From: Bunnell, Ross<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 11:04 AM
To: 'William Yeman'; Sullivan, Kevin T; 'Mark Dennen'; 'Sean Carney'; 'Yan Li'; 'Mike Hastry'; 'John Duclos'; 'Michael Wimsatt'; 'Brett Putnam'; 'Russ Brauksieck'; 'Heather Parent'; 'Melanie Loyzim'; 'Terri Goldberg'; 'James Paterson'; Simoes, Steve
Cc: Metcalf, Lynn
Subject: RE: Question from VT DEC on State Hazardous Waste Regulations

 Steve:

 We're pretty much similar to New York on this issue, with one exception (see last paragraph below).

 In Connecticut, we expect personnel who are involved in the management of hazardous waste at an LQG site to be included in the list of names and job descriptions required under 40 CFR 265.16(d)(1) and (d)(2).  In addition, we also look to see that these job description specifically include the hazardous waste duties of these personnel.  The personnel we would expect job descriptions for would include, as you described, "... anyone who completes/signs a manifest, manages waste in a designated storage area, maintains a storage area inventory, conducts daily inspections ..., or is designated as an emergency coordinator."  We would not, however, expect job descriptions for personnel whose only hazardous waste activities include adding hazardous waste to satellite containers.  With respect to satellite containers, we concur with long-standing EPA guidance which indicates that wastes managed in satellite accumulation areas are not subject to hazardous waste requirements that are not specifically identified in 40 CFR 262.34(c), such as personnel training, weekly inspections, emergency planning, Subpart CC air emissions requirements, and generator closure.  See for example, the following RCRA On-Line documents (note that these are live links to the actual EPA documents):

 ROL # 11317
 ROL # 11373
 ROL # 11779 (see second-to-last paragraph)
 ROL # 13777
 ROL # 14418
 ROL # 14703 (see in particular the intro text and the answer to question 8)

 As a result, we don't typically look for the job descriptions for the "general workforce" as you described it (i.e., those who do not have any hazardous waste duties other than adding waste to satellite containers) to see if they include hazardous waste responsibilities.  We would, however, support a generator's decision to voluntarily provide hazardous waste training to personnel whose only hazardous waste duties involve adding waste to satellite containers as a good Best Management Practice, so as to prevent spills and other mishaps.

 In addition, to address your three bulleted questions specifically:

    * When conducting inspections, do you limit your review of job descriptions to "key" personnel responsible for the more significant HW management activities, or do you review job descriptions for all employees?

       CT DEEP Reply:  We would review job descriptions only for those personnel involved in hazardous waste management (although, as noted above, we would not review job descriptions for personnel whose only responsibilities involve the addition of hazardous waste to satellite containers).

    * If you review job descriptions for more than just the "key" HW personnel, what do you typically ask for in order to evaluate compliance with the job description requirement? In other words, let's say there are 150 general workforce employees who may handle HW in some way... how do you go about evaluating job descriptions for these employees? (e.g., random, employees met during the walk-through, all employees...)

       CT DEEP Reply:  Not applicable, since CT DEEP does not review job descriptions beyond the "key personnel" that are involved in hazardous waste management.

    * What information do you require in order to consider a job description adequate? Do you require that hazardous waste handling responsibilities be specified in all cases?

       CT DEEP Reply:  CT DEEP does require that each of the employees involved in hazardous waste management (again, other than the addition of waste to a satellite container) have their hazardous waste duties spelled out in writing.  This could be in an actual personnel department job description, or in documents created specifically for the LQG's hazardous waste program.  For example, many LQGs will develop a "training plan" that will include, among other things, a listing of the names of the personnel that are subject to LQG training requirements, and their hazardous waste job descriptions.

Lastly, I noted that NY DEC stated in its response that if an LQG operates without using any less-than-90-day storage areas (i.e., ships waste off-site directly from satellite areas only), they would consider the LQG not to be subject to personnel training requirements.  Connecticut would not make this same interpretation.  Rather, even in the case of an LQG that operates only satellite accumulation areas, CT DEEP would still require that the facility emergency coordinator(s) be trained, in addition to any emergency response or spill cleanup personnel the LQG might have.  We would also still expect personnel involved in preparing and signing manifests to be trained.  And, because Connecticut requires LQGs (and SQGs) to comply with 40 CFR 265.15 inspection requirements, which include inspections of emergency response equipment, we would still require personnel performing emergency equipment inspections to be trained under 40 CFR 265.16.  We believe that, regardless of the EPA guidance exempting satellite areas from personnel training requirements, the language of 40 CFR 265.16 applies to more than just less-than-90-day areas.  In particular, 40 CFR 265.16(a)(1) states that "facility personnel must successfully complete ... training that teaches them to perform their duties in a way that ensures the facility's compliance with the requirements of this part."  The requirements of "this part" (i.e., Part 265) include more than just the container management requirements of Subpart I and 40 CFR 262.34(a).  They include requirements such as the preparedness and prevention requirements of 40 CFR 265 Subpart C, the Contingency Plan requirement of Subpart D, and the manifest system, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of Subpart E.  Furthermore, 40 CFR 265.16(a)(3) states that "at a minimum, the training program must be designed to ensure that facility personnel are able to respond effectively to emergencies ...".  Although, as noted in the above EPA guidance documents, satellite storage areas are not subject to Contingency Plan requirements per se, we believe these requirements would apply to transfers of hazardous waste from satellite areas to loading/unloading areas, to temporary storage of wastes in loading/unloading areas prior to shipment off-site, and to events such as spills, fires, explosions, or natural disasters that could require "facility-wide" response or implementation of the facility evacuation plan.  As a result, we would also require such an LQG to have a Contingency Plan, even though they don't have any less-than-90-day storage areas.  And, we believe that training applicable personnel in the Contingency Plan is key to its effectiveness during an emergency.

--Ross Bunnell
Sanitary Engineer 3
-----------------------
Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection (DEEP)
Bureau of Materials Management and Compliance Assurance
Waste Engineering & Enforcement Division
Tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Website:  www.ct.gov/deep

Conserving, improving and protecting our natural resources and environment;
Ensuring a clean, affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy supply.

From: William Yeman<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:26 AM
To: Sullivan, Kevin T; Bunnell, Ross; Mark Dennen; Sean Carney; Yan Li; Mike Hastry; John Duclos; Michael Wimsatt; Brett Putnam; Russ Brauksieck; Heather Parent; Melanie Loyzim; Terri Goldberg; James Paterson; Steve Simoes
Cc: Lynn Metcalf
Subject: Re: Question from VT DEC on State Hazardous Waste Regulations

Steve,

Here in NYS we're the same as USEPA in this area of the regs. USEPA has stated in the following guidance document (RO# 11373) that personnel training is not required for satellite areas: http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/0c994248c239947e85256d090071175f/050C6C5304BEC2388525670F006BDC53/$file/11373.pdf )

I believe the confusion comes from 262.34(a) invoking training requirements for 90-day areas by just pointing to 265.16 rather than writing the entire training requirement directly within 262.34(a). This saved space, but the downside is the word "facility" in 265.16 is erroneously read by many as meaning the training requirement applies across the LQG's entire "facility" rather than just for the 90-day area.

(Please keep in mind that when an LQG operates without having a 90-day area, he/she is not subject to any training requirements under EPA's haz waste regs. [Such LQGs ship directly from satellite areas.] Hence it is inconsistent [and I think illogical] to now require facility-wide training for that LQG if he/she merely adds a 90-day area; the addition of a 90-day area would merely invoke additional requirements to that added 90-day area. This is one reason why USEPA says in this RO# 11373 guidance that training requirements are not required for satellite areas: Satellite areas are physically located outside of 90-day areas.)

Several years ago Jim O'Leary set out to make 262.34(a) "free standing", i.e., rewrite 262.34(a) so that the 90-day LQG requirements were located 100% within 262.34(a) itself. However, I believe that effort was such a monumental task that the final product never fully transformed 262.34(a) into "TSD-free" language.

take care
Bill Yeman
NYSDEC
Albany NY
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>518-402-9594 (desk #)

>>> "Terri Goldberg"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>11/18/2013 3:58 PM >>>
Steve Simoes, VT DEC has asked me to forward the following questions to you.  Please cc me on your responses so I can compile them.  Thank you for your help with this effort.

Vermont is curious about how the other Region 1 and 2 states interpret/implement the 262.23(a)(4) requirement to comply w/ 265.16. In particular we are interested in the 265.16(d)(2) provision which requires facility owner/operators to maintain "a written job description for each position (at the facility related to HW management)."

When conducting LQG compliance evaluation inspections (in addition to verifying that initial and annual training has been provided and records are available), we verify that anyone who completes/signs a manifest, manages waste in a designated storage area, maintains a storage area inventory, conducts daily inspections (VT is more stringent), or is designated as an emergency coordinator has a written job description that specifically addresses HW management duties (for many LQGs, these are maintained by the HR Department at a separate location). While that is fairly straightforward, we find that the job description requirement is more difficult to evaluate for "general workforce" employees (e.g., those employees who may add waste to a satellite accumulation container). Typically, the job descriptions for the general workforce employees are generic and don't address any HW management duties. We also find that more and more businesses are choosing to "just train everyone" on an annual basis and that these trainings often cover all key elements of HW management (e.g., contingency plan implementation, container management, satellite accumulation, marking/labeling, UW, UO...).

So, w/ respect to the 265.16(d)(2) "written job description" requirement:

*         When conducting inspections, do you limit your review of job descriptions to "key" personnel responsible for the more significant HW management activities, or do you review job descriptions for all employees?

*         If you review job descriptions for more than just the "key" HW personnel, what do you typically ask for in order to evaluate compliance with the job description requirement? In other words, let's say there are 150 general workforce employees who may handle HW in some way... how do you go about evaluating job descriptions for these employees? (e.g., random, employees met during the walk-through, all employees...)

*         What information do you require in order to consider a job description adequate? Do you require that hazardous waste handling responsibilities be specified in all cases?

Thanks in advance.

Steve Simoes,  Environmental Analyst V
Hazardous Waste Program, Vermont DEC
1 National Life Drive - Davis 1
Montpelier, VT 05620-3704
802-522-0386 - Telephone
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


Memo: Montreal Protocol Compliance
This memo details how the amount of HCFCs allocated in each option discussed in the proposed rule, "Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Adjustments to the Allowance System for Controlling HCFC Production, Import, and Export," (2011 Proposed Rule for 2012 through 2014) compares to the cap under the Montreal Protocol. All allocations are expressed as ODP-weighted metric tons (ODP-MT). The total U.S. cap between 2010 and 2014 is 3,810 ODP-MT for consumption and 3,884.25 ODP-MT for production. In summary, the U.S. is in compliance with the Montreal Protocol under each of the scenarios discussed in the proposed rule by at least 36 percent for consumption and 33 percent for production.
HCFC-22
There are numerous options discussed as they relate to HCFC-22 allocations in 2012 through 2014. The proposed baselines for all options are identical to the baselines used in the 2011 Interim Final Rule.
Consumption of HCFC-22
For consumption, these options include:
      1. Allocate the same number of allowances as the 2009 Final Rule --
         A. plus recoupment in 2013 (recoupment option 1)
         B. plus recoupment in 2013 and 2014 (recoupment option 2)
         C. including recoupment in 2013 and 2014 (recoupment option 3)
         D. with no recoupment (recoupment option 4)
Consumption Allocation equivalent to the 2009 Final Rule (ODP-MT)

                         Allocation before Recoupment
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 1]
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 2]
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 3]
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 4]
                                     2012
                                     2,239
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                     2013
                                     1,974
                                      325
                                      162
                                       -
                                       -
                                     2014
                                     1,709
                                       -
                                      162
                                       -
                                       -

      2. Allocate between 11 and 47 percent fewer allowances than in the 2009 Final Rule --
         * plus recoupment in 2013 (recoupment option 1)
         * plus recoupment in 2013 and 2014 (recoupment option 2)
         * including recoupment in 2013 and 2014 (recoupment option 3)
         * with no recoupment (recoupment option 4)
Consumption Allocation is 11 to 47 Percent Smaller than in the 2009 Final Rule (ODP-MT)

                               Larger Allocation
                                   Scenario
                          Smaller Allocation Scenario
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 1]
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 2]
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 3]
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 4]
                                     2012
                                     1,990
                                     1,381
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                     2013
                                     1,724
                                     1,147
                                      325
                                      162
                                       -
                                       -
                                     2014
                                     1,443
                                      905
                                       -
                                      162
                                       -
                                       -
N.B.: The specific reductions for each year are listed and explained in the "Adjustment Memo" included in the docket.
Production of HCFC-22
For production, these options include:
      1. Allocate production at the same percentage as consumption, where the baseline percentage is such that total consumption allocation is the same as in the 2009 Final Rule --
            a. plus recoupment in 2013 (recoupment option 1)
            b. plus recoupment in 2013 and 2014 (recoupment option 2)
            c. including recoupment in 2013 and 2014 (recoupment option 3)
            d. with no recoupment (recoupment option 4)
Production Allocation Based on 2009 Final Rule Consumption Allocation (ODP-MT)

                         Allocation before Recoupment
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 1]
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 2]
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 3]
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 4]
                                     2012
                                     2,038
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                     2013
                                     1,796
                                      254
                                      127
                                       -
                                       -
                                     2014
                                     1,555
                                       -
                                      127
                                       -
                                       -

      2. Allocate production at the same percentage as consumption, where the consumption allocation is reduced by 11 to 47 percent --
            a. plus recoupment in 2013 (recoupment option 1)
            b. plus recoupment in 2013 and 2014 (recoupment option 2)
            c. including recoupment in 2013 and 2014 (recoupment option 3)
            d. with no recoupment (recoupment option 4)
Production Allocation Based on Lower Percentages of Baseline for Consumption (ODP-MT)

                    Range of  Allocation Before Recoupment
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 1]
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 2]
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 3]
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 4]
                                     2012
                                 1,257 - 1,811
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                     2013
                                 1,044 - 1,569
                                      254
                                      127
                                       -
                                       -
                                     2014
                                  824 - 1,314
                                       -
                                      127
                                       -
                                       -

      3. Allocate production at the same percentage as 2009 Final Rule, such that there is an increase in the production allocation as compared to the 2009 Final Rule --
            a. plus recoupment in 2013 (recoupment option 1)
            b. plus recoupment in 2013 and 2014 (recoupment option 2)
            c. including recoupment in 2013 and 2014 (recoupment option 3)
            d. with no recoupment (recoupment option 4)

Production Allocation Using Percentages of Baseline from the 2009 Final Rule (ODP-MT)

                         Allocation Before Recoupment
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 1]
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 2]
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 3]
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 4]
                                     2012
                                     2,421
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                     2013
                                     2,137
                                      254
                                      127
                                       -
                                       -
                                     2014
                                     1,853
                                       -
                                      127
                                       -
                                       -
HCFC-142b
There are numerous options discussed as they relate to HCFC-142b allocations in 2012 through 2014. The proposed baselines for all options are identical to the baselines used in the 2011 Interim Final Rule.
Consumption of HCFC-142b
For consumption, these options include allocating the same number of allowances as the 2009 Final Rule --
   * plus recoupment in 2013 (recoupment option 1)
   * plus recoupment in 2013 and 2014 (recoupment option 2)
   * including recoupment in 2013 and 2014 (recoupment option 3)
   * no recoupment (recoupment option 4)
Proposed Consumption Allocation in ODP-MT

                          Allocation Before Recoupment
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 1]
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 2]
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 3]
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 4]
                                     2012
                                       7
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                     2013
                                       7
                                       4
                                       2
                                       -
                                       -
                                     2014
                                       7
                                       -
                                       2
                                       -
                                       -
Production of HCFC-142b
For production, these options include allocating the same number of allowances as the 2009 Final Rule --
   * plus recoupment in 2013 (recoupment option 1)
   * plus recoupment in 2013 and 2014 (recoupment option 2)
   * including recoupment in 2013 and 2014 (recoupment option 3)
   * no recoupment (recoupment option 4)
Proposed Production Allocation in ODP-MT

                         Allocation Before Recoupment
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 1]
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 2]
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 3]
                 Additional Allowances  [Recoupment Option 4]
                                     2012
                                      30
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                     2013
                                      30
                                      26
                                      13
                                       -
                                       -
                                     2014
                                      30
                                       -
                                      13
                                       -
                                       -
Other HCFCs
This rulemaking does not affect the allocations for HCFC-123, HCFC-124, HCFC-225ca, and HCFC-225cb. The resulting amount allocated in each year between 2012 and 2014 is:
Consumption 				        Production
                                   Chemical
                               ODP- MT Allocated

                                   Chemical
                               ODP- MT Allocated
HCFC-123
                                      50

HCFC-123
                                       0
HCFC-124
                                      66

HCFC-124
                                      111
HCFC-225ca
                                       9

HCFC-225ca
                                       8
HCFC-225cb
                                      12

HCFC-225cb
                                      15
Total
                                      137

Total
                                      135

All HCFCs Combined

HCFC Consumption Allocation using Highest Proposed Allocation for HCFC-22 (ODP-MT)
Montreal Protocol cap: 3,810 ODP- MT

                    Highest Allocation without Recoupment
                    Total Allowances  [Recoupment Option 1]
                    Total Allowances  [Recoupment Option 2]
                    Total Allowances  [Recoupment Option 3]
                    Total Allowances  [Recoupment Option 4]
                                     2012
                                     2,383
                                     2,383
                                     2,383
                                     2,383
                                     2,383
                                     2013
                                     2,118
                                     2,446
                                     2,282
                                     2,118
                                     2,118
                                     2014
                                     1,852
                                     1,852
                                     2,017
                                     1,852
                                     1,852
Each option is at least 36 percent below the Montreal Protocol Cap
HCFC Production Allocation using Highest Proposed Allocation for HCFC-22 (ODP-MT)
Montreal Protocol cap: 3,884.25 ODP- MT

                     Highest Allocation without Recoupment
                    Total Allowances  [Recoupment Option 1]
                    Total Allowances  [Recoupment Option 2]
                    Total Allowances  [Recoupment Option 3]
                    Total Allowances  [Recoupment Option 4]
                                     2012
                                     2,586
                                     2,586
                                     2,586
                                     2,586
                                     2,586
                                     2013
                                     2,302
                                     2,582
                                     2,442
                                     2,302
                                     2,302
                                     2014
                                     2,018
                                     2,018
                                     2,158
                                     2,018
                                     2,018
Each option is at least 33 percent below the Montreal Protocol Cap


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 159 (Monday, August 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48753-48754]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19569]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0651]

Boston Area Maritime Security Advisory Committee; Vacancies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Solicitation for Membership.

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

SUMMARY: This notice requests individuals interested in serving on the
Boston Area Maritime Security Committee (AMSC) to submit their
applications for membership, to the Captain of the Port (COTP), Boston,
MA.

DATES: Requests for membership should reach the U.S. Coast Guard COTP
Boston September 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Applications for membership should be submitted to the
Captain of the Port Boston at the following address: Commander (sx),
USCG Sector Boston, 427 Commercial Street, Boston, MA 02109 or by email
via Mr. Phillip C. Smith at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about submitting an
application or about the AMSC in general, contact Mr. Phillip C. Smith
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority

    Section 102 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of
2002 (Pub. L. 107-295) added section 70112 to Title 46 of the U.S.
Code, and authorized the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast
Guard is operating to establish Area Maritime Security Advisory
Committees for any port area of the United States. (See 33 U.S.C. 1226;
46 U.S.C. 70112; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.01; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1). The MTSA includes a provision exempting these
AMSCs from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-
436, 86 Stat. 470 (5 U.S.C. App.2).

Boston AMSC Purpose

    The AMSCs shall assist the Captain of the Port in the development,
review, update, and exercising of the Area Maritime Security (AMS) Plan
for their area of responsibility. Such matters may include, but are not
limited to: Identifying critical port infrastructure and operations;
identifying risks (threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences);
determining mitigation strategies and implementation methods;
developing strategies to facilitate the recovery of the MTS after a
Transportation Security Incident; developing and describing the process
to continually evaluate overall port security by considering
consequences and vulnerabilities, how they may change over time, and
what additional mitigation strategies can be applied; and providing
advice to and assisting the COTP in developing and maintaining the AMS
Plan.

AMSC Composition

    The composition of an AMSC, to include the Boston AMSC, is
controlled by 33 CFR 103.305. Accordingly, members may be selected from
the Federal, Territorial, or Tribal government; the State government
and political subdivisions of the State; local public safety, crisis
management, and emergency response agencies; law enforcement and
security organizations; maritime industry, including labor; other port
stakeholders having a special competence in maritime security; and port
stakeholders affected by security practices and policies. Also, members
of the Boston AMSC must have at least 5 years of experience related to
maritime or port security operations.

AMSC Membership

    The Boston AMSC has 38 members who represent Federal, State, local,
and industry stakeholders from Massachusetts. We are seeking to fill 11
positions with this solicitation.
    Applicants may be required to pass an appropriate security
background check prior to appointment to the committee. Members' terms
of office will be for 5 years; however, a member is eligible to serve
additional terms of office. Members will not receive any salary or
other compensation for their service on an AMSC.

Request for Applications

    Those seeking membership are not required to submit formal
applications to the local COTP. Because there is an obligation to
ensure that a specific number of members have the prerequisite maritime
security experience, however, the COTP encourages the submission of
resumes highlighting experience in the maritime and security
industries.
    In support of the USCG policy on gender and ethnic
nondiscrimination, we encourage qualified women and men of all racial
and ethnic groups to apply.

    Dated: August 1, 2014.
J.C. O'Connor III,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Federal Maritime Security Coordinator
Boston.
[FR Doc. 2014-19569 Filed 8-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 80 (Thursday, April 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19379-19380]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08528]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0340]

Certificate of Alternative Compliance for U.S. Coast Guard
National Security Cutters

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that a Certificate of Alternate
Compliance was issued for the U.S. Coast Guard's National Security
Cutters (WMSL Class). We are issuing this notice because its
publication is required by statute. Due to their unique purpose, these
vessels cannot fully comply with the masthead light provisions of the
International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72
COLREGS) without interfering with their special function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this notice,
please call or email LCDR Matthew Walter, Commandant (CG-NAV-2), U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Stop 7418,
Washington, DC 20593, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    The United States is signatory to the International Maritime
Organization's International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at
Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), as amended. The special construction or purpose
of some vessels makes them unable to comply with the light, shape, and
sound signal provisions of the 72 COLREGS. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C.
1605(a), Navy and Coast Guard vessels of special construction or
purpose may be issued a Certificate of Alternative Compliance (COAC)
authorizing alternative requirements to the 72 COLREGS. For Coast Guard
vessels, the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard determines whether the
vessel for which the COAC is sought complies as closely as possible
with 72 COLREGS, and decides whether to issue the COAC. By law, notice
of COACs must be published in the Federal Register.
    Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1605(d), a COAC may be issued for a class of
vessels. The Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, hereby finds and certifies
that the U.S. Coast Guard's class of WMSL-750 vessels (also known as
National Security Cutters) are a class of vessels of special
construction or purpose, and that with respect to the horizontal
position of the Forward and Aft Masthead navigational lights, it is not
possible to comply fully with the requirements of the provisions
enumerated in the 72 COLREGS Annex I, section 3(a), without interfering
with the special function of these vessels. The Commandant, U.S. Coast
Guard, further finds and certifies that the masthead lights of the
National Security Cutters are in the closet possible compliance with
the applicable

provisions of the 72 COLREGS and that full compliance with the 72
COLREGS would not significantly enhance the safety of the vessels'
operation.
    This notice is issued in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 1605(c).

    Dated: April 21, 2017.
 Michael D. Emerson,
Director of Marine Transportation Systems Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2017-08528 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES Chemical: MCPB, MCPB Sodium PC Code: 019202, 019201 DP Barcodes: D314042, D314043, D314045 MEMORANDUM DATE: 19 October 2005 SUBJECT: Error Corrections First Phase for Reregistration of MCPB and MCPB Sodium FROM: Marie Janson, Environmental Scientist Ed Odenkirken, Senior Scientist Kevin Costello, Acting Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch 1 Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507C)

TO: Susan Lewis, Branch Chief Demson Fuller, CRM James Parker, CRM Registration Branch 1 SRRD Division ( 7505C)

Attached please find the Environmental Fate and Effects Division's ( EFED) revised error only corrected comments environmental risk assessment for the proposed registration of MCPB as an herbicide on peas. Supported formulations of MCPB are Thistrol ® Herbicide ( 71368 5) and Sodium MCPB Solution ( 71368 7).

Only errors were corrected in this Phase I of the public process. The registrant offered other comments on the draft risk assessment which dealt with substantive questions on science or interpretation. Such comments will not be addressed in this phase, but will be addressed in Phase III, the response to public comment. Page 2 of 5 Location of Error Error Identified in Draft Corrected Throughout document chemical name for MCPB ( 4( 2 methyl 4 chlorophenoxy) butyric acid Page 1, paragraph 2, line 3 this is rate converts this rate converts Page 2, paragraph 1, lines 3 4 4 ( 4 hydroxy otolyloxy butyric acid... this is a transformation product. 4  ( 4 chloro o tolyloxy) butyric acid is the IUPAC for MCPB acid which was changed in table # II. a. 4 ( 4 chloro otolyloxy butyric acid is the IUPAC for MCPB acid which was changed in table # II. a. . The IUPAC was changed in table II. b. to N/ A.

Page 5 last line Consequently; Consequently,

Page 7, paragraph 3, line 1 summarizes data gaps summarize data gaps Page 8 & 9 table I. d. Vegetative Vigor Tier I ( is more data needed column) .. Yes Vegetative Vigor ( is more data needed column) .. No Page 8 & 9 table I. d. Vegetative Vigor Tier II ( is more data needed column) .. Yes Vegetative Vigor Tier II ( is more data needed column) .. No Page 10, paragraph 2, line 3 Is formulated only... It is formulated only...

Page 14, Table II. b. Vapor Pressure, pka and Log Kow values were for MCPB acid Deleted Vapor Pressure, pka and Kow for MCPB acid.

Page 15, paragraph 1, line 8 N/ A Page 15, paragraph 3, lines 2 3 The registrants include BASF Corporation, Dow AgroSciences, NuFarm UK and A. H. Marks and Company Ltd. The registrants include A. H. Marks and Company Ltd., Nufarm BV and Nufarm, Inc. Page 3 of 5 Page 20, table II g Under RQ column for Acute Endangered Species ( NOEC/ EC05 or NOEC) Under RQ column for Acute Endangered Species ( EEC/ EC05 or NOEC)

Page 22, paragraph 4, line2 ... statement in included to avoid spray drift... ... statement is included to avoid spray drift...

Page 28, paragraph 2, last line ... the residue study a default value... ... the residue study, a default value...

Page 32, paragraph 1 Freshwater Fish, Chronic A freshwater fish early lifestage test using the TGAI is normally required for pesticide registration. However, EFED did not request this study or the full life cycle fish study. Thus, the guidelines ( 72 4a; 72 5) are not fulfilled. Freshwater Fish, Chronic A freshwater fish early lifestage test and life cycle fish test using the TGAI were not submitted by the registrant. Therefore, the guidelines ( 72 4a; 72 5) were not fulfilled.

Page 32, paragraph 2 Freshwater Invertebrate, Chronic A freshwater aquatic invertebrate life cycle test using the TGAI is normally required for pesticide registration. However, EFED did not request this study. The preferred test is a 21 day life cycle study with Daphnia magna. The guideline ( 72 4b) is not fulfilled. Freshwater Invertebrate, Chronic A freshwater aquatic invertebrate life cycle test using the TGAI was not submitted by the registrant. The preferred test is a 21 day life cycle study with Daphnia magna. The guideline ( 72 4b) was not fulfilled.

Page 34, paragraph 1, line 4 ... is categorized as practically non toxic to avian species on a acute dietary basis. ... is categorized as practically non toxic to avian species on an acute dietary basis. Page 4 of 5 Page 35, paragraph 3 In 2 generation teratology studies... In the developmental toxicity studies...( Also replaced throughout the document where it pertained)

Page 40, paragraph 2, line 3 As describe in exposure characterization,... As described in exposure characterization,...

Page 40, paragraph 3 No reference in paragraph to Table IV. a. Inserted reference in preceding paragraph as follows....... Table IV. a. has summarized the risk quotients for freshwater fish and invertebrates with Oregon and California PRZM 3.12/ EXAMS 2.98 scenarios.

Page 41, Section 2. No reference in paragraph to Table IV. c. Inserted reference preceding Table IV. c. as follows..... The following Table IV. c. summarizes the endpoints used in this assessment for RQ evaluation for non target terrestrial animals and plants:

Page 48, paragraph 5, line1 ... determine a NOAEC to be used to chronic risk quotients.... ... determine a NOAEC to be used in chronic risk quotients....

Page 49, paragraph 2, lines 5 6 ... dermal contact, and inhalation is not considered.... ... dermal contact, and inhalation are not considered....

Page 52, paragraph 2, line 3 ... locations of use sites and could be considered.... ... locations of use sites could be considered....

Page 54, paragraph1, line 5 ... calculated RQ value(. 01) result in an estimated chance... ... calculated RQ value(. 01) results in an estimated chance...

Page 55, paragraph 1, line 3 and paragraph1, line 5 eatting eating Page 56, paragraph 4, line2 dependant dependent Page 5 of 5 Page 71, paragraph 1, line 3 4 ... screeningmodeldesigned to estimate pesticide concentrations found in water at the edge of atreated field. ... screening model designed to estimate pesticide concentrations found in water at the edge of a treated field.

Page 104, paragraph 1, line 2 The NOECS for the corn and oats were 1.5 lb/ acre and 1/ 3 lb ai/ acre. The NOECS for the corn and oats were 1.5 lb/ acre and 1.3 lb ai/ acre.

Page 105, last paragraph 141 5 Acute Honey Bee Contact 141 1 Acute Honey Bee Contact Page 114, first reference Hoberg, J. R. 1992..... 10566.0392.6230.42 0 MRID 42532603 Hoberg, J. R. 1992..... 10566.0392.6230.44 0 MRID 42532609 Page 114, fourth reference Holsing, G. 1969 Acute Oral  Rats..... Unpublished study performed by Rhodia, Inc., New Brunswick, NJ and sponsored by TRW, Inc. Holsing, G. 1969 Acute Oral  Rats..... Unpublished study performed by TRW, Inc. and sponsored by Rhodia, Inc.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23497]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09304]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600; FRL-9801-4]
RIN 2060-AQ60

Reconsideration Petition From the National Association of Surface
Finishers for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutant Emissions: Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and
Chromium Anodizing Tanks; and Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities
and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Final Action Denying Petition for Reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This action provides notice that on March 28, 2013, the Acting
EPA Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, signed a letter denying a petition
for reconsideration of the final rule published in the Federal Register
on September 19, 2012. The rule established new emission limits for
hard and decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing
tanks, and steel pickling--HCl process facilities and hydrochloric acid
regeneration plants.

DATES: Effective: April 19, 2013.
    Petitions: Any petitions for review of the letter and enclosure
denying the petition for reconsideration described in this document
must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by June 18, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Phil Mulrine, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(919) 541-3207; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Description of Action: The EPA is providing notice that it has
denied a petition for reconsideration of a final rule published in the
Federal Register on September 19, 2012. The rule established new
emission limits for hard and decorative chromium electroplating and
chromium anodizing tanks, and steel pickling--HCl process facilities
and hydrochloric acid regeneration plants, and was issued pursuant to
the EPA's authority under sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA). After publication of the rule, the EPA received a
petition for reconsideration of the final rule from the National
Association of Surface Finishers (NASF). After carefully considering
the petition and supporting information, the Acting EPA Administrator,
Bob Perciasepe, denied the petition for reconsideration on March 28,
2013, in a letter to the petitioner. The EPA denied the petition
because it failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration in CAA
section 307(d)(7)(B). The letter and an accompanying enclosure explain
in detail the EPA's reasons for the denial.

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

    This Federal Register notice, the petition for reconsideration and
the letter denying the petition for reconsideration are available in
the docket that the EPA established under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0600. The document identification number for the petition for
reconsideration is: NASF, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600-0693. The document
identification number for EPA's response letter is: NASF, EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0600-0695. All documents in the docket are listed on the
www.regulations.gov Web site. 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, is not
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA
Docket Center (Air Docket), 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 (202)
566-1744 and the telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This Federal Register notice, the petition for reconsideration and
the letter denying the petition can also be found on the EPA's Web site
at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/chrome/chromepg.html.

II. Judicial Review

    Any petitions for review of the letter and enclosure denying the
petition for reconsideration described in this Notice must be filed in
the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by June 18,
2013.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 12, 2013.
Bob Perciasepe,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-09304 Filed 4-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 61466-61467]
[DOCID:fr05oc10-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. DI10-18-000]

Dirk Wiggins; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting
Comments, Protests, and/or Motions To Intervene

September 28, 2010.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Declaration of Intention.
    b. Docket No: DI10-18-000.
    c. Date Filed: September 10, 2010.
    d. Applicant: Dirk Wiggins.
    e. Name of Project: BC Creek Hydro Project.
    f. Location: The proposed BC Creek Hydro Project will be located on
BC Creek, tributary to Wallowa Lake and Wallowa River, near the town of
Joseph, Wallowa County, Oregon, affecting T. 03 S., R. 45 E., sec. 29,
SW1/4., Willamette Meridian.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 817(b).
    h. Applicant Contact: Dirk Wiggins, 84646 Ponderosa Lane, Joseph,
Oregon 97846; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail: http://
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Henry Ecton,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and/or motions: October
28, 2010.
    All documents should be filed electronically via the Internet. See
18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be
filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and seven copies should be filed with: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters,
without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. Please include the docket number
(DI10-18-000) on any comments, protests, and/or motions filed.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed BC Creek Hydro Project will
consist of: (1) A small diversion to a steel holding tank; (2) an 8-
inch-diameter, 1,550-foot-long steel pipe penstock; (3) a powerhouse
containing a 20-kW Pelton-type turbine/generator; (4) a short tailrace
to BC Creek; (5) a 200-foot-long transmission line; and (6) appurtenant
facilities. The project will be connected to an interstate grid.
    When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to
investigate and determine if the interests of interstate or foreign
commerce would be affected by the proposed project. The Commission also
determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a
navigable waterway; (2) would occupy or affect public lands or
reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or
water power from a government dam; or (4) if applicable, has involved
or would involve any construction subsequent to 1935 that may have
increased or would increase the project's head or generating capacity,
or have otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-1935 design
or operation.
    l. Locations of the Application: Copies of this filing are on file
with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This
filing may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for inspection
and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214.

In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will
consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file
a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may
become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to
intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for
the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTESTS'', AND/
OR ``MOTIONS TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Docket Number of
the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any
motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicant specified in the particular application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24950 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 175 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55417]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22240]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 151

46 CFR Part 162

[Docket No. USCG-2001-10486]
RIN 1625-AA32

Standards for Living Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged
in U.S. Waters

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Rule; information collection approval; Correction.

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

SUMMARY: On June 13, 2012, the Coast Guard published in the Federal
Register an announcement of effective date that announced an
information collection approval for the Standards for Living Organisms
in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters (BWDS) Final Rule (77
FR 35268). The rulemaking triggered new information collection
requirements affecting vessel owners and their potential requests for
an extension of the compliance date if they cannot practicably comply
with the compliance date otherwise applicable to their vessels. The
June 13, 2012, document announced that the request to revise the
existing collection of information to add the new request for an
extension provision was approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and may now be enforced. The OMB control number is 1625-0069. The
approval for this collection of information expires on May 31, 2015.
    In the June 13, 2012, document, the Coast Guard inadvertently
failed to indicate that we received public submissions to the BWDS
Final Rule (77 FR 17254). The Coast Guard is now publishing a document
to advise the public that we received four public submissions to this
collection of information. As the four public submissions were not
collection of information-related, we did not revise our collection of
information estimates. You may view copies of the public submissions
and the Coast Guard responses to them in the BWDS docket online by
going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2001-10486 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' A corrected information
collection request package has been submitted to OMB for their review.
The current 1625-0069 approval by OMB is still effective. If OMB
decides to amend the current 1625-0069 approval, a copy of that
decision will be placed in the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
document, call or email Mr. John Morris, Project Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
If you have questions about viewing the docket (USCG-2001-10486), call
Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-
366-9826.

    Dated: September 4, 2012.
Kathryn A. Sinniger,
Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2012-22240 Filed 9-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


MEMORANDUM

FROM:  Keith Barnett, EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD MMG

TO: Portland Cement Administrative Record

RE:  Meetings of November 3 and November 8, 2006 between EPA and
Portland Cement Association (PCA)

	On November 3, EPA staff (Keith Barnett and Steve Fruh) contacted the
PCA to discuss potential regulatory alternatives for mercury and total
hydrocarbons. The discussion centered on the one cement kiln with a
continuously operated regenerative thermal oxidizer, and the five cement
kilns with wet scrubbers.

In addition, the number of new kilns was discussed.  The list sent by
PCA would imply 24 new kilns (any expansion over a few hundred is
probably a new kiln).  Andy O’Hare stated the actual number of new
kilns will be 15 – 20.  Some of the expansions on the information he
sent won’t happen.

The PCA representative stated that some kilns had wet scrubbers
installed due to SO2 nonattainment issues.  He could not provide a
definitive answer on the level of SO2 emission that would typically
trigger a BACT determination that required a wet scrubber.

A subsequent meeting was held on November 8 for the PCA to provide
additional feedback.  Their recommendations were as follows:

Limit the new source mercury requirements to greenfield sites

Set the mercury limit at 120 ug/dscm (This is the same as the mercury
limit for kilns that burn hazardous waste).

Limit to Greenfield sites and keep the level at 50 ppmv.  This is the
current standard.

Set an alternative risk-based standard for THC based on national
exposure standards determined by EPA to ensure protection of public
health with an ample margin of safety.

Create a risk-based subcategory and delist all sources meeting the risk
levels (as in plywood MACT).


<EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER  (7/1/2007)>

<<<FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:> <Samantha Hulkower, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:  <EMAIL_ADDRESS>

<>

<ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH>

<9F7543>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition (9F7543) from ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH via Technology Sciences Group Inc., 4061 North 156th Drive, Goodyear, AZ 85395, proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.>

<>

<<	1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of>>

<	[the insecticide spinosad, a fermentation product of Saccharopolyspora spinosa which consists of two related active ingredients: Spinosyn A (Factor A: CAS # 131929–60–7) or 2-[(6-deoxy-2,3,4-tri- O -methyl-α- L -manno-pyranosyl)oxy]-13-[[5-(dimethylamino)-tetrahydro-6-methyl-2H-pyra n-2-yl]oxy]-9-ethyl-2,3,3a,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16b-tetradecahyd ro-14-methyl-1H-as-Indaceno[3,2-d]oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione; and Spinosyn D (Factor D; CAS # 131929–63–0) or 2-[(6-deoxy-2,3,4-tri- O -methyl-α- L -manno-pyranosyl)oxy]-13-[[5-(dimethyl-amino)-tetrahydro-6-methyl-2H-pyr an-2-yl]oxy]-9-ethyl-2,3,3a,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16b-tetradecahy dro-4,14-methyl-1H-as-Indaceno[3,2-d]oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione] in or on the raw agricultural commodities [“Milk”] at [5] parts per million (ppm) [“Milk, fat”] at [40] parts per million (ppm) [“Cattle, fat”, “Goat, fat” and “Sheep, fat”] at [30] parts per million (ppm) [“Hog, meat” and “Poultry, meat byproducts”] at [0.2] parts per million (ppm) [“Hog, meat byproducts”] at [0.6] parts per million (ppm) [“Poultry, fat”] at [1.5] parts per million (ppm) and [“Hog, fat”] at [2.0] parts per million (ppm).  [The tolerances revisions are a reflection of changes in the ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH (EAH) product line which include an amendment to their premise spray Elector PSP* [72642-2] allowing a direct spray on poultry and a discontinuation (by voluntary cancellation) of the Elector* Insect Control Product [72642-1].  Together these two product actions eliminate pour-on and on animal spray uses for cattle, retain premise sprays for general livestock and allow direct spray for poultry.  With the removal of the pour-on cattle use, alternate data for a dermal use within a previous Magnitude of Residue cattle study is revisited to conservatively represent potential overspray from the general premise use.  The new Table 1 Feedstuffs (June 2008) EPA guidance for Maximum Reasonable Dietary Burdens (MRBD) has been employed to reconstruct and revise the animal diets for poultry, swine and cattle.] EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

[The supporting assessment includes the Agency conclusion that spinosad is considered toxicologically identical to another pesticide, spinetoram. This conclusion is based on the following: (1) Spinetoram and spinosad are large molecules with nearly identical structures; and (2) the toxicological profiles for each are similar (generalized systemic toxicity) with similar doses and endpoints chosen for human-health risk assessment. Spinosad and spinetoram should be considered toxicologically identical in the same manner that metabolites are generally considered toxicologically identical to the parent.]>

<A. Residue Chemistry>

<	1. Plant metabolism. [Per the Federal Register: April 15, 1998 (Vol 63, No 72) OPP-300644; FRL-5785-7, the nature of the residue of spinosad in plants has been studied in several plants (apple, cabbage, cotton, tomato and turnip) and is adequately understood.  EPA determined the rotational crop study showed no carryover of measurable spinosad related residues in representative test crops (lettuce, radish, and wheat).  Tolerances for enforcement are established for spinosad based on the residue definition of Spinosyn A (Factor A) plus Spinosyn D (Factor D).]>

<	2. Analytical method. [EPA has determined adequate analytical methods are available for enforcement purposes for spinosad in plant and animal matrices.  Methods include an immunoassay particle-based method 97.05 and an HPLC/UV method GRM 03.15 and a suite of specific crop methods: GRM 94.02 (cottonseed and related commodities), GRM 95.17 (leafy vegetables), GRM 96.09 (citrus), GRM 96.14 (tree nuts), GRM 95.04 (fruiting vegetables), GRM 94.02.S1 (cotton gin byproducts).  GRM 94.02 has a successful independent lab validation and was submitted for inclusion in PAM II as Method I.  EPA recently concluded that for water, residues should be estimated using total spinosad residue method (EPA, D316077, August 2, 2006).  An updated Dow AgroSciences method GRM 06.13 for the determination of residues of spinosad and its metabolites in poultry tissues and eggs by Liquid Chromatography with Tandem Mass Spectrometry supports this petition.]>

<	3. Magnitude of residues. [ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH seeks an amendment to the Elector* PSP Premise Insect Control Agent [72642-2] product registration that will add direct application to poultry for control of Northern Fowl Mite to the existing label which already allows premise sprays for several types of livestock. An MOR study of sprayed chickens in simulated commercial poultry facilities (Rosser and Shackelford 2008) with analysis of spinosad residues in edible poultry tissues and eggs is submitted in support of direct and premise spray use in poultry.  Chickens were treated with a direct-body spray at a spinosad concentration of 1000 ppm applied at an average volume of 1 gallon of spray mixture per 100 chickens with five applications in 14-day intervals.  The housing for these chickens was also treated with a premise spray at a spinosad concentration of 800 ppm applied at a volume of approximately 1 gallon of spray mixture per 500 square feet of surface area to cover interior surfaces of the poultry house with nine premise spray applications in 7-day intervals.  Test substance-related adverse effects, including effects on egg production or body weight, were not observed during the study and there were no abnormal necropsy observations.

The limit of quantitation (LOQ) and limit of detection (LOD) were validated at 0.01 μg/g and 0.003 μg/g, respectively, for each of the analytes in each of the five matrices (eggs, fat, liver, muscle and skin).

Residues were generally present at highest concentrations in fat and skin relative to other matrices.  The resulting spinosad residues peaked over the range of Day 0 to Day 7 (days after last treatment) depending upon the tissue. The resulting spray residues are used in the calculation of the revised tolerances for poultry and well as in the anticipated residues for dietary assessment.  Because no acute endpoint has been chosen for spinosad, it is appropriate to utilize the peak of the average residues from the spray study for the calculation of the poultry anticipated residues in the risk assessment.  For tolerance assessment, it is proposed that the highest observed residues are used to set an upper limit for commerce.

A proposed reduction of tolerances for milk, hog meat and various animal fats is based in part on the voluntary cancellation of the Elector* Insect Control Agent [72642-1] and in part on revised animal dietary burden for MRBD (EPA Memorandum June 30 2008).  The pour-on use pattern is no longer applicable.  The 2L- 400 ppm dermal spray use residues from a previous Magnitude of Residue study (MRID 45080605) in cattle is used to conservatively represent potential overspray of premise use with livestock per recommendation of HED in 2006 (T. Bloem, EPA, D321764, February 2, 2006.)  The cattle received 2L of 400 ppm spinosad spray for 5 treatments every 7 days.  In addition, the premises of dermal treated animals were sprayed every seven days with an 800 ppm spinosad solution.  The highest residues values for the various animal tissues (kidney, liver, muscle, milk and fat) support the proposed tolerances and were all less than 0.5 ppm.  Because no acute endpoint has been chosen for spinosad, it is appropriate to utilize the peak of the average residues from the spray study for the calculation of the poultry anticipated residues in the risk assessment.  The mean values for the 2L- 400 ppm dermal spray use were used for dietary assessment and were all less than 0.4 ppm.]

>

<B. Toxicological Profile [Per the Federal Register: April 15, 1998 (Vol 63, No 72) OPP-300644; FRL-5785-7, EPA determined the toxicological profile and endpoints for spinosad are adequate for risk assessment evaluations and determination of FQPA.  For recent spinosad decisions, per Federal Register: December 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 233); FRL-8339-8, EPA employed slightly revised endpoints based on their decision that spinetoram is toxicologically identical to spinosad.  EPA picked the lowest of the spinosad and spinetoram endpoints for each exposure scenario.  A summary of the toxicological endpoints for spinosad and spinetoram used for human risk assessment can be found at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov  in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0310.  Relevant information is summarized below.]>

<	1. Acute toxicity.  [No appropriate endpoint attributable to a single dose was identified; the EPA has not established an acute RfD for spinosad or spinetoram.]>

<	2. Genotoxicty. [Assays for genotoxicity consisting of a bacterial reverse mutation assay (Ames test), and in vitro assay for cytogenetic damage using the Chinese hamster ovary cells, an in vitro mammalian gene mutation assay using lymphoma cells, an in vitro assay for DNA damage and repair in rat hepatocytes, and an in vivo cytogenetic assay in the mouse bone marrow (micronucleus test) have been conducted with spinosad.  These studies show a lack of genotoxicity.]>

<	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [>Spinosad caused decreased body weights in maternal rats given 200 mg/kg/day by gavage in a developmental study (highest dose tested).  This was not accompanied by either embryotoxicity, fetal toxicity, or teratogenicity.  The no-observed-effect levels (NOELs) for maternal and fetal toxicity in rats were 50 and 200 mg/kg/day, respectively.  A developmental study in rabbits showed that spinosad caused decreased body weight gain and two abortions attributed to inanition in maternal rabbits at 50 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested).  Maternal toxicity was not accompanied by either embryo toxicity, fetal toxicity, or teratogenicity.  The NOELs for maternal and developmental effects in rabbits were 10 and 50 mg/kg/day, respectively.  In a two-generation reproduction study in rats, parental toxicity was observed in both males and females given 100 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested).  Effects in the offspring (decreased litter size and pup weight) at 100 mg/kg/day were attributed to maternal toxicity.  The systemic and reproductive NOELs were both 10 mg/kg/day.  EPA has determined that reliable data show that it would be safe for infants and children to reduce the 10X FQPA safety factor to 1X.]

<	4. Subchronic toxicity. [Both Short-term endpoints (inhalation and incidental oral) were established based on the Oral NOAEL of 4.9 mg/kg/day from the subchronic feeding study in dogs with spinosad and a LOC for MOEs of 100.]>

<	5. Chronic toxicity. [EPA used the lowest NOAEL of 0.249 mg/kg/day from the chronic toxicity study in dogs for spinetoram and a 100X UF to establish a cRfD of 0.0249 mg/kg/day for both spinosad and spinetoram.  Spinosad is considered ``Not likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans''.]>

<	6. Animal metabolism. [The nature of spinosad residue in animals is understood based on livestock studies in ruminants (oral and dermal) and poultry (oral) (D316077, August 2, 2006).  ADME studies in rats indicate spinosad is rapidly absorbed and extensively metabolized.  Also the rat metabolism studies showed no major differences between the bioavailability, routes or rates of excretion, or metabolism of Factor A or Factor D.  Urine and fecal excretions were almost completed in 48-hours post-dosing.  In addition, the routes and rates of excretion were not affected by repeated administration.  EPA recently indicated that for fish/shellfish within the risk assessment estimates of the total residue within edible tissues is applicable (EPA, D316077, August 2, 2006).  Total edible residues in fish have been extensively characterized within BCF studies (MRID 43557601, 44557734, 47355801].>

<	7. Metabolite toxicology. [Results of the plant and animal metabolism studies and toxicity testing have been assessed.  Per Federal Register: April 15, 1998 (Vol 63, No 72)  FRL-5785-7,  EPA concluded that the spinosad metabolites/fermentation impurities (Factor B, Factor B of D, Factor K, and other related Factors) were no more toxicological concern than the two parent compounds.  Metabolite toxicity has been addressed by establishment of the residue for tolerance purposes as the parent materials.  In addition, for risk assessment purposes, the total residue in water and edible fish is now conservatively considered.]

>

<	8. Endocrine disruption. [There is no evidence to suggest that spinosad has an effect on any endocrine system.]>

<C. Aggregate Exposure [The agency conducted an assessment of the aggregate exposure for spinosad and spinetoram in conjunction with the establishment of the initial spinetoram tolerances reported in the Federal Register of October 10, 2007 (  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2007/October/Day-10/p19947.htm"  72 FR 57492 ) (FRL-8149-9).  The EPA assumed toxicological equivalency of spinosad and spinetoram in their aggregate exposure assessment.  Anticipated exposure to spinosad was deemed acceptable.  The proposed changes in use pattern lower the overall dietary exposure from animal commodities in the human diet.  No new aggregate assessments are warranted.]>

<	1. Dietary exposure. [i. Acute exposure. No quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment has been required for spinosad.

ii. Chronic exposure.  Spinosad and spinetoram are deemed toxicologically equivalent by EPA.  Based on the similarity of the insecticides and the anticipated markets for each, it is unlikely that spinosad and spinetoram will be applied to the same crop.  Hence, EPA aggregated exposure by either assuming that all commodities contain spinosad (because side-by-side spinosad and spinetoram residue data indicated that spinetoram residues were less than or equal to spinosad residues) or summing the percentage of a crop that would be treated with spinosad and the percentage that would be treated with spinetoram.

The proposed revision of the meat and milk animal commodity tolerances for spinosad are based on part on revised animal dietary burdens according to the  Table 1 Feedstuffs (June 2008) EPA guidance for Maximum Reasonable Dietary Burdens (EPA Memorandum June 30 2008).  The revised procedures reflect the EPA updated understanding of feedlot production procedures and nutritional requirements allotted as Roughage (R), Protein (PC) and Carbohydrate (CC) categories.  Revised MRBD dietary burdens are supported for dairy cattle at 44.34 ppm, beef cattle at 18.34 ppm, swine at 2.78 ppm and poultry at 2.63 ppm for tolerance calculations.  For the calculation of cattle tolerances, a regression equation for transfer of spinosad to animal tissues and milk was built using the dose levels of 23.17 ppm, 97.87 ppm from a recent feeding study (MRID 47296401) and the 10 ppm value from the previous work (MRID 44058826) because these doses bracket the revised animal dietary burden in cattle.  The proposed tolerances include residue contributions for the feed-through use in cattle and premise spray for general livestock.

For the calculation of swine tolerances and the revised dietary anticipated residues for cattle, the regression equation for transfer of spinosad to animal tissues and milk was built using the 1, 3, and 10 ppm values from the older feeding (MRID 44058826) because these doses bracket the germane burdens.]>

<	i. Food. [The chronic dietary exposure assessment (EPA, D337531, September 12, 2007) was recreated in Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model - Food Consumption Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) (version 2.16) which incorporates the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII).  The residues of livestock were refined through the incorporation of a refined dietary burden (average field crop residues and projected PCT) with average milk residues for spinosad from the ruminant MOR study.  Specifically the revised MRBD Diets have been refined by input of average residues for feedstuffs (46159801), previous EPA assumptions regarding residues (Bloem, EPA Assessment, DP337531, September 12, 2007; Bloem, EPA Assessment, DP339485, May 14, 2007; Sproat, EPA, Memorandum D341762, October 13, 2004; Dougherty, EPA Memorandum, D269680, November 14, 2000) and PCT information (Bloem, EPA Assessment, DP337531; Federal Register of March 21, 2007 Vol 72. No 54, FRL–8114–4; Halvorson, US EPA, DP334157, December 13, 2006).

The dietary analysis assumed DEEM (ver 7.81) default processing factors for many food commodities, EPA specified processing factors for corn, grape, and wheat, 100% crop treated for food commodities and used average field trial residues for several commodities: apple, leafy vegetables, Brassica vegetables, citrus, fruiting vegetables, herbs, banana and strawberry and tolerances values for all others, except fish/shellfish which were conservatively represented as 12.5 ppm (3X fold of the 4 ppm tolerance for spinosad.)]>

<	ii. Drinking water. [Drinking water estimates were determined based on EPA screening models and concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For spinetoram, estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) for chronic exposures are calculated to be 6.17 ppb for surface water using the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and 0.072 ppb for ground water using the Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) model.  For spinosad, average values of 10.5 ppb for surface water and 1.1 ppb for ground water were conservatively estimated based on additional uses.  Thus, for the joint chronic dietary risk assessment, EPA has used the water concentration value of 10.5 ppb to assess the contribution to drinking water.]>

<

	2. Non-dietary exposure. [EPA has determined there is potential for residential handler and post-application exposures to spinosad/spinetoram.  Because spinosad and spinetoram control the similar pests, EPA concluded these products will not be used in combination with each other and combining the residential exposures is unnecessary.  Per Federal Register of October 10, 2007 (  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2007/October/Day-10/p19947.htm"  72 FR 57492 ) (FRL-8149-9), short-term residential inhalation risks were estimated for adult residential handlers, as well as short-term post-application incidental oral risks for toddlers, based on applications to home lawns, home gardens and ornamentals.>

<D. Cumulative Effects>

<	[EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to spinosad and any other substances and spinosad does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances.  HED’s Hazard Assessment and Policy Committee noted that toxicologically equivalent does not imply a cumulative assessment which involves the concepts of mechanism of toxicity and potency.  For the purposes of tolerance action, it is not assumed that spinosad has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.]>

<E. Safety Determination [The proposed actions of this petition have been added via DEEM to EPA’s initial assessment for spinetoram/spinosad (EPA, D337531, September 12, 2007).  With the cancellation of the ELANCO cattle product (72642-1), the overall dietary exposure is lower than that predicted in the previous assessment.  There is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population or infants and children from the aggregate exposure to spinosad/spinetoram residues from these uses.]>

<	1. U.S. population. [The resulting dietary exposure for the general population is estimated to be lowered to 27.8% of the cPAD relative to the previous EPA assessment of <35%.  When the food and water exposure is summed with the estimated residential inhalation exposure for youth (over 12 years old) and adults, the resulting short term aggregate MOE values previously ranged from 650 to 710 (Federal Register: Dec 5, 2007 (Vol 72, No 233); FRL-8339-8) and the MOEs values of not of concern to HED.]>

<	2. Infants and children. [EPA has determined that reliable data allow a reduction of the FQPA safety factor to 1X for infants and children.  The revised dietary exposure for the most exposed subpopulation (children 1 to 2 years) is estimated to be lowered to 57.3% of the cPAD relative to the previous estimation of 81%.  Previously short term post-application risks were estimated for toddlers, based on application to home lawn, home gardens and ornamentals and risks were not of concern given resulting MOEs were >1200.  The resulting short term aggregate MOE values were >180 and are, therefore, not of concern to HED.]>

<F. International Tolerances>

<	[A variety of international and CODEX MRLs are in place for spinosad, but MRLs established for animal commodities such as meat and milk have been disharmonized (in part due to interpretations of the cattle pour-on use).  The proposed changes serve to shrink the gap between the US tolerances and several international MRLs.  Several MRL websites were used to compile the list of MRLs, however no claim is made regarding the verification of these values relative to the national authorities.

'

*

+

_

`

a

ሀ-

\

]

^

_

a

b

c

d

t

|

~

’

˜

±

¸

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

$a

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

ᔠ㉨視ᘀh赬　≊䈀*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

! h

h

B*

h

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

h

B*

B*

B*

h

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

h

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

h

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

>*B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

Swine Kidney	0.3	PPM

EU MRL	Bovine Meat	0.3	PPM

EU MRL	Bovine Fat 	3	PPM

EU MRL	Bovine Liver	2	PPM

EU MRL	Bovine Kidney	1	PPM

EU MRL	Bovine Edible Offal	0.5	PPM

EU MRL	Sheep, Goat and Horse Meat	0.05	PPM

EU MRL	Sheep, Goat and Horse Fat 	2	PPM

EU MRL	Sheep, Goat and Horse Liver, Kidney  and Edible Offal	0.5	PPM

EU MRL	Poultry Meat	0.2	PPM

EU MRL	Poultry Fat 	1	PPM

EU MRL	Poultry Liver, Kidney, and Edible Offal	0.2	PPM

EU MRL	Other farm animals (rabbit, kangaroo)	0.02	PPM

EU MRL	Milk and Cream	0.5	PPM

EU MRL	Bird Eggs	0.2	PPM

Australia	Edible Offal	T0.2	PPM

Australia	Eggs	T0.05	PPM

Australia	Meat	T0.2	PPM

Australia	Milk	T0.1	PPM

Australia	Poultry Edible Offal	T0.05	PPM

Australia	Poultry fat	T0.2	PPM

Australia	Poultry meat	0.01	PPM

Canada	Fat of Cattle, Goats, Hogs, Horses and Sheep	5.0	PPM

Canada	Meat byproducts of Cattle, Goats, Hogs, Horses and Sheep	1.0	PPM

Canada	Meat of Cattle, Goats, Hogs, Horses and Sheep	0.2	PPM

Canada	Milk	0.5	PPM

Canada	Milk fat	17	PPM

]>

 PAGE

 PAGE   5