MEMORANDUM

DATE:	July 22, 2010

SUBJECT:	Estimated Drinking Waters Concentrations (EDWCs) of Triflusulfuron-methyl for the Use in the Human Health Risk Assessment: New Use (IR-4) of the Chemical on Garden Beets (PC Code 129002; DP Barcode D373494)

TO:		Laura Nollen, Risk Manager Reviewer

		Barbara Madden, Review Manager #5

		Daniel (Dan) Rosenblatt, Chief

		Minor Use Team

Risk Integration, Minor Use, and Emergency Response Branch

		Registration Division (7505P)

AND:		Elizabeth Holman, Chemist, Risk Assessor

Linnea Hansen, Risk Assessor

Christina Swartz, Chief

		Registration Action Branch II

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

		Environmental Risk Branch V

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

THRU:	Mah T. Shamim, Ph.D., Chief

Environmental Risk Branch V

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

This memo presents the surface and ground Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) for triflusulfuron-methyl, calculated using the Tier 2 aquatic models PRZM/ EXAMS and the Tier 1 aquatic model SCI-GROW, respectively, for use in the human health risk assessment.  The registrant is proposing the use of the chemical on garden beets.  Based on an inspection of the new use of triflusulfuron-methyl, it was found that sugar beet still represents the scenario with the highest exposure.  The previously modeled use covers the new use.  Therefore, the drinking waters assessment results do not change from the previous ones.  For electronic copy of the previous drinking waters assessment refer to DP Barcode D260078 (Attachment A, see page 3 of this document).

The EDWCs for triflusulfuron-methyl, calculated using the Tier 2 models PRZM/ EXAMS (surface water) and the Tier 1 model SCI-GROW (ground water) for use in the human health risk assessment were as follows:  In surface waters, the acute value is 0.42 ppb and the chronic value is 0.005 ppb.  The groundwater screening concentration of triflusulfuron-methyl suitable for both acute and chronic exposures is 0.50 ppb (Table 1).  Should any questions arise, please, contact EFED.

Table 1.  Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) for human health risk assessment for aerial application of triflusulfuron-methyl on sugar beets

Chemical

Acute Surface Water PRZM/EXAMS (ppb)

Chronic Surface Water  PRZM/EXAMS (ppb)

Acute and Chronic Ground Water  SCI-GROW (ppb)*

Triflusulfuron-methyl	0.42	0.005	0.50

Identification of data gaps:

Additional aerobic and anaerobic soil studies and aerobic and anaerobic aquatic metabolism studies would decrease substantially the uncertainties in the fate database.

Use Characterization

DuPont™ UpBeet® Herbicide (EPA Reg. No. 352-569).  DuPont™ UpBeat® is a water dispersible granule (dry flowable) formulation, containing 50% active ingredient.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table 2.  Summary of use information for triflusulfuron-methyl, based on the proposed label for DuPont™ UpBeet® Herbicide (EPA Reg. No. 352-569).  The new use is shaded yellow and bolded.

USE	SINGLE  APP. RATE   (lb a.i./A)	NUMBER OF APPS.	SEASONAL APP. RATE (lb a.i./A)	INTERVAL BETWEEN APPS. (days)	APP. METHOD	INCORP. DEPTH (inches)	PHI

Garden beets	0.0156	3	0.0469	NS1	G or A2	02	602

Sugar beets (includes those grown for seeds)	0.0156-0.0313; 0.003913	2-3 0.0781	5	G or A	0	60

Belgian Endive/Chicory	0.0156	2-3	0.0469	5	G or A2	02	60

1 Not specified.  Apply at 2 to 4 leaf stage; additional applications at 4 to 6 and 6 to 8 leaf stages.

2 Per reference to Section 3 label in the Supplemental Label and instructions provided in the package.

3 Microrate applications (make a minimum of 3 applications).Attachment A.  Electronic copy of previous DWA for Triflusulfuron-methyl

                   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                                          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                                                                                OFFICE OF

                                                                                PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

                                                                                TOXIC SUBSTANCES

December 20, 1999

DP Barcode:	D260078

PC Code:	129002

MEMORANDUM

Subject:	Triflusulfuron-Methyl Tier II Estimated Environmental Concentrations for Use in the Human Health Drinking Water Risk Assessment

Product: UpBeet Water Dispersible Granule (50% Active); 352-569

Registrant: DuPont

To:	Michael Doherty

Registration Action Branch 2

Health Effects Division (7509C)

Vickie Walters, Product Manager

Herbicide Branch

Registration Division (7505C)

From:	Sid Abel, Environmental Scientist

Fate and Monitoring Branch

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C)

Thru:	Betsy Behl, Chief

     	Fate and Monitoring Branch

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C)

This memorandum transmits the Tier II Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) for the tolerance reassessment of triflusulfuron-methyl applied to sugarbeets using the Index Reservoir (IR) and Percent Crop Area (PCA) modifications to PRZM and EXAMS.  These results do not include EECs for any of triflusulfuron-methyl’s known degradates.  Should HED determine that there is a need for a separate assessment for toxicologically significant degradates, please contact Sid Abel (305-7346) as soon as possible.

Summary and Conclusions

Triflusulfuron-methyl may be found in surface water used as a source of drinking water at peak concentrations up to 0.42 µg/L and on a long-term basis (mean) at 0.005 µg/L from use on sugarbeets in Minnesota.  Ground water concentrations, independent of the use area, may be found at up to 0.5 µg/L; peak and mean concentrations.  Triflusulfuron-methyl will not persist in the environment (accumulate between repeated yearly applications) due to its short initial half-life (bi-phasic) and hydrolytic half-life at environmental pH’s.  The low adsorption coefficients may facilitate triflusulfuron’s leaching to ground water under favorable conditions (shallow depth to groundwater, coarse soils, or soils with significant preferential flow). Due to triflusulfuron-methyl’s structure and physical properties, it is not likely to be significantly affected by common treatment methods employed at most community water systems (Faust, 1998).

Triflusulfuron-methyl is currently registered for use on sugarbeets.  Estimated environmental concentrations for sugarbeets are provided Table 1. These estimated values are recommended for use in the drinking water assessment.

 Table 1.  Recommended Surface and Ground Water Concentrations ( µg/L)

Agricultural Setting

Surface Water Concentrations

Ground Water Concentrations

Sugarbeets Grown in Minnesota

Peak

Mean

0.50

0.42

0.005

Environmental Fate Summary

Triflusulfuron-methyl is not a very persistent sulfonylurea herbicide.  The principle pathway of dissipation in the environment is through aerobic and anaerobic metabolism and to a lesser degree hydrolysis.  Direct photolysis on soil and in water is not a very important pathway, but indirect photolysis may play a minor role in its degradation on soils.  Biotically, Triflusulfuron-methyl degradation follows a bi-phasic pattern with an approximate soil half-life of 6 days initially, followed by a secondary half-life of approximately 170 days in aerobically incubated soil.  Under anaerobic soil conditions, triflusulfuron-methyl degraded with a half-life of 20 days.  Triflusulfuron-methyl is mobile in all soils tested; Kd’s less than 1.3.  However, the parent was not detected below 14 inches in the two field dissipation studies and decreased in concentration over the period of the study indicating biotic degradation.  Sorption was not well correlated to organic matter, but was better correlated to the soil pH.

Triflusulfuron-methyl degrades through cleavage of the sulfonylurea bridge to form degradates containing either the triazine or phenyl ring.  The principle degradates seen in the laboratory studies is methyl saccharin and various triazine amines.  Methyl saccharin is more mobile than the parent with Kd’s all less than 1.0 (KOC’s <25).  In several of the soils, binding was so low that analysis could not be performed to determine the extent of binding.  The half-life of methyl saccharin is 50-days under aerobic conditions and further degrades via mineralization.  The other major degradates, triazine-amines, are less mobile than the parent.  Among the triazine-amines, mobility increases with a higher degree of demethylation.  The bis-NDM-triazine amine is the most mobile with Kd’s up to 3.72 (KOC’s <220) and the least mobile, triazine-amine, had Kd’s up to 10 (KOC’s <2175).  For NDM-triazine-amine, Kd’s were up to 4.88  (KOC’s <300). The half-life of triazine amine is approximately 40 days and further degrades by demethylation.  Both degradates were detected up to the 36-inch segment in one or both of the field dissipation studies.  Concentrations of methyl saccharin and triazine amine were very similar during the studies and dissipated with very similar patterns.

Water Resources Summary: Drinking Water

Surface Water

PRZM/EXAMS modeling using the Index Reservoir (IR) and the Percent Crop Area (PCA) adjustment was used to estimate concentrations in surface water used as a source of drinking water.  The index reservoir represents a watershed that is more vulnerable than most used as drinking water sources.  It was based on characteristics of a real watershed located in western Illinois (Jones, et al., 1998).  The index reservoir defines a standardized watershed which is tailored for each crop simulated by adding local soils, weather, and cropping practices to represent a vulnerable watershed for that crop.  If a community derives its drinking water from a large river, the estimated exposure using the IR would likely be higher than the actual exposure.  Conversely, a community that derives its drinking water from reservoirs smaller than the IR and/or with minimal outflow would likely get higher drinking water exposure than estimated using the index reservoir.  Also, areas with a more humid climate than the modeled scenario that use a similar reservoir and cropping pattern, would likely have higher pesticide concentrations in their drinking water than predicted.

Transport through the reservoir is represented by a single steady flow and does not take into account reservoir discharges and withdrawals. This assumption will underestimate removal from the reservoir during wet periods and overestimate removal during dry periods.  The index reservoir scenario uses the characteristic of a single soil to represent all soils in the basin.  Soils can vary substantially across even small areas, however, this variation is not reflected in these simulations.

The index reservoir scenario does not take into account pesticide or water input from tile drainage.  Areas that are prone to substantial runoff are often tile drained.  This may underestimate exposure, particularly on a chronic basis (the watershed on which the IR is based had no documented tile drainage). Additionally, EXAMS is unable to easily model spring and fall turnover events which results in complete mixing of a chemical through the water column. Because of this inability, Shipman City Lake has been simulated without stratification.  There is data to suggest that Shipman City Lake does stratify in the deepest parts of the lake at least in some years.  This may result in both an over and underestimation of the concentration in drinking water depending upon the time of the year and the depth the drinking water intake is drawing from. A full description of the Index Reservoir and assumptions is provided in the “Guidance for Use of the Index Reservoir in Drinking Water Exposure Assessment” available from EFED upon request.

Development of a Percent Crop Area (PCA), watershed-based adjustment factor for the percent of land in production for a specific crop, for sugarbeets has not been performed.  The SAP recommended against the use of the PCA for ‘minor’ crops because it believed that the scale of the watershed size used to develop the PCA was too large and the resulting PCAs would likely be highly inaccurate and not conservative.  In the absence of a PCA for sugarbeets, a default PCA of 0.9 is currently being used.  This is based on the highest PCA for all 8-digit HUCs in the coterminous U.S. was selected for the default PCA.  This value is 90 percent (0.9); representing a basin where 90 percent of the land area is in some form of agricultural production.

Tier 2 modeling with the index reservoir and the PCA is intended for use as a screen.  That is, the estimated concentration should be higher than most values that occur in areas where a particular crop is grown.  A preliminary assessment comparing monitoring data for a few chemicals to estimates made using these methods indicate that IR/PCA estimates may not be consistently conservative.  However, monitoring data at drinking water facilities is sparsely available and we are unable to check the validity for most crops against monitoring data at this time.

Additional inherent limitations in the data used to develop the PCA include:

The conversion of county-level data to watershed-based percent crop areas assume the distribution of the crops within a county is uniform and homogeneous.  Distance between the treated fields and the water body is not taken into account.

The PCA’s were generated using 1992 Census of Agriculture.  However, recent changes in the agriculture sector from farm bill legislation may significantly impact the distribution of crops throughout the country. Therefore, the approach assumes that year-to-year variation in cropping patterns are minimal, thus, have minimal impacts.

The results of the modeling are presented in Table 2 and the pesticide-specific parameters used to model sugarbeets are provided in Table 3.  Appendix A provides the scenario specific inputs for PRZM and EXAMS. A brief description of the modeled site follows.

The field used to grow sugarbeets is located in Polk County, Minnesota. The soil is a Bearden silty clay loam; a fine-silty, mixed, superactive, frigid Aeric Calciaquolls.  The series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained, moderate to slowly permeable soil that formed in calcareous silt loam and silty clay loam lacustrine sediments. These soils are on glacial lake plains and have slopes of 0 to 3 percent.  Mean annual precipitation is about 18 inches. The series is of large extent in eastern North Dakota and northwestern Minnesota.  These soils are nearly all cropped to small grains and row crops such as sugarbeets. The Bearden soil is characterized as a Hydrologic Group C soil.

Table 2.  PRZM/EXAMS Estimated Surface Water Concentrations (µg/L)

Agricultural Setting

Estimated 1 in 10 Year Peak

Estimated 1 in 10 Year Mean

Sugarbeets Grown in Minnesota

0.42

0.005

Table 3. Triflusulfuron-methyl Specific PRZM/EXAMS Input Parameters

Input Parameter

Input Value

Data Source

Hydrolysis

pH 5: 3.7 days

pH 7: 32 days

pH 9: 36 days

MRID 4249859

Photolysis (soil and water)

Stable

MRIDs 42991424; 42991426

Aerobic Soil Metabolism (T1/2)

Bi-Phasic: 6 days, 170 days

MRID 42496860

Soil Adsorption Coefficient (L/Kg)

0.41

MRID 42496861

Solubility (µg/L)

110

EFED One-Liner

Henry’s Law Coefficient (atm. m3/mole

5.9E-10

EFED Estimated

Vapor Pressure (torr)

1.0E-7

EFED One-Liner

Application Rate (kg/ha)

0.035

Label: UpBeet

Number of Application and Method

2; aerial

Label: UpBeet

Ground Water

Ground water EEC were modeled using SCI-GROW, a screening groundwater regression model developed using data from prospective groundwater studies submitted to the OPP in support of registration.  SCI-GROW provides a reasonable high-end estimate of ground water concentrations of pesticides within a defined set of fate and transport characteristics on soils that are known to be vulnerable to pesticide leaching (high sand content with shallow depth to groundwater).

Table 4 provides the fate inputs and ground water concentration for the application rate and interval listed in Table 3.  The estimated EEC is considered representative of both a peak and long-term average concentration because of the inherent transport nature of ground water (generally slow movement from source of contamination both laterally and horizontally).

Table 4.  SCI-GROW Estimated Ground Water Concentrations ( µg/L)

Agricultural Setting

Fate and Transport Inputs

Concentration in Ground Water (µg/L)

Aerobic Soil Metabolism  (T1/2)

Soil Adsorption Coefficient (L/Kg)

Sugarbeets

170

0.50

0.50

REFERENCES

Faust, S.D. and O.M. Aly. 1998. “Chemistry of Drinking Water Treatment.”  2nd Edition Revised, CRC Press LLC.  July, 1998.

Jones, R.D., S.W. Abel, W. Effland, R. Matzner, and R. Parker. 1998.  “An Index Reservoir for Use in Assessing Drinking Water Exposures. Chapter IV in Proposed Methods for Basin-Scale Estimation of Pesticide Concentrations in Flowing Water and Reservoirs for Tolerance Reassessment., presented to the FIFRA Science Advisory Panel, July 29, 1998.  http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/SAP/1998/index.htm

APPENDIX A

Table A-1 PRZM 3.12   Climate and time parameters for Minnesota Sugarbeets.

Minnesota Potatoes

Parameter

Value

Source

Quality

Starting Date*

January 1, 1948

Ending Date*

December 31, 1983

Pan Evaporation Factor  (PFAC)

0.760

PIC

good

Snowmelt Factor  (SFAC)

0.500 cm ( K-1

PIC

good

Minimum Depth of

Evaporation  (ANETD)

12.0 cm

PIC

good

* These values are in the RUN file rather than the INP file.

Table A-2.  Erosion and landscape parameters for Minnesota Sugarbeets.

Minnesota Potatoes

Parameter

Value

Source

Quality

USLE K Factor

 (USLEK)

0.28 tons EI-1*

PIC

good

USLE LS Factor (USLELS)

0.12

PIC

fair

USLE P Factor  (USLEP)

0.50

**

fair

Field Area  (AFIELD)

172.8 ha

Index Reservoir

good

NRCS Hyetograph (IREG)

3

good

Slope (SLP)

3.0%

Official Soil Description***

fair

Hydraulic Length (HL)

464 m

Index Reservoir

good

* EI = 100 ft-tons * in/ acre*hr

** P Factor represent compromise for 1 year of conventional tillage and two years of no till.

*** OSD located at http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soild/osd.

  Table A-3. PRZM 3.1 crop parameters for Minnesota Sugarbeets.

Minnesota Potatoes

Parameter

Value

Source

Quality

Initial Crop (INICRP)

1

PIC

good

Initial Surface Condition (ISCOND)

3

PIC

fair

Number of Different Crops  (NDC)

1

**

fair - good

Number of Cropping Periods (NCPDS)

36

Standard

Maximum rainfall interception storage of crop (CINTCP)

0.10

PIC

fair

Maximum Active Root Depth (AMXDR)

20 cm

PIC

fair

Maximum Canopy Coverage (COVMAX)

80

PIC

fair

Soil Surface Condition After Harvest (ICNAH)

3

PIC

fair

Date of Crop Emergence

(EMD, EMM, IYREM)

05/16

fair - good

Date of Crop Maturity

(MAD, MAM, IYRMAT)

10/06

 fair - good

Date of Crop Harvest (HAD, HAM,IYRHAR)

10/16

fair - good

Maximum Dry Weight (WFMAX)

0.0

PIC

fair

SCS Curve Number (CN)

82-91

PIC

fair

Manning’s N Value (MNGN)

0.020

PRZM Manual

good

USLE C Factor (USLEC)

0.18-0.43

PIC

fair

** P Factor represent compromise for 1 year of conventional tillage and two years of no till.

Table A-4.  PRZM 3.1 soil parameters for Bearden silty clay  used for sugarbeets in Polk County, Minnesota.

Parameter

Value

Source

Quality

Total Soil Depth (CORED)

100 cm

PIC

good

Number of Horizons (NHORIZ)

4

	PIC

good

First, Second, Third, and Fourth Soil Horizons (HORIZN = 1, 2, 3, 4)

Horizon Thickness (THKNS)

10 cm (HORIZN = 1)

08 cm (HORIZN = 2)

 54 cm (HORIZN = 3)

28 cm (HORIZN = 4)

 PIC

good

Bulk Density (BD)

1.40 g (cm-3 (HORIZN = 1, 2)

1.50 g (cm-3 (HORIZN = 3)

1.80 g (cm-3 (HORIZN = 4)

PIC

good

Initial Water Content (THETO)

0.377 cm3-H2O (cm3-soil (HORIZN = 1, 2)

0.292 cm3-H2O (cm3-soil (HORIZN = 3)

0.285 cm3-H2O (cm3-soil (HORIZN = 4)

PIC

good

Compartment Thickness (DPN)

0.1 cm (HORIZN = 1)

1.0 cm (HORIZN = 2)

2.0 cm (HORIZN = 3, 4)

standard

Field Capacity (THEFC)

0.377 cm3-H2O (cm3-soil (HORIZN = 1, 2)

0.2292cm3-H2O (cm3-soil (HORIZN = 3)

0.285 cm3-H2O (cm3-soil (HORIZN = 4)

PIC

good

Wilting Point

0.207 cm3-H2O (cm3-soil (HORIZN = 1, 2)

0.132 cm3-H2O (cm3-soil (HORIZN = 3)

0.125 cm3-H2O (cm3-soil (HORIZN = 4)

PIC

good

Organic Carbon Content

1.16% (HORIZN = 1, 2, 3)

0.174% (HORIZN = 4)

PIC

good

Table A-5.  PRZM 3.1 model state flags for modeled scenario.

Parameter

Value

Pan Factor Flag (IPEIND)

0

Foliar Application Model Flag (CAM)

2

Bulk Density Flag (BDFLAG)

0

Water Content Flag (THFLAG)

0

Kd Flag (KDFLAG)

0

Drainage model flag (HSWZT)

0

Method of characteristics flag (MOC)

0

Irrigation Flag (IRFLAG)

0

Soil Temperature Flag (ITFLAG)

0

Thermal Conductivity Flag (IDFLAG)

0

Biodegradation Flag (BIOFLAG)

0

Erosion Calculation Flag (ERFLAG)

4

Table A-6.  EXAMS II geometry for Index Reservoir.

Littoral

Benthic

Source

Area (AREA)

52,609 m2

52,609 m2

Jones et al., 1998

Depth (DEPTH)

2.74 m

  0.05 m

Jones et al., 1998

Volume (VOL)

144,000 m3

 2630 m3

Jones et al., 1998

Length (LENG)

640 m

640 m

estimated from map

Width (WIDTH)

82.2 m

82.2 m

estimated from map

Stream Flow (STFLO)

Minnesota Reservoir

12.25 m3(h-1

0 m3(h-1

see guidance†

†Guidance for Use of the Index Reservoir in Drinking Water Exposure Assessments, Jones, et al. November 16, 1999.

Table A-7.  EXAMS II dispersive transport parameters between benthic and littoral layers in the Index Reservoir.

Parameter

Path 1*

Source

Turbulent Cross-section (XSTUR)

52609 m2

Burns, 1997

Characteristic Length (CHARL)

1.395 m

Burns, 1997

Dispersion Coefficient for Eddy Diffusivity (DSP)**

3.0 x 10-5

 standard pond

* JTURB(1) = 1, ITURB(1) = 2; ** each monthly parameter  set to this value.

Table A-8.  EXAMS II sediment properties for the Index Reservoir.

Parameter

Littoral

Benthic

Source

Suspended Sediment (SUSED)

30 mg L-1

standard pond

Bulk Density (BULKD)

1.85 g cm-3

standard pond

Per cent Water in Benthic Sediments (PCTWA)

137%

standard pond

Fraction of Organic Matter (FROC)

0.04

0.04

 standard pond

Table A-9.  EXAMS II external environmental and location parameters for the Index Reservoir.

Parameter

Value

Source

Precipitation (RAIN)

0 mm (month-1

Atmospheric Turbulence (ATURB)

2.00 km

standard pond

Evaporation Rate (EVAP)

0 mm (month-1

Wind Speed (WIND)

1 m (sec-1

standard pond

Air Mass Type (AMASS)

Rural (R)

Elevation (ELEV)

54.9 m

USGS map

Latitude (LAT)

39.12o N

USGS map

Longitude (LONG)

90.05o W

USGS map

Table A-10. EXAMS II biological characterization parameters for the Index Reservoir.

Parameter

Limnic

Benthic

Source

Bacterial Plankton Population Density (BACPL)

1 cfu (cm-3

see text

Benthic Bacteria Population Density (BNBAC)

37 cfu ((100 g)-1

see text

Bacterial Plankton Biomass (PLMAS)

0.40 mg (L-1

standard pond

Benthic Bacteria Biomass (BNMAS)

6.0x10-3 g (m-2

standard pond

Table A-11. EXAMS water quality parameters for the Index Reservoir.

Parameter

Value

Source

Optical path length distribution factor (DFAC)

1.19

Standard pond

Dissolved organic carbon (DOC)

5 mg (L-1

standard pond

chlorophylls and pheophytins (CHL)

5x10-3 mg (L-1

standard pond

pH (PH)

7

standard pond

pOH (POH)

7

standard pond

Table A-12. EXAMS mean monthly water temperatures (TCEL) for the Index Reservoir.

Month

Temperature (Celsius)

January

0

February

1.09

March

6.26

April

13.21

May

18.61

June

23.73

July

26.09

 hb

hb

 hb

  hb

 hb

 h„Z

 h„Z

hb

h„Z

i

€

ˆ

Ç

Ü

ø

ù

!

/

J

S

U

hb

hb

hb

 hb

  hb

6

h

i

„Ð`„ÐgdR

„Ð^„Ð`„Ðgdb

U

u

v

…

†

®

¶

Ä

Û

Þ

â

ù

  hR

 hR

 hR

 hR

hR

 hR

 hR

 hR

  h>

 h>

ô

愀Ĥ

܀

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ਁ贃愀϶瑹ॸÓ

ሕᨛ"

ሕᨛ"

ô

ô

ਁ砃愀϶x

ô

ô

ਁ砃愀϶x

ô

ô

ਁ砃愀϶x

ô

ô

ਁ砃愀϶x

ô

ô

ਁ砃愀϶x

ô

ô

ਁ砃愀϶x

ô

ô

ਁ砃愀϶x

ô

Ȁሕᨛ"Ȇ

Ȁሕᨛ"Ȇ

ਁ砃愀϶x

¶

¶

¶

¶

¶

愀Ĥ

August

25.04

September

20.91

October

14.5

November

7.04

December

0.99

( PAGE  1 (

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION


README for Transport Rule Emission Inventories Notice of Data
Availability (NODA)

The revisions to emissions inventories NODA placed into the Proposed
Transport Rule docket (75 FR 45210; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491)
contains several types of data files.  These include 2005, 2012, and
2014 emissions inventories along with ancillary data files used during
the processing of the inventories.  The file names are intended to be
descriptive of the file contents. There are separate files for criteria
air pollutants (CAPs) and for selected hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)
that were included in the emissions modeling inventories. The provided
files are for three main emission inventory sectors: nonpoint (filenames
start with arinv_nonpt), point sources that are not electric generating
units (filenames start with ptinv_ptnonipm), and Category 3 (C3)
commercial marine emissions (filenames start with ptinv_eca). For more
information on these emission sectors and how they were processed for
the Proposed Transport Rule, see the Emissions Technical Support
Document available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/transport/tr_proposal_emissions_tsd.p
df"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/transport/tr_proposal_emissions_tsd.pd
f .  Additional information and prior versions of data files are
available from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/index.html#transport"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/index.html#transport .

To see the contents of the files properly on Windows® computers, we
recommend using a text editor that supports Linux-style line endings
such as Wordpad. Note that some of the files may be too large for some
older programs, but the latest versions of Microsoft® Excel® or
Access® should be able to import many of the data files as
comma-delimited files if the Windows computer has ample disk space and
memory available.

A spreadsheet provided is with the NODA called
TR_EI_NODA_relevant_CoSTpackets_and_inventories.xls that is designed to
better describe the inventories and to help identify records that have
been updated in the ptnonipm and nonpt files as part of the NODA so that
review efforts can be appropriately prioritized. Note that each of the
provided inventory and ancillary files has descriptive information in
their headers that should prove useful to reviewers.

The data files included in the NODA are:

Point source inventories for 2012 and 2014 for sources other than
electric generating units:

ptinv_ptnonipm_2012cr_hap2005v2_revised_08oct2010_v0_orl.txt

ptinv_ptnonipm_2012cr_xportfrac_cap2005v2_20nov2008_revised_08oct2010_v0
_orl.txt

ptinv_ptnonipm_2014cr_hap2005v2_revised_08oct2010_v0_orl.txt

ptinv_ptnonipm_2014cr_xportfrac_cap2005v2_20nov2008_revised_08oct2010_v0
_orl.txt

New cement plants predicted to come on line by 2014 b the EPA SPPD
Industrial Sector Integrated Solutions (ISIS) policy case:

ptinv_ptnonipm_capHG_cementISIS_2016cr_16AUG2010_orl.txt

Nonpoint emission inventory files for 2012 and 2014 for CAPs and HAPs:

arinv_nonpt_2012cr_cap_2005_WRAP_OilGas_08oct2010_v0_orl.txt

arinv_nonpt_2012cr_cap_2008_TCEQ_Oklahoma_OilGas_08oct2010_v0_orl.txt

arinv_nonpt_2012cr_hap_nopfc_nobafmpesticidesplus_noboilermacthg_08oct20
10_v0_orl.txt

arinv_nonpt_2012cr_pf4_cap_nopfc_08oct2010_v0_orl.txt

arinv_nonpt_2014cr_cap_2005_WRAP_OilGas_08oct2010_v0_orl.txt

arinv_nonpt_2014cr_cap_2008_TCEQ_Oklahoma_OilGas_14oct2010_v0_orl.txt

arinv_nonpt_2014cr_hap_nopfc_nobafmpesticidesplus_noboilermacthg_14oct20
10_v0_orl.txt

arinv_nonpt_2014cr_pf4_cap_nopfc_14oct2010_v0_orl.txt

Ancillary files:

Updated oil and gas spatial surrogate for 12km grid:
USA_680_FILL_12km.txt

Updated oil and gas spatial surrogate for 36km grid:
USA_680_FILL_36km.txt

Updated gridding cross reference to use the new oil and gas surrogate:
amgref_us_can_mex_revised_07jun2010_v10.txt

Updated surrogate description files to include the new oil and gas
surrogate (this works for all grids): srgdesc_12km_07jun2010_v2.txt

Updated temporal cross reference for nonpoint fugitive dust issue:
amptref_v3_3_revised_22jun2010_v5.txt

Updated speciation files to revise allocation of volatile organic
compounds for headspace vapor:
gscnv_cmaq_cb05_soa_2005cr_05b_12nov2009.txt

gspro_cmaq_cb05_soa_2005cr_05b_20apr2010.txt

gsref_cmaq_cb05_soa_2005cr_05b_16jun2010.txt

C3 Commercial marine inventory files for the US and Canada for 2005,
2012, and 2014 with updated ECA projections and state water boundaries:

ptinv_eca_imo_fixFIPS_CANADA_caps_2005_19OCT2010_orl.txt

ptinv_eca_imo_fixFIPS_CANADA_caps_2012_19OCT2010_orl.txt

ptinv_eca_imo_fixFIPS_CANADA_caps_2014_19OCT2010_orl.txt

ptinv_eca_imo_fixFIPS_CANADA_vochaps_2005_20OCT2010_orl.txt

ptinv_eca_imo_fixFIPS_CANADA_vochaps_2012_20OCT2010_orl.txt

ptinv_eca_imo_fixFIPS_CANADA_vochaps_2014_20OCT2010_orl.txt

ptinv_eca_imo_fixFIPS_US_caps_2005_19OCT2010_orl.txt

ptinv_eca_imo_fixFIPS_US_caps_2012_19OCT2010_orl.txt

ptinv_eca_imo_fixFIPS_US_caps_2014_19OCT2010_orl.txt

ptinv_eca_imo_fixFIPS_US_vochaps_2005_20OCT2010_orl.txt

ptinv_eca_imo_fixFIPS_US_vochaps_2012_20OCT2010_orl.txt

ptinv_eca_imo_fixFIPS_US_vochaps_2014_20OCT2010_orl.txt

The boundaries used to defined the state waters are in this Shapefile:
shipping_lanes_111309.zip, which can also be downloaded directly from
ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2008_nei/mobile/rail_cmv_shapefiles/ship
ping_lanes_111309.zip

Please note that the “Expanded summary spreadsheet for point
sources” referenced in the NODA document is available for download
from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/transport/tr_proposal_projection_comm
ents_9-23-10.xls"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/transport/tr_proposal_projection_comme
nts_9-23-10.xls

Please be aware that the total volume of all files in this NODA in
unzipped form is almost 9 gigabytes.  For more information on the
Transport Rule, see   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/"
http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/ .


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 67 (Monday, April 10, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17158-17160]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06893]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0181; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-7]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Mineral Point, WI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Iowa County Airport, Mineral
Point, WI. This action is necessary due to the

decommissioning of the Mineral Point non-directional radio beacon (NDB)
and cancellation of the NDB approach. This action would enhance the
safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 25, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2017-0181; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-7, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation
Administration, Contract Support, Operations Support Group, Central
Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Iowa County Airport, Mineral Point, WI.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0181/
Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-7.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov//air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective
September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet or more above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius
(reduced from a 7.2-mile radius) of Iowa County Airport, Mineral Point,
WI. The 5.2-mile wide segment from the Mineral Point NDB extending from
the 7.2 mile radius of the airport to 7.4 miles northeast would be
removed.
    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning
and cancellation of the Mineral Point NDB, and NDB approaches, which
would enhance the safety and management of the standard instrument
approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated,
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL WI E5 Mineral Point, WI [Amended]

Iowa County Airport, WI
    (Lat. 42[deg]53'13'' N., long. 90[deg]14'12'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Iowa County Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on March 29, 2017.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-06893 Filed 4-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P