[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 97 (Friday, May 21, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27546-27550]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09998]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Chapter I

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0174; FRL-10023-55]

Petition for Rulemaking Under TSCA; Reasons for Agency Response;
Denial of Requested Rulemaking

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; denial; reasons for Agency response.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the availability of EPA's response to
a portion of the petition it received February 8, 2021, from People for
Protecting Peace River, Center for Biological Diversity, and 16 other
organizations. While the petition requested three actions related to
TSCA, EPA has determined that only one of those actions is an
appropriate request: A request to issue a test rule under TSCA
requiring testing of phosphogypsum and process wastewater from
phosphoric acid production. EPA is treating the other portions of the
petition involving TSCA as a petition under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA); those other portions request EPA to initiate the
prioritization process for designating phosphogypsum and process
wastewater as high-priority substances for risk evaluation, and to make
a determination by rule under TSCA that the use of phosphogypsum in
road construction is a significant new use. Therefore, this document
does not provide EPA's response to these two TSCA-requested actions.
Also, this document does not address the petitioners' requests under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). After careful
consideration, EPA has denied the TSCA section 21 portion of the
petition for the reasons set forth in this document.

DATES: EPA's response to this TSCA section 21 petition was signed May
5, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this TSCA section 21 petition, identified by
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0174, is available
at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 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 OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Public Reading Room are closed to visitors
with limited exceptions. The EPA/DC staff continue to provide remote
customer service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Brooke Porter, Existing Chemicals Risk Management Division (7404T),
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; 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. This action may,
however, be of interest to those persons who manufacture (including
import), distribute in commerce, process, use, or dispose of
phosphogypsum and process wastewater. Since other entities may also be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action.

B. What is EPA's authority for taking this action?

    Under TSCA section 21 (15 U.S.C. 2620), any person can petition EPA
to initiate a proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a
rule under TSCA sections 4, 6, or 8, or to issue an order under TSCA
sections 4, 5(e), or 5(f). A TSCA section 21 petition must set forth
the facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary to
initiate the action requested. EPA is required to grant or deny the
petition within 90 days of its filing. If EPA grants the petition, the
Agency must promptly commence an appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies
the petition, the Agency must publish its reasons for the denial in the
Federal Register. A petitioner may commence a civil action in a U.S.
district court seeking to compel initiation of the requested proceeding
within 60 days of a denial or, if EPA does not issue a decision, within
60 days of the expiration of the 90-day period.

C. What criteria apply to a decision on this TSCA section 21 petition?

1. Legal Standard Regarding TSCA Section 21 Petitions
    TSCA section 21(b)(1) requires that the petition ``set forth the
facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary'' to initiate
the proceeding requested. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1). Thus, TSCA section 21
implicitly incorporates the statutory standards that apply to the
requested actions. Accordingly, EPA has relied on the standards in TSCA
section 21 and in the provisions under which actions have been
requested in evaluating this TSCA section 21 petition.
2. Legal Standard Regarding TSCA Section 4(a)(1)(A)(i)
    EPA must make several findings in order to require testing under
TSCA section 4(a)(1)(A)(i) through a rule or order. EPA must find that
the manufacture, distribution in commerce, processing, use, or disposal
of a chemical substance or mixture, or that any combination of such
activities, may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment; that information and experience are insufficient to
reasonably determine or predict the effects of such activity or
activities on health or the environment; and that testing of the
chemical substance or mixture is necessary to develop the missing
information. 15 U.S.C. 2603(a)(1)(A)(i).
3. Legal Standard Regarding TSCA Section 4(a)(1)(A)(ii)
    EPA must make several findings in order to require testing under
TSCA section 4(a)(1)(A)(ii) through a rule or order. EPA must find that
the chemical substance or mixture is or will be produced in substantial
quantities, and it enters or may reasonably be anticipated to enter the
environment in substantial quantities or there is or may be significant
or substantial human exposure to such substance or mixture; that
information and experience are insufficient to reasonably determine or
predict the effects of the manufacture, distribution in commerce,
processing, use, and/or disposal of the chemical substance or mixture
on health or the environment; and that testing of the

chemical substance or mixture is necessary to develop the missing
information. 15 U.S.C. 2603(a)(1)(A)(ii).
4. Legal Standard Regarding TSCA Section 26
    TSCA section 26(h) requires EPA, in carrying out TSCA sections 4,
5, and 6, to make science-based decisions using ``scientific
information, technical procedures, measures, methods, protocols,
methodologies, or models, employed in a manner consistent with the best
available science,'' while also taking into account other
considerations, including the relevance of information and any
uncertainties. 15 U.S.C. 2625(h). TSCA section 26(i) requires that
decisions under TSCA sections 4, 5, and 6 be ``based on the weight of
scientific evidence.'' 15 U.S.C. 2625(i). TSCA section 26(k) requires
that EPA consider information that is reasonably available in carrying
out TSCA sections 4, 5, and 6. 15 U.S.C. 2625(k).
5. Legal Standard Regarding Mixtures Under TSCA Section 4(a)(1)(B) and
Section 21(b)(4).
    In the case of a mixture, per TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B), EPA must
also find that the effects which the mixture's manufacture,
distribution in commerce, processing, use, or disposal, or any
combination of such activities, may have on health or the environment
may not be reasonably and more efficiently determined or predicted by
testing the chemical substances which comprise the mixture. 15 U.S.C.
2603(a)(1)(B). In addition, TSCA section 21 establishes standards a
court must use to decide whether to order EPA to initiate rulemaking in
the event of a lawsuit filed by the petitioner after denial of a TSCA
section 21 petition. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). EPA believes TSCA section
21(b)(4) does not provide for judicial review of a petition to
promulgate a test rule for mixtures. TSCA section 21(b)(4)(B)(i)
specifies that the court's review pertains to application of the TSCA
section 4 factors to chemical substances. Moreover, TSCA section
21(b)(4)(B)(i) does not contain the additional finding that TSCA
section 4 requires for issuing a test rule for mixtures (that the
effect may not be reasonably and more efficiently determined or
predicted by testing the chemical components). Congress left the
complex issues associated with the testing of mixtures to the
Administrator's discretion.

II. Summary of the TSCA Section 21 Petition

A. What action was requested?

    On February 8, 2021, the People for Protecting Peace River,
Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, Bayou City Waterkeeper, Calusa Waterkeeper,
Center for Biological Diversity, Cherokee Concerned Citizens, Healthy
Gulf, ManaSota-88, Our Santa Fe River, RISE St. James, Sierra Club's
Florida and Delta chapters, Suncoast Waterkeeper, Suwanee Riverkeeper,
Tampa Bay Waterkeeper, Waterkeeper Alliance, Waterkeepers Florida, and
WWALS Watershed Coalition (the petitioners) requested EPA to take
several actions under section 7004(a) of RCRA; section 21 of TSCA; and
section 553 of the APA related to phosphogypsum and process wastewater
from phosphoric acid production (process wastewater). With respect to
TSCA, the petition asks EPA to (1) initiate the prioritization process
for designating phosphogypsum and process wastewater as high-priority
substances for risk evaluation under TSCA section 6(b)(1)(B)(i), (2)
issue a test rule under TSCA section 4(a)(1)(A) requiring phosphogypsum
and process wastewater manufacturers to develop information with
respect to health and environmental effects relevant to a determination
that the disposal of these chemical substances does or does not present
an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, and (3)
make a determination by rule under TSCA section 5(a) that the use of
phosphogypsum in road construction is a significant new use. This
Federal Register document specifically addresses the petitioners' TSCA
section 21 petition, requesting EPA to issue a test rule under TSCA
section 4(a)(1)(A). As described in Unit II.A.1 and II.A.2, this
Federal Register document does not address the TSCA-requested actions
which cannot be addressed under TSCA section 21 (i.e., action under
TSCA section 6(b)(1)(B)(i) and section 5(a)), and EPA will consider
taking such action in response to those requests, as appropriate, under
the APA. This Federal Register document also does not address the
petitioners' requests under section 7004(a) of RCRA.
1. Request for Prioritization Under TSCA Section 6 and Related Testing
Under TSCA section 4(a)(2)(B)
    With respect to actions under section 6 of TSCA, TSCA section 21
provides only for the submission of a petition seeking the initiation
of a proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule under
TSCA section 6(a). Prioritization under TSCA section 6(b) is distinct
from rulemaking under TSCA section 6(a). Because TSCA section 21 does
not provide an avenue for petitioners to request the initiation of the
prioritization process for phosphogypsum and process wastewater, EPA is
treating this portion of the request as a petition for action under the
APA.
    Petitioners also assert that ``should EPA initiate prioritization
but find that the development of new information is necessary to
finalize a prioritization decision for phosphogypsum and process
wastewater, EPA should exercise its authority under section 4(a)(2)(B)
to obtain that information and establish priority'' (Ref. 1, page 41).
Because EPA is not addressing the request for prioritization as part of
this petition response and has not otherwise initiated prioritization
on phosphogypsum or process wastewater, the Agency is not in a position
to exercise its authority under TSCA section 4(a)(2)(B) in the manner
and for the reason described by petitioners.
2. Request for Significant New Use Rule Under TSCA Section 5
    TSCA section 21 does not provide for the submission of a petition
seeking the initiation of a rule under TSCA section 5. Significant new
use rules are issued under the authority of TSCA section 5(a)(2). Since
TSCA section 21 does not provide an avenue for petitioners to request
the initiation of a proceeding to make a determination by rule under
TSCA section 5(a), EPA is treating this portion of the request as a
petition for action under the APA.
3. Request for Issuance of a Test Rule Under TSCA Section 4(a)(1)(A)
    TSCA section 21 does provide for the submission of a petition
seeking issuance of a test rule under TSCA section 4(a)(1)(A).
Therefore, this Federal Register document specifically addresses the
only request permissible under TSCA section 21, requesting EPA to issue
a test rule under TSCA section 4(a)(1)(A).
4. Request Under RCRA Section 7004(a)
    This Federal Register document does not address the petitioners'
requests under section 7004(a) of RCRA.
5. Request Under APA Section 553(e)
    This Federal Register document does not address the petitioners'
requests under section 553(e) of the APA.

B. What support did the petitioners offer?

    The petitioners are not clear as to the provision of TSCA section
4(a)(1)(A)

under which they are seeking a test rule. On pages 13 and 14 of the
petition, for example, petitioners list the criteria to evaluate the
request for testing under TSCA section 4(a)(1)(A)(i). However, in
addition, the petition also includes reference to TSCA section
4(a)(1)(A)(ii). Because the petitioners were not clear whether they
were seeking testing under TSCA section 4(a)(1)(A)(i) or
4(a)(1)(A)(ii), EPA considered the criteria in both sections in
evaluating the petition. Additionally, because petitioners did not
indicate whether the requested testing would pertain to mixtures or to
individual chemical substances within a mixture, EPA considered both in
evaluating the petition.
1. May Present an Unreasonable Risk of Injury to Health or the
Environment or Produced in Substantial Quantities
    The petitioners claim that phosphogypsum and process wastewater
located across the United States may present an unreasonable risk of
injury to human health and the environment under TSCA section
4(a)(1)(A)(i)(I). The petitioners claim that in EPA's 1991 regulatory
determination under the Bevill Amendment to RCRA (section 3001(b)(3)(A)
of RCRA), regarding the exemption of processing ores and minerals,
including phosphate rock, EPA indicated that phosphogypsum and process
wastewater were more appropriate to address under a TSCA regulatory
program. The petitioners make a general assertion that ``EPA's
investigation of a TSCA regulatory program to manage phosphogypsum and
process wastewater means these substances not only may, but do, pose an
unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment'' (Ref.
1, page 40). The petitioners point to the following studies and contend
that worker exposure at phosphate fertilizer plants is associated with
adverse health effects, however, an exposure-response relationship
could not be established in these studies:
     Yiin, JH et al., 2016 (Ref. 2); and
     Kim, Kwang Po et al., 2006 (Ref. 3).
    In addition, petitioners include information regarding the toxicity
of several chemical substances they indicate are ``phosphogypsum
constituents'' (arsenic, lead, nickel, cadmium, chromium, silver,
antimony, copper, mercury, and thallium), as well as information on
radionuclides (uranium, thorium, and radium) (Ref. 1, pages 19-23).
    As support for the claim that phosphogypsum and process wastewater
are produced in substantial quantities under TSCA section
4(a)(1)(A)(ii)(I), petitioners provide information about the size of
phosphogypsum stacks, the amount of phosphogypsum produced annually,
and the volume of process wastewater that can be stored in stacks (Ref.
1). Regarding production in substantial quantities, petitioners point
to an EPA web page indicating that phosphogypsum is produced in
quantities of 5.2 tons for every ton of phosphoric acid produced (Ref.
4). In addition, petitioners cite to information indicating that
approximately 46 million tons of phosphogypsum are created in the
United States annually (Ref. 5).
2. Insufficient Information and Experience
    Without providing supporting rationale, the petitioners assert that
updated information is needed, including:
     Information on ``population-level exposure risks'' for
radionuclides and radon emissions for phosphogypsum stacks; and
     Information on the number and size of the phosphogypsum
stacks.
    The petitioners also state that the majority of the available
phosphogypsum and process wastewater research is focused on potential
commercial uses, rather than toxicity and other health and
environmental effects relevant to an unreasonable risk finding (Ref. 1,
page 40).
3. Testing of Such Substance or Mixture With Respect to Such Effects Is
Necessary To Develop Such Information
    The petitioners claim that a TSCA section 4 ``testing rule is
necessary to fill gaps in current science and to better inform a future
risk evaluation,'' citing the need for updated information on
``population-level exposure risks'' for radionuclide and radon
emissions for phosphogypsum stack systems since the population around
each phosphogypsum stack has likely increased (Ref. 1, page 40). The
petitioners also claim it is necessary to update toxicity information
using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) method
(Ref. 1, page 40). The petitioners provide no further information
identifying specific gaps in the TCLP information already available, or
why additional testing is necessary under TSCA section 4(a)(1)(A).

III. Disposition of TSCA Section 21 Portion of the Petition

A. What is EPA's response?

    After careful consideration, EPA has denied the TSCA section 21
portion of the petition. A copy of the Agency's response, which
consists of the letter to the petitioners and this document, is posted
on the EPA petition website at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/tscasection-21#reporting. The response,
the petition (Ref. 1), and other information is available in the docket
for this TSCA section 21 petition (see ADDRESSES).

B. What was EPA's reason for this response to the request for testing
under TSCA section 4?

    TSCA section 21 does provide for the submission of a petition
seeking the initiation of a proceeding for the issuance of a rule under
TSCA section 4. The petition must ``set forth the facts which it is
claimed establish that it is necessary to issue'' the requested rule.
15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1). When determining whether the petition meets that
burden, EPA will consider whether the manufacture, distribution in
commerce, processing, use, or disposal of a chemical substance or
mixture, or any combination of such activities, may present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under TSCA
section 4(a)(1)(A)(i)(I), or whether the chemical substance or mixture
is or will be produced in substantial quantities, and it enters or may
reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial
quantities or there is or may be significant or substantial human
exposure to such substance or mixture under TSCA section
4(a)(1)(A)(ii)(I). In addition, EPA will consider whether ``information
available to the Administrator is insufficient to permit a reasoned
evaluation of the health and environmental effects of the chemical
substance or mixture.'' 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B)(i)(I) (see also 15
U.S.C. 2603(a)(1)). Furthermore, EPA's decision to grant a petition for
the promulgation of a TSCA section 4 rule requires a finding that
``testing of such substance or mixture with respect to such effects is
necessary to develop such information.'' 15 U.S.C. 2603(a)(1). In the
case of a mixture, the petitioners must set forth facts to establish
that the effects of the mixture would not be ``reasonably and more
efficiently determined or predicted by testing the chemical substances
which comprise the mixture.'' 15 U.S.C. 2603(a)(1).
    EPA evaluated the information presented or referenced in the
petition

and considered that information in the context of the applicable
authorities and requirements of TSCA sections 4, 21, and 26.
Notwithstanding that the burden is on the petitioners to present ``the
facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary'' for EPA to
initiate the rule or issue the order sought, EPA nonetheless also
considered relevant information that was reasonably available to the
Agency during the 90-day petition review period. As detailed in Unit
III.B.2 and III.B.3, EPA finds that the petitioners have not met their
burden as defined in TSCA sections 4(a)(1)(A) and 21(b)(1) because the
petitioners have not provided the facts necessary for the Agency to
determine for phosphogypsum and process wastewater that existing
information and experience are insufficient and testing with respect to
such effects is necessary to develop such information. These
deficiencies, among other findings, are detailed in this document.
1. May Present Unreasonable Risk of Injury to Health or the Environment
or Produced in Substantial Quantities
    EPA is not opining on the sufficiency of the information presented
for purposes of determining whether phosphogypsum or process wastewater
may present unreasonable risk because the Agency finds that petitioners
have not provided the facts necessary for the Agency to determine that
existing information and experience are insufficient and testing with
respect to such effects is necessary to develop such information, as
described in more detail below. However, EPA agrees that phosphogypsum
and process wastewater are or will be produced in substantial
quantities under TSCA 4(a)(1)(A)(ii)(I).
2. Insufficient Information and Experience
    The petition does not set forth the facts necessary to demonstrate
that there is ``insufficient information and experience'' on which the
effects of phosphogypsum and process wastewater on health or the
environment can reasonably be determined or predicted. The petitioners
only claim that updated toxicity information using the TCLP method is
necessary and assert that information available is from an outdated
``Extraction Procedure.'' However, EPA has found that there are TCLP
data related to phosphogypsum and process wastewater available in the
public domain (Ref. 6). The petitioners failed to present facts
indicating the nature and extent of existing TCLP data and articulate
why this data is insufficient. The petitioners do not provide an
assessment of existing data to support a finding of insufficient
information and experience. The petitioners present no evidence that
they undertook efforts such as a literature search of publicly
available information, an analysis and characterization of the results
of such a literature search, or an inventory of information they claim
is missing from the public domain.
    Extensive information on the heavy metal chemical substances
contained in phosphogypsum and process wastewater is readily available.
For example, EPA has published Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) assessments, which review existing information and characterize
the hazards of chemicals, that are available for all of the heavy
metals mentioned in the petition, as well as uranium (Ref. 7).
Furthermore, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) has published Toxicological Profiles, which characterize the
toxicologic and adverse health effects information for hazardous
substances, for all of the metals, as well as for radon and the
radionuclides referenced in the petition (Ref. 8). The petitioners make
no mention of the IRIS assessments, nor have they provided the facts
necessary to show that this extensive body of existing information on
toxicological effects, including the ATSDR Toxicological Profiles cited
in the petition, is insufficient. TSCA section 21 requires the
petitioner, not EPA, to ``set forth the facts which it is claimed
establish that it is necessary to issue, amend, or repeal a rule under
TSCA sections 4, 6, or 8, or an order under TSCA sections 4 or 5(e).''
15 U.S.C. 2620. Therefore, petitioners have failed to meet their
burden.
3. Testing of Such Substance or Mixture With Respect to Such Effects Is
Necessary To Develop Such Information
    The petition did not include any data, information, or analysis
related to the need for testing of phosphogypsum and process wastewater
or for the chemical substances, including the heavy metals and
radionuclides contained in phosphogypsum and process wastewater. A
petition without such information is facially incomplete because it
fails to provide minimum factual information for EPA to make the
threshold findings needed to respond to and act on the petition as
contemplated by TSCA section 21. Even if the petitioners had
successfully demonstrated the insufficiency of existing information,
they still failed to demonstrate that testing of phosphogypsum and
process wastewater is needed to develop the necessary information that
they claim does not exist. Importantly, the petitioners provided no
information regarding how testing by manufacturers of phosphogypsum and
process wastewater would provide the sort of health and environmental
effects data that petitioners believe is necessary. The petitioners
could have presented information about the types of tests that could be
conducted, including some analysis of the methods that could be used to
identify the data or information submitted or used, hazard thresholds
recommended, and exposure estimates. Beyond an assertion that TCLP data
is not available, the petitioners did not include any information on
what type of testing they claim is needed.
4. Testing as a Mixture
    Petitioners do not indicate whether the requested testing would
pertain to mixtures or to individual chemical substances within a
mixture. With regard to testing phosphogypsum and process wastewater as
a mixture, petitioners have not set forth facts sufficient to support
the required finding for mixtures under TSCA section 4(a)(1): That the
effects of phosphogypsum and process wastewater would not be
``reasonably and more efficiently determined or predicted by testing
the chemical substances which comprise the mixture.'' 15 U.S.C.
2603(a)(1). EPA has broad discretion to make this finding, and although
petitioners did not specify whether their request was for testing of
phosphogypsum and process wastewater as a mixture, EPA does not, at
this time, believe this finding is warranted.
5. Environmental Justice Considerations
    Petitioners express environmental justice concerns and include
examples of a phosphogypsum and process wastewater facility near a
historic Black neighborhood, and another facility in a region of
Louisiana which they state has environmental justice concerns related
to impacts from a variety of industrial activities (Ref. 1, pages 36-
38).
    As a general matter, EPA shares the petitioners' concerns regarding
the potential for disproportionate impacts in communities with
environmental justice concerns. However, petitioners must set forth the
facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary to issue a
rule or order requiring testing under TSCA section 4(a)(1)(A). As
petitioners have not set forth facts sufficient for EPA to make these
findings, EPA is not able to issue a test

rule under TSCA section 4 in response to this TSCA section 21 petition.
6. What were EPA's conclusions?
    EPA denied the request to initiate a proceeding for the issuance of
a rule under TSCA section 4 because the TSCA section 21 petition does
not set forth the facts establishing that it is necessary for the
Agency to issue such a rule. In particular, the petition does not
demonstrate that existing information and experience on the effects of
phosphogypsum and process wastewater are insufficient or that testing
of phosphogypsum and process wastewater with respect to such effects is
necessary to develop such information. Therefore, the petitioners have
not demonstrated that the rule they requested is necessary.

IV. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. Curran, Rachael, People for Protecting Peace River, and Lopez,
Jaclyn, Center for Biological Diversity to the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency. Re: Petition for Rulemaking
Pursuant to Section 7004(a) of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act; Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act; and
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act Concerning the
Regulation of Phosphogypsum and Process Wastewater from Phosphoric
Acid Production. Received February 8, 2021.
2. Yiin, JH et al. A study update of mortality in workers at a
phosphate fertilizer production facility. American Journal of
Industrial Medicine 59(1):12-22. January 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22542.
3. Kim, Kwang Po et al. Characterization of Radioactive Aerosols in
Florida Phosphate Processing Facilities. Aerosol Science and
Technology 40(6):410-421. February 2006. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820600643313.
4. EPA. TENORM: Fertilizer and Fertilizer Production Wastes. April
7, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-fertilizer-and-fertilizer-production-wastes.
5. The Fertilizer Institute. Revised Request for Approval of
Additional Uses of Phosphogypsum Pursuant to 40 CFR 61.206. April
2020. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-10/documents/4-7-2020_pg_petition.pdf.
6. EPA. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Settlement. September 16, 2020.
https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/mosaic-fertilizer-llc-settlement.
7. EPA. Integrated Risk Information System. March 26, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/iris.
8. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. March 16, 2021.
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiledocs/index.html.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

Michal Freedhoff,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2021-09998 Filed 5-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

	Date:	3/30/06

	Subject:	Cloquintocet-mexyl on Wheat and Barley.  ADDENDUM to DP
Barcode 308470 re. Data Submitted to Satisfy Conditional Registration
Requirements for Use on Wheat, Revise Wheat Tolerances, and to Add Use
on Barley.  PP#’s 7E04920 and  4E06831.

		DP Number:	328047	Decision Number:	353510

		PC Code:	700099	MRIDs:	None

		40 CFR:	180.560	Chemical Class:	Herbicide safener

	From:	Nancy Dodd, Chemist

		Registration Action Branch 3

		Health Effects Division (7509C)

	Through:	George Kramer, Ph.D., Chemist

		Registration Action Branch 1

		Health Effects Division (7509C)

	To:	Daniel Rosenblatt/Tracy H. Ward, RM 05

		Minor Use, Inerts, and Emergency Response Branch

		Registration Division (7505C)

In DP Barcode 308470 (N. Dodd 11/16/05), HED indicated (as part of
Deficiency #4) that “the wheat field trials are not adequate in number
or geographic representation.  Because the data for the winter wheat
treated in the fall will not be used, the number and geographic
representation for the wheat field trials are not adequate.  An
additional 8 field trials are needed for adequate geographic
representation as follows: 1 trial in Region 2, 1 trial in Region 4, 1
trial in Region 5, 1 trial in Region 6, and 4 trials in Region 8.”

HED has now determined that the wheat field trials are adequate in
number and geographic representation.  The winter wheat treated in the
fall (MRID 46012904) will not be used for forage and hay data since the
proposed use does not include a fall application, but acceptable data on
forage and hay are available from winter wheat treated in the spring
(MRID 46012905).   Since the “winter wheat treated in the fall (MRID
46012904)” was treated in the fall before harvest of forage and hay
but was also treated in the spring before harvest of grain and straw,
the grain and straw data represent a spring application and can be used.
 Therefore, adequate data are available for all four commodities
(forage, hay, grain, and straw) and the field trials are adequate in
number and geographic representation.

cc: William Cutchin (RD), Hope Johnson (RD), Pauline Wagner (RD), Jim
Thompkins (RD), Leung Cheng (HED)

RDI: N. Dodd (3/30/06); G. Kramer (3/30/06)

 PAGE

2 of  PAGE   2

Cloquintocet-mexyl	Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data	DP
Barcode: 328047


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 185 (Monday, September 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 58828]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23422]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL12-102-000]

Northern Indiana Public Service Company; Notice of Petition for
Declaratory Order

September 17, 2012.
    Take notice that on September 12, 2012, Northern Indiana Public
Service Company, pursuant to section 207 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure 18
CFR 385.207, Section 219 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) \1\ and Order
No. 679,\2\ filed a petition for declaratory order requesting
authorization for transmission rate incentives related to: (1) Its
portion of a new 765 kV transmission line from the Reynolds substation
to the Greentown substation and (2) substation upgrades at Reynolds
substation, including a 765 kV/345kV transformer, a Multi-Value Project
approved under the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc. Transmission Expansion Plan process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824e, 824s(a) (2006). FPA Section 219 was added as
part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, 119Stat.
594, 315 and 1283 (2005).
    \2\ Promoting Transmission Investment Through Pricing Reform,
Order No. 679, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,222 (Order No. 679), order on
reh'g, Order No. 679-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,236 (2006) (Order No.
679-A), reh'g denied 119 FERC 61,062 (2007), appeal dismissed sub
nom., Am. Pub. Power Ass'n. v. FERC, No. 07-1050, 2007 U.S.App.
LEXIS 11908 (D.C. Cir. May 14, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 12, 2012.

    Dated: September 17, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23422 Filed 9-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 88 (Monday, May 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24898-24900]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09800]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0041]

FM Approvals LLC: Grant of Expansion of Recognition and
Modification to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand
the scope of recognition for FM Approvals LLC for expansion of
recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
Additionally, OSHA announces the final decision to modify the NRTL
Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards to include one additional
test standard.

DATES: The expansion of the scope of recognition become effective on
May 10, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, phone:
(202) 693-2110 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of Final Decision

    OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of
recognition of FM Approvals LLC (FM) as a NRTL. This expansion covers
the addition of five test standards to FM's NRTL scope

of recognition, one of which will be added to the NRTL Program's List
of Appropriate Test Standards.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within its
scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government
authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products
properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require
testing and certification of the products.
    The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition
and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following
requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires
that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides a preliminary finding. In the second notice,
the agency provides the final decision on the application. These
notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of
that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL,
including FM, which details the NRTL's scope of recognition. These
pages are available from the OSHA website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    FM submitted an application to OSHA to expand recognition as a NRTL
to include five additional test standards on May 16, 2019 (OSHA-2007-
0041-0014). OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application
packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform
any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
    OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing FM's expansion
application in the Federal Register on February 26, 2021 (86 FR 11794).
The agency requested comments by March 15, 2021, but it received no
comments in response to this notice. OSHA is now proceeding with this
final notice to grant expansion of FM's scope of recognition.
    To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to
FM's application, go to www.regulations.gov or contact the Docket
Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department
of Labor;<PHONE_NUMBER>. Docket No. OSHA-2007-0041 contains all
materials in the record concerning FM's recognition. Please note: While
OSHA's Docket Office is continuing to accept and process submissions by
regular mail, due to the COVD-19 pandemic, the Docket Office is closed
to the public and not able to receive submissions to the docket by
hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service.

II. Final Decision and Order

    OSHA staff examined FM's expansion application, their capability to
meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent
information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that FM
meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its
recognition, subject to the limitations and conditions listed below.
OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant FM's
scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of FM's recognition to
testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance
to the test standards listed in Table 1 below.

           Table 1--List of Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in FM's NRTL Scope of Recognition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Test standard                                         Test standard title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ANSI FM 3265......................................  Spark Detection and Extinguishing Systems.
UL 268..............................................  Smoke Detectors for Fire Alarm Systems.
UL 1971.............................................  Signaling Devices for the Hearing Impaired.
UL 2127.............................................  Inert Gas Clean Agent Extinguishing System Units.
UL 2166.............................................  Halocarbon Clean Agent Extinguishing System Units.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the standard that OSHA is adding to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.

    In this notice, OSHA also announces the addition of a new test
standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.
Table 2 below lists the standard that is new to the NRTL Program. OSHA
has determined that this test standard is an appropriate test standard
and will add it to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test
Standards.

       Table 2--Standard OSHA Is Proposing To Add to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Test standard                                         Test standard title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSI FM 3265........................................  Spark Detection and Extinguishing Systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is
limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require
third-party testing and certification before using them in the
workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products
for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a
NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
    The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the
test standard listed above as an American National Standard. However,
for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing
organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under
the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C,
paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may
use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI
version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test
standard is currently ANSI-approved.

A. Conditions

    In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7,
FM must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
    1. FM must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any
change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major
change in its

operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
    2. FM must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with
all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    3. FM must continue to meet the requirements for recognition,
including all previously published conditions on FM's scope of
recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
    Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the
scope of recognition of FM, subject to the limitations and conditions
specified above. OSHA also adds one standard to the NRTL Program's List
of Appropriate Test Standards.

III. Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the
agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2),
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393, September 18, 2020)
and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on May 4, 2021.
James S. Frederick,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2021-09800 Filed 5-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21228-21229]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08432]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER14-1668-000]

Community Wind North 1 LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Community Wind North 1 LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to

intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 28, 2014.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 8, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08432 Filed 4-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P