positions are equal to the LOD of the diptank operator replicates (5.6
(g).  For all measurements below the air concentration associated with
this detection limit, half the detection limit was used.  The dermal LOD
for all operators is also 5.6 (g.

In the DDAC study, dermal exposures to hands were measured separately
from the rest of the body.  For each replicate, the body dose
measurements and hand dose measurements were summed for a total dermal
dose.

Air concentrations were reported in the DDAC study. To convert air
concentrations ((g/m3) into terms of inhalation unit exposure (mg/day),
the air concentrations were multiplied by an inhalation rate of 1.0
m3/hr for light activity (EPA 1997), sample duration of 8 hrs/day, and a
conversion factor of 1 mg/1000 (g.  Table B-1 in Appendix B presents the
inhalation and dermal DDAC exposures.

Average DDAC dermal and inhalation exposures were multiplied by a
conversion ratio 0.3125 to account for the differences in Naphthenate
Salts and DDAC concentrations [i.e., (25% Naphthenate Salts / 80%
DDAC)].

Table 6.4 provides the short-, intermediate-, and long-term doses and
MOEs for chemical operators, graders, millwrights, clean-up crews, and
trim saw operators.  For all worker functions the calculated dermal and
inhalation MOEs were not of concern. The inhalation MOEs are above the
target MOE of 1,000 and therefore a confirmatory inhalation toxicity
study is not warranted based on the results of this assessment.  Also,
the dermal MOEs are above the target MOE of 100 for IT durations
assessed.

Table 6.4. Short-, Intermediate- and Long-Term Exposures and MOEs for
Wood Preservative Chemical Operators, Graders, Millwrights, Trim Saw
Operators, and Clean-Up Crews

Exposure Scenarioa

(number of volunteers)	Dermal UEb

(mg/day)	Inhalation UEb

(mg/day)	Conversion Ratioc 	Absorbed Daily Dosesd

(mg/kg/day)

	MOEse

Dermal	Inhalation	Dermal

IT

Target = 100	Inhalation

ST/IT/LT

Target = 1000

Occupational Handler

Chemical Operator (n=11)	9.81	0.0281	0.3125	0.044	0.00013	2,300	240,000

Occupational Post-application

Grader (n=13)	3.13	0.0295	0.3125	0.014	0.00013	7,100	230,000

Trim Saw (n=2)	1.38	0.061	0.3125	0.0062	0.00027	16,000	110,000

Millwright (n=3)	12.81	0.057	0.3125	0.057	0.00025	1,800	120,000

Clean-Up (n=6)	55.3	0.60	0.3125	0.25	0.0027	400	11,000

ST = 	Short-term duration; IT = Intermediate-term duration; and LT =
long-term

a.	The exposure scenario represents a worker wearing either long-sleeved
or short-sleeved shirts, cotton work trousers, and cotton glove
dosimeter gloves under chemical resistant gloves. Volunteers were
grouped according to tasks they conducted at the mill.

b.	Dermal and inhalation unit exposures are from Bestari et al (1999).
Refer to Table B-1 in Appendix B for the calculation of the dermal and
inhalation exposures. Inhalation exposure (mg/day) was calculated using
the following equation: air concentration ((g/m3) x inhalation rate (1.0
m3/hr) x sample duration (8 hr/day) x unit conversion (1 mg/1000 (g).
The inhalation rate is from USEPA, 1997.

c.	Conversion Ratio = 25% Naphthenate Salts / 80% DDAC (based on EPA
Reg. No. 1022-409 for 25% a.i. RTU product).

d.	Absorbed Daily dose (mg/kg/day) = exposure (mg/day) * conversion
ratio (0.3125) * absorption factor (NA for dermal and 100% for
inhalation)/body weight (70 kg).

e.			MOE = NOAEL (mg/kg/day) / Daily dose [Where IT NOAEL = 100
mg/kg/day for dermal and ST/IT/LT NOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day for inhalation ].
Target MOE is 100 for dermal and 1000 for inhalation exposure.

Diptank Operators

	Exposures to diptank operators were also assessed using surrogate data
from the DDAC study (Bestari et al., 1999). The diptank scenario
assessment was conducted differently than for the other job functions
because the concentration of DDAC in the diptank solution was provided.
Registered product use rates for dip treatments (dipping, diptank,
soaking or immersion) range from levels of 7.5 % a.i. up to 32 % a.i.,
based on the level of protection needed and treatment duration.  Dip
treatments are specified for 1-3 to 30 minutes per inch of wood
thickness, or from 12-48 hours for heavy wooden members. Typical
use-rate levels are closer to 17% - 25% a.i.  As conservative estimates,
the typical high-end and the maximum levels cited on labeling for this
use were assessed as 25% and 32% a.i.. EPA Reg. No.1022-409 is a 25%
a.i. RTU product and EPA Reg. No. 9630-31 is a 63% a.i. concentrate
requiring dilution to yield a 32% a.i. treatment solution prepared by
blending the concentrate with two parts solvent [i.e., 1:2 v/v use
dilution * 63% a.i. in product = 31.5 (32 % a.i.].  Both product labels
cite use of eye protection (goggles/face shield) and
rubber/chemical-resistant gloves as PPE.  Also they include a
respirator-use PPE statement as follows: “Wear a NIOSH/MHSA-approved
mist/vapor respirator when spraying for continued or prolonged use of
this product or for frequent use of the product.”

	The exposure data for diptank operators wearing gloves were converted
into “unit exposures” in terms of mg a.i. for each 1% of
concentration of the product. The calculation of the inhalation unit
exposure of 0.046 mg/1% solution is presented in Table B-2 in
Appendix B.  The air concentrations presented in the DDAC study were
converted to unit exposures using an inhalation rate of 1.0 m3/hr (light
activity) and a sample duration of 8 hrs/day.

The following equations are used to estimate dermal and inhalation
handler exposure:

Daily Dose = DDAC UE * AI * AB

		BW

Where

DDAC UE	=	DDAC dermal or inhalation unit exposure (mg/ 1% in solution);

AI		=	AI (25 % or 32% a.i. in solution/day);

AB	=	Absorption factor (NA for dermal,100% for inhalation); and

BW		=	Body weight (70 kg).

	Table 6.5 provides the short-, intermediate- and long-term doses and
MOEs for diptank operators.  The IT dermal MOEs are below the Agency
target of 100 (ranging from 70-90 for 32% and 25% a.i. products
respectively) and therefore denote potential dermal risk concerns.  The
inhalation ST/IT/LT MOEs are above the Agency target of 1,000, and not
of concern.  Therefore, a confirmatory inhalation toxicity study is not
warranted based on the results of this exposure scenario.

 Table 6.5.  Short-, Intermediate-, and Long-Term Exposures and MOEs
for Diptank Operators

Exposure Scenarioa

(number of replicates)	Dermal Unit Exposureb

(mg DDAC/1% solution)	Inhalation Unit Exposureb

(mg DDAC/1% solution)	App Rate

(% a.i. in solution/ day)c 	Absorbed Daily Doses d

(mg/kg/day)	MOEs e

Dermal	Inhalation	Dermal

IT

Target MOE = 100	Inhalation

ST/IT/LT

Target MOE = 1000

Occupational Handler

Dipping, with gloves (n=7)

	2.99	0.046	32 and 25	1.07-1.37	0.016-0.021	70-90	1,400-1,900

ST = 	Short-term duration;  IT =Intermediate-term duration; and LT =
long-term.

a. 	The exposure scenario represents a worker wearing long-sleeved
shirts, cotton work trousers, and gloves. Gloves were worn only when
near the chemical, not when operating the diptank.

b.	Dermal and inhalation unit exposures are from DDAC study (MRID
455243-04). Refer to Table B-2 in Appendix B for the dermal and
inhalation unit exposure calculations. Inhalation exposure (mg) was
calculated using the following equation: Air concentration (mg/m3) x
Inhalation rate (1.0 m3/hr) x Sample Duration (8 hr).  The inhalation
rate is from USEPA, 1997.

c.	The typical high-end and maximum application rates for dip
application method are 25% (1022-409) and 32% a.i. (9630-31) solutions.

d.	Absorbed Daily dose (mg/kg/day) = unit exposure (mg/1% a.i. solution)
* percent active ingredient in solution (25 or 32) * absorption factor
(NA for dermal and 100% for inhalation) / body weight (70 kg).

e.			MOE = NOAEL (mg/kg/day) / Daily dose [Where IT NOAEL = 100
mg/kg/day for dermal and ST/IT/LT NOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day for inhalation].
Target MOE is 100 for dermal exposure and 1,000 for inhalation exposure.

Construction Workers

	There are insufficient data to estimate the amount of exposure
associated with construction workers who install treated wood.  In
particular, values for the transfer coefficient associated with a
construction worker handling the wood could not be determined. However,
it is believed that the construction worker using a trim saw will have
larger dermal and inhalation exposures than the installer, due to the
amount of sawdust generated and the greater amount of hand contact that
would be necessary to handle the wood when using a saw compared to
installing the wood.

	6.4.2	Pressure Treatment Scenarios (Handler and Post-Application)  tc
\l3 "6.4.2	Pressure Treatment Scenarios (Handler and Post-application)

	Wood preservatives with Naphthenate Salts may be used to treat wood and
wood products using pressurized application methods, specifically
double-vacuum and full-cell pressure impregnation techniques which may
include thermal applications to condition the wood.  Registered product
use-rates for pressure treatment are at levels of 2% to 13% Naphthenate
Salts.  Typical use-rates contain 4 % to 13% a.i. in solvent-, oil- or
water-borne use-dilutions; resulting in 0.5% to 1.5% Copper (as metal),
in the solutions used for treatment.  The highest use rates are with
Copper Naphthenate products.  The ratio of Copper metal to Copper
Naphthenate on most labels where Copper content is specified for
pressure treatment is about 1:8 , although the calculated ratio can
vary.  The maximum rate of application used in this assessment is a 13 %
a.i. solution based on product labeling for EPA Reg. No. 43437-4, which
is an 89% a.i. concentrate for dilution with a hydrocarbon or petroleum
solvent.  The label for this product indicates that pressure treatment
use solutions should be prepared by blending the concentrate with seven
parts solvent [i.e., 1:7 v/v use dilution * 89% a.i. in product = 12.7
(13 % a.i. in solution during application].  In comparison, where water
dilutions are made, the highest use-rate concentration is 10% a.i. for
EPA Reg. No. 1022-568.

	The Naphthenate Salts are listed in the American Wood-Preservers’
Association (AWPA) Book of Standards for treating major softwood species
used for a variety of wood products (e.g., Douglas-fir and Southern
yellow pine). It is unclear if any hardwood species are pressure-treated
using Copper/Zinc Naphthenates. The minimum Copper Naphthenate
retentions (as elemental copper) range from 0.64 kg/m3 (0.04 lb/ft3) for
wood used above ground, to 0.96 kg/m3 (0.06 lb/ft3) for wood used in
soil (ground) and fresh water contact, 1.2 kg/m3 (0.075 lb/ft3) for wood
used in critical structural applications, 1.60 kg/m3 (0.10 lb/ft3) for
pilings (soil, fresh water and foundation), and up to 2.4 kg/m3 (0.15
lb/ft3) for utility poles.

	Chemical-specific exposure data are not available on Naphthenate Salts
for assessment of pressure treatment exposure.  Therefore, the
assessment relies on surrogate Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA) data
(ACC, 2002) and was based on the approach used in a previous Agency
exposure assessment (USEPA, 2003).

Surrogate Unit Exposure Data

	Dermal and inhalation exposures for pressure treatment uses are derived
from information in the exposure study sponsored by the American
Chemistry Council (2002) entitled “Assessment of Potential Inhalation
and Dermal Exposure Associated with Pressure Treatment of Wood with
Arsenical Wood Products” (ACC, 2002).  In this study, a treatment
solution of CCA was approximately 0.5 percent active ingredient.  The
CCA exposure monitoring study has been reviewed by the Agency and is
considered a valid surrogate source of data for pressure treatment
applications and is therefore used in estimating exposure to Naphthenate
Salts.

	The CCA study measured both handlers and post-application activities.
Although there is overlap in job functions, the handlers are defined as
being either treating operators (TOs) or treating assistants (TAs).  The
TOs were monitored at three sites (A, B, and C) using 5 replicates at
each site.  The TAs were monitored at two sites (Sites A and C) using 5
replicates at each site.  The post-application activities included: tram
setter (TS) at Site A (n=5); stacker operator (SO) at Site A (n=4);
loader operator (LO) at Sites A, B, C (n=15); supervisor (S) at Site B
(n=5); test borer (TB) at Site C (n=5); and the tallyman (TM) at Site C
(n=5).  According to the CCA study, workers wore cotton long-sleeved
shirts and cotton trousers (or one-piece cotton coveralls) over the
whole-body dosimeters (“plus additional shirts or jackets per typical
practice at Site B”) and chemical-resistant or work gloves, when
appropriate.  Therefore, the CCA study provides exposure data associated
with maximum PPE (excluding respirators).  In using the CCA study for
this Naphthenate Salts assessment, the TO and TA handlers are assessed
separately. The post-application job functions, however, have been
combined into one data set to represent post-application activities
because for most activities the sample size is small (5 ≤ n ≤ 15).

	The measured CCA dermal and inhalation exposure values were normalized
by the treatment solution concentration used at each of the 3 facilities
(i.e., unit exposure reported as µg arsenic/ppm treatment solution).
Table 6.6 presents the dermal and inhalation unit exposure values
normalized to the treatment solution concentration in ppm for (1) all
sites, (2) treatment operator (TA handler), (3) treatment assistant (TA
handler), and (4) all post-application job functions (TS, SO, LO, S, TB,
TM).  The normalization by treatment solution concentration was
performed to extrapolate the measured exposures in the CCA study
(monitored at ~0.5% a.i. solution) to the maximum Naphthenate Salts
treatment solution concentration from EPA Reg. No. 43437-4 (13 % a.i.
solution) (Shown in Table 6.7).

Table 6.6.  Dermal and Inhalation Exposure Values from a CCA Pressure
Treatment Study (Exposure Data used as Surrogate Unit Exposures for
Naphthenate Salts Assessment)

Site	Treatment Solution  	Statistic	Dermal Unit Exposure

((g As/ppm)	Air

Concentrationb

((g As/m3/ppm)	Inhalation Unit Exposurec

((g As/ppm)

	%	ppma

All sites - All Data

(n = 64)	0.438 to 0.595	4,380 to 5,950	Average ± std	0.97 ± Unknown
0.00013 ± 0.00023	0.00104

	Median	0.36	0.00013	0.00104

	90th percentile	2.07	0.00077	0.00617

	Maximum	7.74	0.0011	0.00882

All sites - Handler Treatment Operator

(n = 15)	0.438 to 0.595	4,380 to 5,950	Average ± std	2.04 ± 2.68
0.00032 ± 0.00038	0.00257

	Median	0.37	0.00013	0.00104

	90th percentile	5.39	0.00092	0.00737

	Maximum	7.74	0.0011	0.00882

All sites - Handler Treatment Assistant

(n = 10)	0.438 to 0.595	4,380 to 5,950	Average ± std	0.24 ± 0.14
0.0001 ± 0.00004	0.000802

	Median	0.23	0.00013	0.00104

	90th percentile	0.40	0.00013	0.00104

	Maximum	0.52	0.00014	0.00112

All sites – Post-application: All job functions (TS, SO, LO, S, TB,
TM)

(n = 39)	--	--	Average ± std	0.74 ± 0.73	0.00020 ± 0.00025	0.00160

	Median	0.42	0.00013	0.00104

	90th percentile	1.81	0.00050	0.00401

	Maximum	3.11	0.0011	0.00882

	a.	ppm = (% treatment solution) * (10,000).

	b.	Air concentration was calculated as (g collected per sample per ppm
/ (480 min per day x 2 L/min).

	c.	Inhalation unit exposure = air concentration ((g As/m3/ppm) *
breathing rate for light activities (0.0167 m3/min) * 	sample duration
(480 min).  Values shown in bold are used for the assessment.

Exposure Calculations

The following equation was used to estimate dermal and inhalation
exposure:

Absorbed Daily Dose = 	UE * AI * AB

	      	       BW

Where

UE	=	Unit exposure (mg As/ppm);

AI	=	Percent active ingredient (13 % a.i. in solution);

AB	=	Absorption factor (Not applicable [NA] for dermal, 100% for
inhalation); and

BW	=	Body weight (70 kg).

Results

	The estimated dermal and inhalation exposures and MOEs for Naphthenate
Salts pressure treatment uses are presented in Table 6.7.  The
calculated IT dermal MOEs for both the treatment operator handler (MOE =
25) and post-application workers (MOE = 70) were below the Agency target
MOE of 100 and therefore represent potential risks of concern.  The
ST/IT/LT inhalation MOEs for all scenarios are above the target MOE of
1,000 and not of concern.  In addition, because the MOE is greater than
1,000, a confirmatory inhalation toxicity study is not warranted based
on the screening-level results.

Table 6.7.  Short-, Intermediate-, and Long-Term Exposures and MOEs for
Pressure Treatment Handler and Post-application Scenarios Related to
Naphthenate Salts Use

Exposure Scenarioa

Unit Exposurea

((g As/ppm)

Application Rate

(% ai solution) 	Absorbed Daily Dosesb

(mg/kg/day)	MOEsc

	Dermal	Inhalation

Dermal	Inhalation	Dermal

IT

Target = 100	Inhalation

ST/IT/LT

Target=1000

Occupational Handler

Treatment Operator (TO)	2.04	0.00257	13	4	0.0048	25	6,300

Treatment Assistant (TA)	0.24	0.000802	13	0.446	0.0015	220	20,000

Occupational Post-application

All Job Functions

(Tram setter, stacker operator, loader operator, supervisor, test borer,
and tallyman) 	0.74	0.00160	13	1.37	0.0030	70	10,000

ST = 	Short-term duration; IT = Intermediate-term duration; and LT =
long-term.

a. 	Unit exposure values taken from CCA study and are shown in Table
6.6.  It is assumed that the dermal and inhalation exposure to As (per
ppm of a.i.) is representative of exposure to Naphthenate Salts.

 (μg As/ppm) x [% Naphthenate Salts in solution (13) x 10,000 (parts
per million conversion)] x (0.001 mg/μg) x absorption factor (NA for
dermal, 100% for inhalation) / Body weight (70 kg).

c.			MOE = NOAEL (mg/kg/day) / Daily dose [Where IT dermal NOAEL = 100
mg/kg/day and ST/IT/LT inhalation NOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day]. Target MOE is
100 for dermal exposure and 1000 for inhalation exposure.

	6.5	Data Limitations/Uncertainties tc \l2 "6.5	Data
Limitations/Uncertainties

	There are several data limitations and uncertainties associated with
the occupational handler exposure assessments which include the
following:

Certain surrogate dermal and inhalation unit exposure values were taken
from the proprietary CMA antimicrobial exposure study (US EPA 1999: DP
Barcode D247642) or from the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (US
EPA 1998) (See Appendix A for summaries of these data sources). Since
the CMA data are of poor quality, the Agency may request that
confirmatory data be submitted in order to support the values used in
these assessments.

The quantities handled/treated were estimated using Agency standard
assumptions.  In certain cases where standard values were unavailable,
AD used professional judgment based on Agency understanding of
industrial practices to create estimates.  Assumptions for these
scenarios were could be further refined with input from the registrants.

For the preservation of textiles, exposures to handlers during
preparation of dipping solution were assessed assuming a liquid pour or
liquid pump operation associated with automated (large-scale) dipping of
textiles in industrial settings.  However, based on the label use
instructions, it is clear that manual dipping is also used for
preservation of textiles (e.g., via preparation of small-scale dipping
solution by pouring product into a small receptacle and manually dipping
textiles).  Exposures that may occur as part of manual dipping activity
for textiles are not assessed here and may result in possibly higher
exposures than are estimated for the liquid pour/liquid pump scenarios
associated with large-scale dip operations.  However, since the Agency
assessed dip treatment of wood in this document (i.e., diptank
operators), and the use methods are comparable to those for textile
treatment, that assessment can be considered as a high-end
representative estimate of manual textile dip applications.

The type of spray equipment to be used was not specified on most labels
for scenarios involving preservation of outdoor-use textiles and general
preservation of wood use patterns.  Therefore, these scenarios were
assessed using the PHED unit exposures for use of a low-pressure hand
wand (for outdoor-use textiles), and use of an airless sprayer or a
low-pressure hand wand (for the general preservation of wood).  In these
cases, the appropriate application equipment could be further refined by
the registrants.  It is noted that by assuming use of an airless sprayer
for preservation of wood products, a higher unit exposure value is
selected and the quantity handled is greater; resulting therefore in
increased handler exposure.

Remedial treatments with Copper Naphthenate can be made to in-service
wooden poles/piles/posts using brush, trowel, caulking gun (mechanical
pressure pump), or impregnated bandage wraps.  In lieu of
chemical-specific data or surrogate data sources for the remedial
applications, handlers applying remedial-use products to
interior/exterior surfaces of in-service poles were assessed using unit
exposure data for the PHED paintbrush scenario (Scenario 22).  As a
high-end conservative approach, it was assumed that the PHED paintbrush
scenario unit exposure value can be used to represent the remedial
brushing techniques.  Exposures for the other application methods (i.e.,
trowel, caulking gun, or pre-manufactured bandage) were assumed to be
represented by the assessment done using unit exposure data for the
brush use scenario.  This approach may overestimate actual exposures for
workers conducting remedial treatments based on the following
considerations:

The brush-on application in treating in-service utility poles is
predominantly used for wood preservative pastes.  Brushing  a semi-solid
onto a pole may not present the same exposures as brushing a liquid (as
in PHED painting scenario) due to differences in the viscosity of the
material being brushed;

The liquid Copper Naphthenate formulations are injected directly into a
pole through a pressure pump to treat the internal areas of a pole. The
exposure to the applicator would be in the mix and load phase of the
application process and not in the actual application to the pole; and

Wrapping a bandage around a pole would not present the same exposures as
brushing a liquid (as in PHED painting scenario).

For the wood preservative pressure treatment scenarios, CCA exposure
data were used in the absence of exposure data specific to the
Naphthenate Salts.  For the wood preservative non-pressure treatment
scenarios, DDAC exposure data were used in the absence of more specific
exposure data.  Limitations and uncertainties associated with the use of
these data include:

The assumption was made that exposure patterns for workers at treatment
facilities using CCA and DDAC would be similar to exposure patterns for
workers at treatment facilities using Naphthenate Salts, and therefore
the exposures could be used as surrogate data for workers that treat
wood with Copper/Zinc Naphthenate-based formulations.

For environmental modeling, it was assumed that the leaching process
from the Naphthenate Salts-treated wood would be similar to that of CCA
and DDAC.  However, due to the lack of robust data for wood treated with
Naphthenate Salts, it is not possible to verify this assumption.

In the occupational assessment, dermal exposures to treated wood were
estimated using surrogate DDAC data (3 (g/cm2).  The degree of
uncertainty (under- or overestimation) associated with using the DDAC
hand residue data for dermal exposure from contacting treated lumber are
unknown.  The amount of residue measured on the test subjects’ hands
is variable and may be influenced by the duration of exposure, how often
wood is contacted, and the degree of contact (i.e., with or without use
of glove PPE).

7.0	REFERENCES tc \l1 "7.0	REFERENCES

American Chemistry Council (ACC). 2002.  Assessment of Potential
Inhalation and Dermal Exposure Associated With Pressure Treatment of
Wood with Arsenical Wood Products.  MRID 4550211-01.

Bestari et al. 1999.  [Sapstain Industry Group (SIG)-Consortium Task
Force] Measurement and Assessment of Dermal and Inhalation Exposures to
Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium Chloride (DDAC) Used in the Protection of Cut
Lumber (Phase III). Unpublished Study Prepared by University of Guelph.
309 p. (MRID 455243-04, SIG Task Force #73154).

Bharat Textiles.  2007. Weight/Density Estimate for Army Duck Canvas
taken from a Specification Chart on the internet site   HYPERLINK
"http://www.tentandcanvas.com/product.htm"
http://www.tentandcanvas.com/product.htm  of this canvas exporter. Last
viewed April 18, 2007.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide
Regulation (DPR). 2000.

Notice of Final Decision Concerning Reevaluation of Pesticide Products.
California Notice 2000-5.  Posted Date May 8, 2000.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Freeman, N , Jimenez M, Reed KJ, Gurunathan S,
Edwards RD, Roy A, Adgate JL, Pellizzari ED, Quackenboss J, Sexton K,
Lioy PJ, 2001.  Quantitative analysis of children’s microactivity
patterns:  The Minnesota Children’s Pesticide Exposure Study.  Journal
of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology.  11(6): 501-509.

Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB).  2007.    HYPERLINK
"http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB"
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB .  Last viewed May
2007.  Data on molecular weight cited in HSDB to:  NIOSH; Information
Profiles on Potential Occupational Hazards: Copper and Compounds.
Contract No 210-79-0030, Rockville, MD: NIOSH, 2nd Draft (1982).  Data
on vapor pressure cited in HSDB to:  Tomlin, C.D.S. (ed.). The Pesticide
Manual - World Compendium, 11th ed., British Crop Protection Council,
Surrey, England 1997, p. 859.

Health Canada. Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA).  1992.
Regulatory Notice. Label Improvement Program.  Mercury In-Can Paint
Preservatives and Copper and Zinc Naphthenate Wood Preservatives. Note
to CAPCO. C92-07. December 22, 1992.

Naphthenate Salts Research Task Force (NSRTF). 2007. Documents submitted
to the Agency outlining NSRTF Registrants supported uses for
Reregistration of Copper Naphthenate and Zinc Naphthenate. NSRTF. Dated
January 29, 2007 and February 24, 2007.

SIMetric.  2007.  Mass, Weight, Density, or Specific Gravity of Bulk
Materials.    HYPERLINK "http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_materials.htm"
http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_materials.htm , last accessed May 2007.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).  1997.  Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) for Residential Exposure Assessments.  EPA Office of
Pesticide Programs, Human Health Effects Division (HED).  December 18,
1997.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).  1997a.  Exposure Factors
Handbook. Volume I-II.  Office of Research and Development.  Washington,
D.C.  EPA/600/P-95/002Fa. August 1997.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).  1998.  PHED Surrogate
Exposure Guide.  Estimates of Worker Exposure from the Pesticide Handler
Exposure Database Version 1.1.   Washington, DC:  U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).  1999.  Evaluation of
Chemical Manufacturers Association Antimicrobial Exposure Assessment
Study.  Memorandum from Siroos Mostaghimi, Ph.D., USEPA, to Julie
Fairfax, USEPA. Dated November, 4 1999.  DP Barcode D247642.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).  2000.  Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) for Residential Exposure Assessments. Prepared for EPA
Office of Pesticide Programs, Health Effects Division. Dated April 5,
2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).  2001.  HED Science
Advisory Council for Exposure. Policy Update, November 12.  Recommended
Revisions to the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Residential
Exposure Assessment, February 22, 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).  2003.  Assessment of the
Proposed Bardac Wood Preservative Pressure Treatment Use.  Memorandum
from Tim Leighton and Siroos Mostaghimi.  February 11, 2003.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004.  Occupational and
Residential Exposure Assessment for Carboquat WP-50.  Memorandum from
Siroos Mostaghimi, USEPA to Velma Noble, USEPA.   Dated November 4,
2004. DP Barcodes D303714 and D303938.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).  2005.  Antimicrobials
Division’s Draft Standard Operating Procedures for Occupational and
Residential Exposure Assessments.  July, 2005. (Unpublished Internal
Guidance).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).  2006. Coppers: Second
Revised Human Health Chapter of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision
Document (RED). Reregistration Case Numbers 0636, 0649, 4025 and 4026.
DP Barcode 319683. Dated January 17, 2006. Document ID:
EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0558-0006. (EPA Docket: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0558; Copper
Cases; Coppers Reregistration Eligibility Decision, Notice of
Availability, January 25, 2006.).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006a. Registration
Division (RD) Action Memorandum. Reassessment of the One Exemption from
the Requirement of a Tolerance for Copper Naphthenate (CAS Reg. No.
1338-02-9).  Memorandum from Pauline Wagner, Chief, Inert Ingredient
Assessment Branch, RD. June 27, 2006.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006b. Meeting Minutes of
SMART Meeting for Naphthenate Salts. Reregistration Case 3099. November
6, 2006.  Transmittal from K. Avivah Jakob, Chemical Review Manager,
USEPA to Copper/Zinc Naphthenate RED Team Members, USEPA. Dated December
11, 2006.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007.   Review Memorandum:
Naphthenate Salts (Zinc/Copper) – Endpoint Selection Report from T.F.
McMahon, Ph.D., Senior Toxicologist, AD. April 16, 2007.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).  2007a. Review Memoranda:
Environmental Fate Transport Assessments for Zinc Naphthenate and Copper
Naphthenate for Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED). Two documents
from A. Najm Shamim, Ph.D., Chemist, AD. Dated February 20, 2007 and May
9, 2007 respectively.

APPENDIX A:

Summary of CMA and PHED Data

Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) Data:

In response to an EPA Data Call-In Notice, a study was undertaken by the
Institute of Agricultural Medicine and Occupational Health of The
University of Iowa under contract to the Chemical Manufacturers
Association.  In order to meet the requirements of Subdivision U of the
Pesticide Assessment Guidelines (superseded by Series 875.1000-875.1600
of the Pesticide Assessment Guidelines), handler exposure data are
required from the chemical manufacturer specifically registering the
antimicrobial pesticide.   The applicator exposure study must comply
with the assessment guidelines for “Applicator Exposure Monitoring”
in Subdivision U and the “Occupational and Residential Exposure Test
Guidelines” in Series 875.  For this purpose, CMA submitted a study on
February 28, 1990, entitled "Antimicrobial Exposure Assessment Study
(amended on December 8, 1992)" which was conducted by William Popendorf,
et al..  It was evaluated and accepted by the Occupational and
Residential Exposure Branch (OREB) of Health Effect Division (HED),
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) of EPA in 1990.  The purpose of this
CMA study was to characterize exposure to antimicrobial chemicals in
order to support pesticide reregistrations (CMA, 1992).  The unit
exposures presented in the most recent EPA evaluation of the CMA
database (USEPA, 1999) were used in this assessment.

The Agency determined that the CMA study had fulfilled the basic
requirements of Subdivision U - Applicator Exposure Monitoring.  The
advantages of CMA data over other “surrogate data sets” is that the
chemicals and the job functions of mixer/loader/applicator were defined
based on common application methods used for antimicrobial pesticides.
A few of the deficiencies in the CMA data are noted below:

The inhalation concentrations were typically below the detection limits,
so the unit exposures for the inhalation exposure route could not be
accurately calculated.

QA/QC problems including lack of either/or field fortification,
laboratory recoveries, and storage stability information.

Data have an insufficient amount of replicates.

The Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED):

The Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED) has been developed by a
Task Force consisting of representatives from Health Canada, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the American Crop Protection
Association (ACPA).  PHED provides generic pesticide worker (i.e.,
mixer/loader and applicator) exposure estimates.  The dermal and
inhalation exposure estimates generated by PHED are based on actual
field monitoring data, which are reported generically (i.e., chemical
specific names not reported) in PHED.  It has been the Agency’s policy
to use “surrogate” or “generic” exposure data for pesticide
applicators in certain circumstances because it is believed that the
physical parameters (e.g., packaging type) or application technique
(e.g., aerosol can), not the chemical properties of the pesticide,
attribute to exposure levels. [Note: Vapor pressures for the chemicals
in PHED are in the range of E-5 to E-7 mm Hg.]  Chemical specific
properties are accounted for by correcting the exposure data for study
specific field and laboratory recovery values as specified by the PHED
grading criteria.

PHED handler exposure data are generally provided on a normalized basis
for use in exposure assessments.  The most common method for normalizing
exposure is by pounds of active ingredient (ai) handled per replicate
(i.e., exposure in mg per replicate is divided by the amount of ai
handled in that particular replicate).  These unit exposures are
expressed as mg/lb ai handled.  This normalization method presumes that
dermal and inhalation exposures are linear based on the amount of active
ingredient handled.

APPENDIX B:

Calculation of DDAC Unit Exposure Values

Table B-1:  DDAC Dermal and Inhalation Exposure Values for Chemical
Operators, Graders, Millwrights, Clean-up Crews, and Trim Saw Operators
a

Replicate Number	Chemical Operator	Grader	Trim Saw Operator	Millwright
Cleanup Crew

	Dermal	Inhalation	Dermal	Inhalation	Dermal	Inhalation	Dermal	Inhalation
Dermal	Inhalation

	Potential exposure (mg)	Air Concentration ((g/m3) b, c	Potential
exposured (mg)	Potential exposure (mg)	Air Concentration

((g/m3) b, c	Potential exposure d (mg)	Potential exposure (mg)	Air
Concentration ((g/m3) b, c	Potential exposured (mg)	Potential exposure
(mg)	Air Concentra-tion ((g/m3) b, c	Potential exposured (mg)	Potential
exposure (mg)	Air Concentration ((g/m3) b, c	Potential exposured (mg)

1	3.5	10.1	0.0808	3.05	2.90	0.0232	0.78	2.83	0.0227	1.31	2.92	0.0233
68.3	2.99145	0.0239

2	6.11	2.80	0.0224	7.47	2.93	0.0234	1.98	12.3	0.0984	29.08	2.83	0.0226
0.720	2.78840	0.0223

3	6.07	2.79	0.0223	1.09	2.91	0.0233

8.03	15.6	0.1248	166	30.3	0.2424

4	46.37	2.82	0.0226	10.51	3.00	0.0240

	95.2	412	3.2960

5	0.94	2.93	0.0235	0.61	2.82	0.0226

	1.20	2.83585	0.0227

6	22.15	2.83	0.0227	0.98	2.85	0.0228

	0.260	2.80989	0.0225

7	21.45	2.77	0.0222	2.63	2.91	0.0233

	8	0.22	2.73	0.0218	5.23	2.85	0.0228

	9	0.44	2.77	0.0222	0.19	13.20	0.1056

	10	0.33	3.14	0.0251	1.47	2.89	0.0231

	11	0.29	2.88	0.0230	2.38	2.85	0.0228

	12

4.09	2.81	0.0225

	13

1.03	2.94	0.0235

	Arithmetic Mean	9.81	3.51	0.0281	3.13	3.68	0.0295	1.38	7.57	0.061	12.8
7.12	0.057	55.3	75.6	0.60

Minimum	0.22	2.73	0.0218	0.19	2.81	0.0225	0.78	2.83	0.0227	1.31	2.83
0.0226	0.260	2.79	0.0223

Maximum	46.4	10.1	0.081	10.51	13.2	0.106	1.98	12.3	0.098	29.1	15.6	0.125
166	412	3.30

a.	“Measurement and Assessment of Dermal and Inhalation Exposures to
Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium Chloride (DDAC) Used in the Protection of Cut
Lumber (Phase III)” is the proprietary Sapstain Industry Group (SIG)
study that values were obtained from for this table (Bestari et al.,
1999, MRID 455243-04, SIG Task Force #73154 ).

b.	The inhalation LOD was not provided for chemical operators, graders,
trim saw operators, millwrights, or the clean-up crew.  Therefore, the
LOD provided for the diptank operator (5.6 (g) was used for these
positions.  Residues less than the LOD were adjusted to 1/2 LOD.

c.	The inhalation limit of detection was converted to (g/m3 using the
following equation: Air concentration ((g /m3) = 5.6 (g / [average flow
rate (L/min) * sampling duration (480 min) * 1000 L/m3.  Data was
obtained from Bestari et al (1999).

d.	DDAC air concentrations were converted to inhalation exposure using
the following equation: Air concentration ((g /m3) x inhalation rate
(1.0 m3/hr) x Conversion factor (1mg/1000(g) x sample duration (8
hours/day).

Note: Arithmetic Mean values shown in bold typeface by job function are
recommended for use in dermal and inhalation exposure assessments for
non-pressure wood preservative treatments, where appropriate.

Table B-2:  Normalization of DDAC Dermal and Inhalation Exposure Values
for Diptank Operators a

Worker ID	Mill number	Sample Time (min)	DDAC

Conc. in

Diptank

(%)	Gloves	Dermal Body Exposure b (mg)	Hand Exposure b (mg)	Total Dermal
Exposure (mg)	Normalized Total Dermal Unit Exposure c

(mg/ 1 % solution)	Air Conc.d

(mg/m3)	Inhalation Exposure e (mg)	Normalized Inhalation Unit Exposure c

(mg /1% solution)

M7P1A	7	480	0.64	Rubber	0.5	3.44	3.94	6.16	0.003	0.024	0.0375

M7P1B	7	480	0.64	Rubber	0.32	2.02	2.34	3.66	0.003	0.024	0.0375

M8P4A	8	408	0.42	Rubber	0.04 f	1.34	1.38	3.29	0.003	0.024	0.057

M8P4B	8	480	0.42	Rubber	0.04 f	0.5	0.54	1.29	0.003	0.024	0.057

M8P7	8	480	0.42	Cotton	0.03	0.04	0.07	0.17	0.003	0.024	0.057

M11P9A	11	395	0.63	Leather	0.15	3.33	3.48	5.52	0.003	0.024	0.0381

M11P9B	11	480	0.63	Leather	0.1	0.45	0.55	0.87	0.003	0.024	0.0381

Arithmetic Mean	0.17	1.59	1.76	2.99	0.0030	0.0240	0.046

Standard Deviation	0.18	1.39	1.53	2.32	0.0000	0.0000	0.0103

Median	0.10	1.34	1.38	3.29	0.0030	0.0240	0.0381

Geometric Mean	0.10	0.83	0.99	1.86	0.0030	0.0240	0.045

90%tile	0.39	3.37	3.66	5.78	0.0030	0.0240	0.057

Maximum	0.50	3.44	3.94	6.16	0.0030	0.0240	0.057

a.	“Measurement and Assessment of Dermal and Inhalation Exposures to
Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium Chloride (DDAC) Used in the Protection of Cut
Lumber (Phase III)” is the proprietary Sapstain Industry Group (SIG)
study that values were obtained from for this table (Bestari et al.,
1999, MRID 455243-04, SIG Task Force #73154).

b.	DDAC concentration that was detected in the monitoring study (MRID
#455243-04).

¦

³

´

º

»

À

Ã

Ò

Ó

Û

Ü

÷

ø

ù

 hD@

 hD@

hC

8

9

R

…

¥

¦

»

Ä

ø

ù

(

3

:

>

P

Q

U

W

‰

™

¤

¥

¦

õ

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

‰

µ

í

态ú摧㘎က

$

Ø	@

Ø	@

옍#

Ø	@

Ø	@

&

$

Ø	@

Ø	@

@

옍#

摧䏰B᜞਀&䘋

옍)

옍#

摧帰í᜛਀&䘋

옍#

᜛਀&䘋

옍#

옍#

਀&䘋

਀&䘋

옍#

Ø	@

h&

@

Ø	@

Ø	@

Ø	@

$

Ø	@

Ø	@

 hU

  hU

Ø	@

$

Ø	@

Ø	@

 h

 h

h

h

h

 h

h

h

h

h

摧㘎

	”Å

hUF

h

h

b

b

b

b

b

愀̤摧お}

摧お}

愀̤摧お}

摧お}

B*

摧お}

摧お}

摧お}

B*

摧お}

摧お}

摧お}

摧お}

摧お}

摧お}

@

1

@

a

y

¬

Ã

Ä

Ó

û

&

]

d

g

?g

h

l

t

u

›

œ

Ç

È

É

v

w

É

Ê

@

@

옍)

@

@

@

@

@

@

␃؁Ĥ옍)

␃؁Ĥ옍)

옍)

萏Ό萑ﻮ葞Ό葠ﻮ摧Òæ$؀Ĥ옍)

$̀Ĥ옍)

$̀Ĥ옍)

$̀Ĥ옍)

$̀Ĥ옍)

옍)

؀Ĥ옍)

옍)

옍)

옍

옍#

@

@

@

@

Æ#

؀Ĥ옍#

옍#

@

␃؁Ĥ옍)

옍#

'̀Ĥ␅؁Ĥ옍)

š

'̀Ĥ␅؁Ĥ옍)

š

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

Ê

 h{

@

@

$

@

$

@

 h{

  h{

 h{

@

@

옍

@

@

@

@

@

 h{

 h{

  h{

 h{

 h{

Æ

Æ

Æ

 h{

 h{

 h{

 h{

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

  h{

&

  h{

␅؁Ĥ옍)

h€

h€

h€

踆

踆

踆

@

 h9

hŠ

hŠ

hŠ

@

@

@

옍#

愀Ĥ摧䴕

  hå

  hå

  hå

CJ

aJ

CJ

aJ

  hå

  hå

옍#

@

  h M

  h M

CJ

aJ

  hå

옍#

옍#

  hå

옍)

옍)

@

옍)

 hcy

@

@

摧㘎-਀&䘋

ᜧ̀Ĥ옍#

 hcy

hp

 hcy

  hcy

 hcy

 hcy

  hcy

 h^

  h^

 h^

  h^

옍#

摧㘎

옍#

옍#

옍#

摧⹼?᜛਀&䘋

옍#

옍#

”

Ÿ

ô

õ

ö

ø

ù

6

A

¥

°

±

²

·

Û

æ

ç

è

í

ý

þ

ᜧ̀Ĥ옍#

옍#

摧㘎᜛਀&䘋

옍#

옍

옍)

$

@

옍#

h_

옍)

옍

옍

옍)

옍)

옍)

ᜡ؀Ĥ옍#

$

@

$

@

@

摧㒕P଀䱛䱜

@

h‡

h‡

᜛਀&䘋

옍#

옍#

옍#

摧⋶¾᜞਀&䘋

옍)

옍#

摧㘎᜛਀&䘋

옍#

옍#

摧धp᜛਀&䘋

옍#

옍#

옍)

਀&䘋

옍#

@

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

᜞਀&䘋-옍)

愀Ĥ摧㘎̀Ĥ옍)

옍)

옍)

摧㘎᜞਀&䘋-옍)

 h

 h

 h

옍)

  h¶

摧㘎̀Ĥ옍)

옍)

@

옍)

萏ː萑ﴰ葞ː葠ﴰ摧㘎ఀed Unit Exposure (mg/1% ai solution) =
Exposure (mg DDAC) / concentration in diptank solution (% DDAC)

d.	All inhalation residues were <LOD (5.6 (g or 0.0056 mg/m3). 1/2 LOD
was used in all calculations (0.003 mg/m3). Air Concentration (mg/m3) =
5.6 (g / (~2 L/min flow rate x ~480 min) x 1000 L/m3 conversion x 0.001
(g /mg = 0.003 mg/m3

e.	Inhalation exposure (mg) = air concentration (mg/m3) x inhalation
rate (1.0 m3/hr) x sample duration (8 hours/day).

f.	Residues were <LOD for dermal samples M8P4A, M8P4B.  Sample size of
~11,231 cm2 x <0.007 ug/cm2 = LOD of 0.079 mg.  1/2 LOD reported (i.e.,
0.04 mg)

Note: Arithmetic Mean values shown in bold typeface are the recommended
Normalized Dermal and Inhalation Unit Exposure values for use in
exposure assessments for non-pressure wood

 	There is one tolerance exemption for residues of Copper Naphthenate
when used in accordance with good agricultural practice as an inert
ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops only (40
CFR 180.920).  No more than 2.5% Copper Naphthenate can be present, and
products containing Copper Naphthenate can only be applied before the
edible portions of plants begin to form.  This existing inert use has
been separately assessed within OPP (USEPA, 2006a).

 	Based on an Agency query of the Office of Pesticide Programs
Information Network (OPPIN), there are several cancelled registrations
for Copper and/or Zinc Naphthenate products which represent use patterns
no longer supported for these pesticides. These include: agricultural
fungicide uses as foliar treatments against mildew on ornamental
flowering plants (e.g., asters, dahlias, delphiniums, hydrangeas,
lilacs, roses and zinnias), dormant applications to apricots and
cherries, and surface treatments against mold, rot and mildew on seed
bag covers, sand bags, clay pots, tool handles and log homes.

 Because the ST dermal toxicological endpoint is based on skin
irritation and provided in terms of body surface area, the exposure must
be calculated in terms of body surface area (i.e., mg a.i. per cm2
exposed skin surface area).

 To convert from volume to weight of ready-to-use product, the density
of the product is required.  Product density was provided on some, but
not all, labels.  A density of 8.5 lb/gal was assumed for all products
based on the typical label values that were present.  Where dilution of
product was included in the use instructions, it was assumed that the
product was diluted with water at a density of 8.34 lb/gal (although it
is noted that some product labels instruct the user to dilute with an
organic solvent such as mineral spirits for some uses).

 PAGE

 PAGE   7

 PAGE  36

  PAGE  2

 PAGE  42

  PAGE  37

 PAGE  64


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 248 (Thursday, December 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 89679]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28698]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 2341-033, 2350-025]

Georgia Power Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment

    On December 18, 2018, as supplemented on May 24, 2019, September 6,
2022, September 8, 2022, and November 1, 2023, Georgia Power Company
(Georgia Power) filed an application to surrender, decommission, and
remove the Langdale Hydroelectric Project No. 2341 and the Riverview
Hydroelectric Project No. 2350. The projects are located on the
Chattahoochee River in Chambers County, Alabama and Harris County,
Georgia. The project does not occupy federal lands.
    The Commission issued public notice of the surrender applications
for both proceedings on January 24, 2019, with protests, comments, and
motions to intervene due to be filed by February 25, 2019. On February
14, 2019, the Commission issued public notice extending the comment and
intervention period until March 4, 2019, due to the funding lapse at
certain federal agencies between December 22, 2018 and January 25,
2019. Several commenters filed letters opposing the proposed dam
removals at both projects while others expressed concern regarding the
potential for islands in the river to be subject to increased erosion
due to dam removal. Additional comments focused on concern for the
potential loss of boating and fishing opportunities, loss of waterfront
access from neighboring property, as well as for the continued
existence of shoal bass. Letters of support for dam removal were filed
by local citizens as well as the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources Division of Wildlife Resources and the Chattahoochee
Riverkeeper. The Muskogee Nation requested that archeological surveys
be conducted prior to dam removal as well as subsequent monitoring to
ensure protection of archeological sites.
    On September 6, 2022, and supplemented on September 8, 2022,
Georgia Power amended its surrender applications by filing the
decommissioning plan for both projects. The Commission issued public
notice of the decommissioning plan on November 17, 2022, with protests,
comments, and motions to intervene due to be filed by December 19,
2022. On December 12, 2022, the FWS filed a letter of support for
decommissioning the projects and removing the associated dams. No other
comments were received pursuant to the public notice.
    On November 1, 2023, Georgia Power filed the following plans: (1)
Final Pre-Dam Removal Shoal Bass Abundance and Tracking Study Report;
(2) Final Sediment Quality Study Report; (3) Final Sediment Transport
Assessment Study Report; and (4) Revised Final Hydraulic and Hydrologic
Study Report.
    This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an
environmental assessment (EA) for the project. The planned schedule for
the completion of the EA is July 2024 \1\ Revisions to the schedule may
be made as appropriate. The EA will be issued and made available for
review by all interested parties. All comments filed on the EA will be
reviewed by staff and considered in the Commission's final decision on
the proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 42 U.S.C. 4336a(g)(1)(B) requires lead federal agencies to
complete EAs within 1 year of the agency's decision to prepare an
EA. This notice establishes the Commission's intent to prepare an EA
for the project; therefore, the EA must be issued within 1 year of
the issuance date of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members, and others to access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].
    Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Mark Ivy at
202.502.6156 or [email protected].

    Dated: December 21, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-28698 Filed 12-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 129)]
[Notices]
[Page 38189]
[DOCID:fr03jy08-32]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC08-588-001, FERC-588]

Commission Information Collection Activities, Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Submitted for OMB Review

June 26, 2008.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) has submitted the information
collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and reinstatement of this information collection
requirement. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB
and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as
explained below. The Commission received a comment in response to an
earlier Federal Register notice of February 28, 2008 (73 FR 10747-
10748) and has responded to their comments in its submission to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by July 31,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Address comments on the collection of information to the
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer.
Comments to OMB should be filed electronically, c/o oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and include the OMB Control No. (1902-0144) as a
point of reference. The Desk Officer may be reached by telephone at
(202) 395-7345. A copy of the comments should also be sent to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director,
ED-34, Attention: Michael Miller, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426. Comments may be filed either in paper format or electronically.
Those persons filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing.
For paper filings, such comments should be submitted to the Secretary
of the Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 and should refer to Docket No. IC08-
588-001. Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be
prepared in an acceptable filing format and in compliance with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission submission guidelines. Complete
filing instructions and acceptable filing formats are available at
(http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/electronic-media.asp). To
file the document electronically, access the Commission's website and
click on Documents & Filing, E-Filing (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
efiling.asp), and then follow the instructions for each screen. First
time users will have to establish a user name and password. The
Commission will send an automatic acknowledgement to the sender's e-
mail address upon receipt of comments.
    All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the
Internet through FERC's homepage using the ``eLibrary'' link. For user
assistance, contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at (866)
208-3676 or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Description

    The information collection submitted for OMB review contains the
following:
    1. Collection of Information: FERC-588 ``Emergency Natural Gas
Transportation, Sale and Exchange Transactions.''
    2. Sponsor: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    3. Control No.: 1902-0144.
    The Commission is now requesting that OMB approve with a three-year
extension of the expiration date, with no changes to the existing
collection. The information filed with the Commission is mandatory.
    4. Necessity of the Collection of Information: Submission of the
information is necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its
responsibilities in implementing the statutory provisions 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) (Pub. L. 75-688) (15 U.S.C. 717-717w) and
provisions of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA), (15 U.S.C.
3301-3432). Under the NGA, a natural gas company must obtain Commission
approval to engage in the transportation, sale or exchange of natural
gas in interstate commerce. However, section 7(c) exempts from
certificate requirements ``temporary acts or operations for which the
issuance of a certificate will not be required in the public
interest.'' The NGPA also provides for non-certificated interstate
transactions involving intrastate pipelines and local distribution
companies.
    A temporary operation, or emergency, is defined as any situation in
which an actual or expected shortage of gas supply would require an
interstate pipeline company, intrastate pipeline or local distribution
company, or Hinshaw pipeline to curtail deliveries of gas or provide
less than the projected level of service to the customer. The natural
gas companies file the necessary information with the Commission so
that it may determine if the transaction/operation qualifies for
exemption. A report within forty-eight hours of the commencement of the
transportation, sale or exchange, a request to extend the sixty-day
term of the emergency transportation, if needed, and a termination
report are required. The data required to be filed for the forty-eight
hour report is specified by 18 CFR 284.270 of the Commission's
regulations.
    5. Respondent Description: The respondent universe currently
comprises 8 companies (on average per year) subject to the Commission's
jurisdiction.
    6. Estimated Burden: 80 total hours, 8 respondents (average per
year), 1 response per respondent, and 10 hours per response (average).
    7. Estimated Cost Burden to respondents: 80 hours/2080 hours per
years x $126,384 per year = $4,860.

    Statutory Authority: Sections 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA),
Pub. L. 75-688 (15 U.S.C. 717-717w) and the Natural Gas Policy Act
of 1978 (NGPA) (15 U.S.C. 3301-3432).

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-15166 Filed 7-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 117)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34661-34663]
[DOCID:fr18jn10-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0549; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-109-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model DC-
9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and
MD-88 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-
87 (MD-87), and MD-88 airplanes. This proposed AD would require
installing fuel level float and pressure switch in-line fuses on the
wing forward spars and forward and aft auxiliary fuel tanks, depending
on the airplane configuration. This proposed AD results from fuel
system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD
to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which,
in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank
explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 2, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-
0001; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-
4137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0549;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-109-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a
regulation titled ``Transport

Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and
Maintenance and Inspection Requirements'' (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001).
In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and
new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal
Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88,'' Amendment 21-78, and
subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to
perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance
procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety
standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to
adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary
to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in
combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure
experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included
consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for
further action.
    We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are
necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel
tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result
in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
    An investigation by Boeing has determined that fuel level float
switch wires located on the left and right wing forward spars, the
center tank forward spar, and the forward and aft auxiliary fuel tanks
and pressure switch wires located on the center tank forward spar are
routed in the same bundles as power wires. If a short circuit between a
fuel level float or pressure switch wire and a power wire occurs, an
over-current can cause excessive temperature in the fuel level float or
pressure switch wire, which could result in damage and become a
potential ignition source.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin MD80-28-226, dated April
14, 2010. The service bulletin describes procedures for installing fuel
level float and pressure switch in-line fuses, including wiring
changes, in the following locations:
     On the left, right, and center wing forward spars (Groups
1 through 6).
     On the left, right, and center wing forward spars, and aft
auxiliary fuel tank (Groups 7 and 8).
     On the left, right, and center wing forward spars, forward
auxiliary fuel tank, and aft auxiliary fuel tank (Groups 9 through 11).

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type
designs. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions
specified in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 640 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs,
depending on the airplane configuration, for U.S. operators to comply
with this proposed AD.

                                                                 Table--Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Average                                                Number of U.S.-
              Action                      Work hours        labor rate          Parts           Cost per product      registered         Fleet cost
                                                             per hour                                                  airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation......................  Between 7 and 17.....          $85  Between $817 and      Between $1,412 and               640  Between $903,680 and
                                                                         $1,725.               $3,170.                               $2,028,800,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

McDonnell Douglas Corporation: Docket No. FAA-2010-0549; Directorate
Identifier 2010-NM-109-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by August 2, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model DC-9-
81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and
MD-88 airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in
Boeing Service Bulletin MD80-28-226, dated April 14, 2010.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD
to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks,
which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in
fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Fuse Installation

    (g) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD,
install fuel level float and pressure switch in-line fuses, and do
applicable wiring changes, in the applicable locations specified in
paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD. Do the actions in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin MD80-28-226, dated April 14, 2010.
    (1) For Groups 1 through 6: On the left, right, and center wing
forward spars.
    (2) For Groups 7 and 8: On the left, right, and center wing
forward spars, and aft auxiliary fuel tank.
    (3) For Groups 9 through 11: On the left, right, and center wing
forward spars, forward auxiliary fuel tank, and aft auxiliary fuel
tank.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L,
FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-
5262; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 10, 2010.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-14796 Filed 6-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 165 (Tuesday, August 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50906-50907]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20266]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR14-50-000.
    Applicants: Regency DeSoto Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(e) + (g): General Terms and
Conditions to be effective 8/19/2014; TOFC: 1280.
    Filed Date: 8/19/14.
    Accession Number: 20140819-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/9/14.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1183-000.
    Applicants: WTG Hugoton, LP.
    Description: WTG Hugoton Order to Show Cause Filing to be effective
9/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20140815-5006.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/27/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1184-000.
    Applicants: Tres Palacios Gas Storage LLC.
    Description: Tariff Changes to Enhance Firm Storage Service to be
effective 9/15/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20140815-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/27/14

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1193-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Section 4 Revisions--Availability of Capacity for Firm
Services to be effective 9/20/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/20/14.
    Accession Number: 20140820-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and

385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s).
Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a
party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 21, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-20266 Filed 8-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P