growers have reported treating as much as 3,200 acres in a single day, there is no evidence to support the assumption that this high number of acres is treated for sustained periods of time by the same aerial applicator. Thus, the Agency is requiring the registrant to verify the use of propanil from 3 high propanil use areas outside of California, the results of which will be submitted to the Agency in two annual reports. Data are not required for California because an acreage limit of 720 acres per day is already in effect. This requirement is intended to confirm average number of acres treated over a month and thus determine a realistic average exposure for aerial applicators and mixers/ loaders specifically to propanil. Acute or single day exposures are not a concern for propanil since no adverse effects attributed to a single exposure were identified in the toxicity data. The toxic effect of concern for propanil exposure ( methemoglobin anemia) was observed in toxicity studies of short term ( 30 day) duration.

Exposure/ risk estimates for aerial applicators using PHED only vary from MOEs of 560 at 350 acres/ day to 160 at 1,200 acres per day. At an average of 600 acres/ day, the Agency estimates MOEs of approximately 320, above the target MOE of 300. Mixer/ loader MOEs range from 100 to 2000 using typical application rates and the PHED data, depending on the formulation, equipment and number of acres treated.

The use data should be collected over a 2 year period and include the specific information that is listed in the AAdditional Data Needs@ section of this document. If the confirmatory data do not support the Agency= s use assumptions on the average number of acres pilots treat with propanil, further mitigation measures may be taken. The Agency is not imposing any aerial acreage limitations at this time but is requiring all aerial applications occur in an enclosed cab ( see # 3 below) which will reduce pilot exposure to propanil. Mixer/ loader exposure will be addressed with PPE and closed systems as discussed below.

Amended requirement:

A new Data Call In requirement for confirmatory usage and application data spanning a period of 2 years is being required by the Agency. Page 5 of 13 Additional Amended Risk Mitigation Measures Additional comments were received on other risk mitigation measures required in the 2003 Propanil RED. Based on public comments the following changes are being made:

3. Mitigation measure in the 2003 Propanil RED:

Closed cabs would be required for all applications of propanil ( ground and aerial).

Comments and issues:

Ground At typical application rates ( 3 lbs ai/ acre) and acreage ( 80 and 200 acres per day) for ground applications, the MOEs for propanil ranged from 300 to 740, are above the target MOE of 300, and are not of concern to the Agency. Only one scenario, at the maximum application rate ( 6 lbs. ai/ acre) and area treated ( 200 acres/ day), did not meet the target MOE at baseline attire. MOEs for the one outlier ranged from 150 at baseline to 500 with closed cabs. The Agency initially required closed cabs for ground applications due to this maximum application scenario calculation and to be consistent with the aerial enclosed cab requirements. After receiving comments expressing difficulty in modifying ground equipment used in rice fields with closed cabs and after further consideration, the Agency has decided that requiring closed cabs for ground applications would add a greater burden than necessary for all ground applicators. Therefore, applicators will be required to wear baseline attire when making ground applications of propanil.

Aerial Due to the large acreage that aerial applicators are able to treat and the potential for high exposure, combined with data from the PTF II indicating that closed cockpits are the current cultural practice used in the field, the Agency is requiring a closed cab for all aerial applications of propanil. With closed cabs, exposure/ risk estimates for aerial applicators using PHED data only, vary from MOEs of 560 at 350 acres/ day to 160 at 1,200 acres per day. At an average of 600 acres/ day, the Agency estimates MOEs of approximately 320, above the target MOE of 300. Because of the benefits of propanil and existing information that high acreage and high rate applications do not co occur frequently or repeatedly, the Agency is allowing this use.

Amended mitigation measure:

Baseline attire is required for groundboom applicators: long pants, long sleeved shirt, shoes and socks. A closed cab is required for all aerial applications of propanil. Page 6 of 13 4. Liquid and dry flowable mitigation measure in the 2003 Propanil RED:

The Agency proposed to require a closed mixing and loading system for all formulations of propanil ( liquid and dry flowables applied both aerially and with groundboom).

Liquid Formulations Comments and issues on liquid formulations:

Comments were received from propanil user groups explaining the lack of current technology for a Acompletely@ closed mixing and loading systems for liquid propanil formulations. The California Rice Commission, USA Rice Federation, and the Arkansas State Plant Board expressed concerns and raised potential problems associated with conforming to this requirement. They felt that closed mixing and loading systems would slow their loading speed and hinder their ability to mix propanil with other products and not provide additional protection for workers, which would make the requirement of closed mixing and loading system unworkable under field conditions. These additional comments can be viewed under this docket, OPP 2003 0348.

The Agency understands these concerns regarding the closed mixing and loading requirement for liquid formulations. Nonetheless, the Agency continues to have concerns for pesticide handlers exposed to the liquid formulations of propanil when mixing and loading large quantities of concentrated product. Closed mixing and loading systems are important to ensure workers are not exposed to excessive levels of propanil through dermal exposure when making both ground and aerial applications. Applications of propanil to rice are often made over a very short time frame ( usually about 30 days) due to early season wet weather conditions which are conducive to weed germination. When these conditions exist, there is pressure to apply propanil to large acreage over a short time frame. These conditions could lead to handlers being exposed to quantities of liquid propanil that exceed the Agency= s level of concern for dermal exposure. The implementation of closed mixing and loading systems will help reduce handler dermal exposure.

In order to be eligible for reregistration all liquid formulations of propanil, including emulsifiable concentrates, flowable concentrates, ready to use solutions, soluble concentrates, and other liquid formulations, must be mixed and loaded in a closed system that will: ( 1) remove the pesticide from the container and transfer it into a mix tank, and ( 2) transfer it from the mix tank into the application equipment in a closed system that prevents dermal contact of handlers. EPA has published Pesticide Registration ( PR) Notice 2000 9 about closed mixing and loading systems that describes a closed system as Aa system designed by the manufacturer to enclose the pesticide to prevent it from Page 7 of 13 contacting individuals while it is being handled.@ This PR Notice may be viewed at http:// www. epa. gov/ PR_ Notices/ pr2000 9. pdf.

In addition to this PR Notice, the Propanil Task Force II, along with the California Rice Commission, presented to the Agency one of the current methods of liquid propanil transfer in some rice growing areas ( see Letter from McDermott Will and Emory dated July 29th, 2005). This method utilizes a probe that is inserted into the drum and pumps the liquid propanil out and into a mixing tank. There is potential for dermal exposure to the liquid propanil concentrate if an un rinsed probe is removed from a partially used container. It is necessary to remove probes from partially empty propanil containers when all of the propanil product cannot be utilized in one application. In these cases, the use of an anti drip flange and additional PPE when an un rinsed probe is removed could help reduce the potential for dermal exposure to liquid concentrate. While this specific probe system does not match all of the criteria of a closed mixing and loading system as defined in the Worker Protection Standard ( WPS) and in PR Notice 2000 9, the Agency believes this probe system will allow mixers and loaders to be adequately protected from dermal exposure to propanil. A description of specific directions for mixing and loading liquid propanil are listed in the attached label table.

Amended mitigation measure for liquid formulations:

Mixers and loaders must use a closed system that meets the requirements listed in the Worker Protection Standard ( WPS) for dermal protection of agricultural pesticides [ 40 CFR 170.240( d)( 4)] or the probe system described in the attached label table. A dry disconnect or dry couple shut off device must be used at every disconnect point for both ground and aerial mixing/ loading operations.

Dry Flowable Formulations Comments and issues on dry flowable formulations:

The Agency is encouraging the registrant to work with growers and equipment manufactures in order to address their specific concerns about closed mixing and loading systems for propanil dry flowable formulations. Currently the only engineering control the Agency is aware of for mixing and loading dry flowable formulations is through the use of water soluble packages. While the Agency acknowledges different chemicals have different physical properties that can make formulating into water soluble packages more challenging than others, there are currently no alternative engineering controls for this formulation. Therefore, the Agency is requiring all wettable powder formulations to be formulated in closed systems. In order to allow sufficient time to repackage the dry flowable formulation, registrants will have until December 1, 2007 to implement this requirement. Page 8 of 13 In addition, because of concerns from the propanil registrants and rice growers about repackaging the dry flowable formulation, the Agency is requiring, within the same time frame, registrants individually or in collaboration with existing task forces, develop exposure data for the dry flowable formulation. If reliable data indicate that exposures are less than currently estimated, the Agency will consider changing the mitigation measures for dry flowable formulations.

Amended dry flowable mitigation measure:

All dry flowable products must be formulated into water soluble packages or other closed systems by December 1, 2007 unless exposure data on the dry flowable indicate they are not needed to achieve adequate margins of exposure.

Response to Comments on Mitigation Measures or Data Requirements That Are Not Being Modified Additionally, there are some clarifications to the 2003 Propanil RED that include:

5. Mitigation measure:

Apply only when the wind speed is less than or equal to 10 mph at the application site. This applies to both ground and aerial applications.

Comments and issues:

Comments were received requesting the label language change to allow more flexibility in making applications when the wind speed is above the 10 mph limit.

The Agency is not changing the wind speed requirement at this time. Spraying at the edge of the application area while wind speeds exceed 10 mph could lead to adverse effects for non target plants and organisms from spray drift. Therefore, to ensure spray drift exposures and risks are adequately controlled, applications will only be allowed when the wind speed is 10 mph or less.

6. Mitigation measure:

60 day plant back interval for all rotational crops.

Comments and issues:

Many rice growers commented that a 60 day plant back interval is not practical Page 9 of 13 due to the short window of opportunity growers have to replant fields when the rice crop fails. In order to shorten the 60 day plant back interval the Agency would need data demonstrating no detectable residues at a shorter plant back interval were found in crops planted after propanil applications. Growers are encouraged to work with the registrant to develop data that would support the rotational crops the growers are interested in planting. Until the Agency has data on rotated crops following propanil applications, the Agency can not shorten the 60 day plant back interval.

Therefore, the 60 day plant back interval for all rotational crops will be required until data are submitted to support a different time interval.

7. Required data:

Development of toxicity and fate data on the major metabolic degradate of propanil, 3,4 DCA.

Comments and issues:

The Propanil Task Force II submitted comments on the lack of a need for a number of the data requirements for 3,4 DCA due to the availability of existing published literature on propanil. The Agency will issue the Data Call In ( DCI) with all data requirements as listed in the Propanil RED. If the registrant believes a study is not warranted they may submit a waiver request and supporting information along with their 90 day response to the DCI that will be issued concurrent with the Propanil Amendment document. The Agency will review all data waiver requests when they are received.

Therefore, the data requirement to develop toxicity and fate data on 3,4 DCA will remain in the DCI.

8. Mitigation measure:

Establish a 7 day water holding ( discharge) interval for all propanil application sites with two exceptions listed below: 1) a 10 day discharge interval in South Texas, south of I 10 from the Texas/ Louisiana border to Houston and east of State Highway 35 from Houston to Port Lavaca; and 2) a 15 day discharge interval in Southern Louisiana, south of highway 14, to address Agency risk concerns for aquatic species, including those for endangered species. Flood water must be held for the time specified unless excessive rainfall completely submerges the rice crop and forces premature release. Page 10 of 13 Comments and issues:

Various comments and suggestions were received about the water holding interval, specifically regarding the release provision. Many grower groups suggested defining the release provision with broader language allowing more exceptions for water to be released such as in cases of potential crop failure or delayed phytotoxicity syndrome. Water holds are required in order to reduce the potential exposure of propanil to aquatic species including endangered species. The Agency feels the effectiveness of the water hold would be reduced if too many exceptions are allowed.

Therefore, the water hold specifications will remain as listed above with the only exception for releasing water prematurely when excessive rainfall completely submerges the rice crop and forces premature release.

Risk Mitigation Measures or Data Requirements That Received No Comments And Are Still Required by this Amendment 9. Mitigation measure:

All labels with use directions on rice must be amended to specify restrictions against application to fields where catfish farming is practiced and draining water from treated fields into areas where catfish farming is practiced.

An updated label table attached to this document includes the following restriction for catfish farming:

AApplication to fields where catfish farming is practiced and draining water from fields into areas where catfish farming is practiced is prohibited. Water drained from treated rice fields must not be used to irrigate other crops or released within 2 mile upstream of a potable water intake in flowing water ( e. g., river, stream, etc.) or within 2 mile of a potable water intake in a standing body of water, such as a lake, pond, or reservoir.@

10. Mitigation measure:

There is a restricted entry interval ( REI) of 24 hours for rice. Page 11 of 13 Required Mitigation Measures From the 2003 Propanil Red That Have Been Satisfied 11. Mitigation measure:

Voluntary cancellation of use on small grains ( spring ( hard red) wheat, oats, spring barley and durum wheat).

All small grain use sites have been cancelled as indicated in 68 FR 68901 on December 10, 2003, and can be viewed on the federal docket system, available at www. Regulations. gov, under docket number EPA HQ OPP 2003 0200.

12. Mitigation measure:

For turf, the registrant had agreed to reduce the maximum application rate on turf to 5 lbs a. i./ acre and eliminate aerial applications of propanil to turf.

Subsequent to the RED, the only propanil turf product has been cancelled due to non payment of maintenance fees as indicated in 70 FR 44637 and published on August 3, 2005.

13. Required data:

Development and submission of worker exposure ( bio monitoring) data for the liquid formulation were required in the 2003 RED.

Biomonitoring and passive dosimetry data was submitted by the registrant and reviewed by the Agency ( See May 20, 2004 memo from Shanna Recore). The review and other related documents can be found on the federal docket system, available at www. regulations. gov under docket number EPA HQ OPP 2003 0348.

Additional Data Needs In addition to the AAdditional Data Requirements@ listed in the 2003 Propanil RED, the Agency is requiring the following data:

( 1) GLN 810.1000: Usage and application data from the registrants. Data are needed to confirm the Agency= s assumptions for handler and applicator exposure to propanil. Data from 3 high propanil use areas outside of California will be collected and include :

( a) how many pounds of propanil are handled/ applied per day by individual mixers, loaders, and applicators, ( b) how many hours per day a handler mixes and loads propanil, Page 12 of 13 ( c) the application rate of the active ingredient ( pounds of propanil per acre per application), ( d) the formulation of propanil used, ( e) how many hours individual aerial applicators apply propanil per day, and ( f) how many acres individual aerial applicators treat per day.

The use data should be collected over a 2 year period the results of which will be submitted to the Agency in two annual reports, the first of which is due one year after the Data Call In is issued. The second report should summarize the findings of the entire 2 year period, and is due 2 years after the Data Call In is issued.

( 2) GLN 875.1100: Data on worker exposure to dry flowables. Registrants are required to submit data on exposure to dry flowable formulations either individually or in collaboration with existing task forces.

If you have questions on the propanil RED, the amendments listed in this document, or questions about the Generic DCI, please contact the Chemical Review Manager, Cathryn O= Connell at ( 703) 308 0136. For questions about product reregistration and/ or the Product Specific DCI that accompanies this document, please contact Moana Appleyard at ( 703) 308 8175.

Sincerely,

Debra Edwards, Ph. D. Director Special Review and Reregistration Division Attachments:  Revised Propanil Label Table  Updated Appendix B: Data Supporting Guideline Requirements for the Reregisrtaion of Propanil  GDCI  PDCI  2003 Propanil RED Page 13 of 13 Documents Cited:

Evaluation of the Potential Exposure of Workers to Propanil during Mixing./ Loading and Aerial Application to Rice Fields Using Simultaneous Dermal Dosimetry and Biological Monitoring Techniques. Alan Nielsen. November 23, 2004.

Fong, Harvard, AAn Overview of Closed System Use in California 2001 2002.@ HS 1849, June 2003. ( http:// www. cdpr. ca. gov/ docs/ whs/ pdf/ hs1849. pdf)

Letter from McDermott Will and Emory dated July 29th, 2005 APesticide Use Survey Report for Agricultural Aviation.@ National Agriculture Aviation Association. May 2004.

Response of Propanil Task Force II to the Review of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Response to AEvaluation of the Potential Exposure of Workers to Propanil During Mixing/ Loading and Aerial Application to Rice Fields Using Simultaneous Dermal Dosimetry and Biological Monitoring <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Shanna Recore. May 20, 2004.