This memo presents the Tier I Estimated Environmental Concentrations ( EECs) for oxadiazon, calculated using FIRST ( surface water) and SCIGROW ( ground water) for use in the human health risk assessment. For surface water, the acute ( peak) value is 246 ppb and the annual average value is 100 ppb. The groundwater screening concentration is 0.6 ppb. These values generally represent upper bound estimates of the concentrations that might be found in surface water and groundwater due to the use of oxadiazon on turf, which is the major use of the chemical.

Background Information on FIRST:

FIRST is a new screening model designed to estimate the pesticide concentrations found in water for use in 61 drinking water assessments. It provides high end values on the concentrations that might be found in a small drinking water reservoir due to the use of pesticide. Like GENEEC, the model previously used for Tier I screening level, FIRST is a single event model ( one run off event), but can account for spray drift from multiple applications. FIRST takes into consideration the so called Index Drinking Water Reservoir by representing a larger field and pond than the standard GENEEC scenario. The FIRST scenario includes a 427 acres field immediately adjacent to a 13 acres reservoir, 9 feet deep, with continuous flow ( two turnovers per year). The pond receives a spray drift event from each application plus one runoff event. The runoff event moves a maximum of 8% of the applied pesticide into the pond. This amount can be reduced due to degradation on field and the effect of binding to soil. Spray drift is equal to 6.4% of the applied concentration from the ground spray application and 16% for aerial applications.

FIRST also makes adjustments for the percent crop area. While FIRST assumes that the entire watershed would not be treated, the use of a PCA is still a screen because it represents the highest percentage of crop cover of any large watershed in the US, and it assumes that the entire crop is being treated. Various other conservative assumptions of FIRST include the use of a small drinking water reservoir surrounded by a runoffprone watershed, the use of the maximum use rate, no buffer zone, and a single large rainfall Background Information on SCIGROW:

SCIGROW provides a groundwater screening exposure value to be used in determining the potential risk to human health from drinking water contaminated with the pesticide. Since the SCIGROW concentrations are likely to be approached in only a very small percentage of drinking water sources, i. e., highly vulnerable aquifers, it is not appropriate to use SCIGROW for national or regional exposure estimates.

SCIGROW estimates likely groundwater concentrations if the pesticide is used at the maximum allowable rate in areas where groundwater is exceptionally vulnerable to contamination. In most cases, a large majority of the use area will have groundwater that is less vulnerable to contamination than the areas used to derive the SCIGROW estimate.

Modeling Inputs and Results:

Tables 1 and 2 summarize the input values used in the model runs for FIRST 1.0 and SCIGROW, respectively. The lowest non sand K D was used in FIRST 1.0. The median K OC value was used in SCIGROW. The available aerobic soil metabolism half life for oxadiazon was extremely high. For FIRST, stability was assumed, while the extrapolated value of 841 days was used in SCIGROW. The modeling results associated with maximum allowable rate per year ( 4 lb ai/ A applied twice at 6 months interval) are presented in Table 3. Attached to this memo are copies of the original printouts generated from FIRST and SCIGROW runs.

cc: Nancy McCarroll ( HED) 62 Table 1. Environmental Fate and Other Input Parameters for the Estimation of Oxadiazon using FIRST Parameter Value Source Water Solubility ( 25  C) 1 ppm One Liner Hydrolysis Half Life ( pH 7) stable MRID 41863603 Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half Life ( from 6 values) essentially stable MRID 42772801 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half life not available N/ A Aqueous Photolysis Half Life 2.75 days MRID 41897201 Soil/ Water Partition Coefficient ( Lowest non sand K d) 16.9 MRID 41898202 Pesticide is Wetted In Yes Labels PCA ( turf) 0.87 Default Depth of Incorporation ( Broadcast) 0.0 inch Labels Table 2. Environmental Fate Input Parameters for the Estimation of Oxadiazon using SCIGROW.

Parameter Value Source Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient ( median K OC) 2376 MRID 41898202 Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half Life ( median) 841 days MRID 42772801 Table 3. Modeling Results for Use of Oxadiazon on ( Turf) Golf Courses Parameter Value Source Application Method Ground Spray Labels Application Rate 4.0 lb a. i./ A Registrant Applications Permitted per Year 2 Registrant***

Application Interval ( days) 182 Registrant FIRST 1.0 Peak Untreated Water Concentration 246 ppb N/ A FIRST 1.0 Annual Average Untreated Water Concentration 100 ppb N/ A SCIGROW Ground Water Concentration 0.6 ppb N/ A *** The Registrant supports multiple applications, at lower application rates. 63 RESULTS OBTAINED USING FIRST RUN No. 1 FOR OXADIAZON ON Turf ( Golf * INPUT VALUES *  RATE (#/ AC) No. APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE % CROPPED INCORP ONE( MULT) INTERVAL Kd ( PPM ) (% DRIFT) AREA ( IN)  4.000( 8.000) 2 182 16.9 1.0 GROUND( 6.4) 87.0 .0 FIELD AND RESERVOIR HALFLIFE VALUES ( DAYS)  METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED ( FIELD) RAIN/ RUNOFF ( RESERVOIR) ( RES. EFF) ( RESER.) ( RESER.)  .00 0 N/ A 2.75 341.00 .00 341.00 UNTREATED WATER CONC ( MICROGRAMS/ LITER ( PPB)) Ver 1.0 MAY 1, 2001  PEAK DAY ( ACUTE) ANNUAL AVERAGE ( CHRONIC) CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION  246.388 100.013 RESULTS OBTAINED USING SCIGROW RUN No. 1 FOR OXADIAZON INPUT VALUES  APPL (#/ AC) APPL. URATE SOIL SOIL AEROBIC RATE NO. (#/ AC/ YR) KOC METABOLISM ( DAYS)  4.000 2 8.000 2376.0 841.0 GROUND WATER SCREENING CONCENTRATIONS IN PPB  .592986  A= 836.000 B= 2381.000 C= 2.922 D= 3.377 RILP= 1.821 F=  1.130 G= .074 URATE= 8.000 GWSC= .592986 64 APPENDIX F: EXPOSURE AND RISK CHARACTERIZATION Risk characterization integrates the results of the exposure and ecotoxicity data to evaluate the likelihood of adverse ecological effects. The means of this integration is called the quotient method. Risk quotients ( RQs) are calculated by dividing exposure estimates by acute and chronic ecotoxicity values: RQ = exposure/ toxicity. To evaluate the potential risk to aquatic and terrestrial organisms from the use of Oxadiazon, risk quotients ( RQs) are calculated from the ratio of estimated environmental concentrations ( EECs) to ecotoxicity values.

For risk assessments, EFED used dosage rate information obtained from SRRD and BEAD. Since most of the use is on golf courses, turf was chosen to represent all sites.

Terrestrial and aquatic risk assessments were based on:  4 lb ai/ A liquid and granular product at 1 and 2 applications per year with a six month reapplication interval  2.4 lb ai/ A liquid product at 2 application per year with a six month reapplication interval ( NOTE: aquatic risk assessments did not include granular formulations)

RQs are then compared to levels of concern ( LOC) criteria used by OPP for determining potential risk to nontarget organisms and the subsequent need for possible regulatory action. The criteria indicate that a pesticide used as directed has the potential to cause adverse effects on nontarget organisms. LOCs currently address the following risk presumption categories: ( 1) acute high  potential for acute risk is high; regulatory action may be warranted in addition to restricted use classification, ( 2) acute restricted use  the potential for acute risk is high, but it may be mitigated through restricted use classification, ( 3) acute species  the potential for acute risk to species is high, and regulatory action may be warranted, and ( 4) chronic risk  the potential for chronic risk is high, and regulatory action may be warranted. Currently, EFED does not perform assessments for chronic risk to plants, acute or chronic risks to nontarget insects, or chronic risk from granular/ bait formulations to birds or mammals.

The ecotoxicity test values ( measurement endpoints) used in the acute and chronic risk quotients are derived from required studies. Examples of ecotoxicity values derived from short term laboratory studies that assess acute effects are: ( 1) LC 50 ( fish and birds), ( 2) LD 50 ( birds and mammals), ( 3) EC 50 ( aquatic plants and aquatic invertebrates) and ( 4) EC 25 ( terrestrial plants). Examples of toxicity test effect levels derived from long term laboratory studies that assess chronic effects are: ( 1) LOAEC ( birds, fish, and aquatic invertebrates) and ( 2) NOAEC ( birds, fish and aquatic invertebrates). Generally, the most sensitive species tested are used. The NOAEC is used as the ecotoxicity test value in assessing chronic effects to birds, mammals, fish, and aquatic invertebrates.

Risk presumptions and the corresponding RQs and LOCs, are tabulated in Table 1. 65 Table 1. Risk presumptions for terrestrial organisms Risk Presumption RQ LOC Birds Acute High Risk EEC1/ LC50 or LD50/ sqft2 or LD50/ day3 0.5 Acute Restricted Use EEC/ LC50 or LD50/ sqft or LD50/ day ( or LD50 < 50 mg/ kg) 0.2 Acute Species EEC/ LC50 or LD50/ sqft or LD50/ day 0.1 Chronic Risk EEC/ NOAEC 1 Wild Mammals Acute High Risk EEC/ LC50 or LD50/ sqft or LD50/ day 0.5 Acute Restricted Use EEC/ LC50 or LD50/ sqft or LD50/ day ( or LD50 < 50 mg/ kg) 0.2 Acute Species EEC/ LC50 or LD50/ sqft or LD50/ day 0.1 Chronic Risk EEC/ NOAEC 1 1 abbreviation for Estimated Environmental Concentration ( ppm) on avian/ mammalian food items 2 mg/ ft2 3 mg of toxicant consumed/ day LD50 * wt. of bird LD50 * wt. of bird Risk presumptions for aquatic organisms Risk Presumption RQ LOC Acute High Risk EEC1/ LC50 or EC50 0.5 Acute Restricted Use EEC/ LC50 or EC50 0.1 Acute Species EEC/ LC50 or EC50 0.05 Chronic Risk EEC/ NOAEC 1 1 EEC = ( ppm or ppb) in water 66 Risk presumptions for plants Risk Presumption RQ LOC Plant Inhabiting Terrestrial and Semi Aquatic Areas Acute High Risk EEC1/ EC25 1 Acute Species EEC/ EC05 or NOAEC 1 Aquatic Plants Acute High Risk EEC2/ EC50 1 Acute Species EEC/ EC05 or NOAEC 1 1 EEC = lbs a. i./ A 2 EEC = ( ppb or ppm) in water 67 Table 2. Selection of Toxicological Endpoints Used to Determine Risk Quotients ( RQs)

Type Of Toxicity Organism Species Toxicological Endpoint Oral Acute Bird Mallard 1040 mg/ kg Dietary Bobwhite/ Mallard > 5000 ppm Chronic Bobwhite 500 ppm 1 Oral Acute Mammal Rat > 5000 mg/ kg Chronic Rat 100 ppm 2 Acute Freshwater Fish Rainbow trout/ Bluegill 0.88 ppm Chronic Rainbow trout 0.88 ppb 3 Acute Freshwater Invertebrates Daphnid 2.18 ppm Chronic Daphnid 0.03 ppm Acute Estuarine Fish Sheepshead Minnow 1.5 ppm Chronic Sheepshead Minnow 0.0015 ppm4 Acute Estuarine Invertebrates Mysid 0.27 ppm Chronic Mysid 0.0037 ppm4 Acute Aquatic Plants ( vascular)

Aquatic Plants ( Nonvascular) duckweed marine diatom EC50 = 41 ppb; NOAEC = < 8 ppb EC50 = 5.2 ppb 1 No effects on any reproductive parameter or viability of of F1 offspring at the highest dose tested, 1000 ppm; however due to excessive mortality ( 33%) of adult female birds in that dose level, a NOAEC for chronic effects was set at 500 ppm. 2 Based on LOAEL of > 38 mg/ kg/ day for inactive mammary tissue and fetal/ pup death observed in the one year range finding test of a rat reproduction study. NOAEC > 100 ppm. 3 Rainbow trout was more sensitive than the fathead minnow ( fathead minnow NOAEC= 33 ppb). 4 Extrapolation from acute/ chronic ratio. 68 Table 6. Environmental Fate Input Parameters for GENEEC 2.0.

Chemical Oxadiazon PC Code 109001 Water Solubility ( 25

C) 1 ppm Hydrolysis Half Life ( pH 7) stable Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half Life stable Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half life not available Photolysis Half Life 2.75 days Soil/ Water Equilibrium Partition Coefficient ( Kd) 16.91 Depth of Incorporation ( Broadcast) 0.0 in.

Wetted In Yes Table 7. Modeling Results for Use on Turf Ground spray1 granular Application Rate 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Application Frequency 1 1 1 2 2 Application Interval ( days) N/ A N/ A 182 182 182 GENEEC 2.0 Peak EEC 44 67 89 173 150 21 Day EEC 43 65 87 170 147 60 Day EEC 42 63 84 163 142 3. Low boom ground sprayer with fine spray quality ( EFED defaults), no buffer ( no spray zone). 69 APPENDIX G: ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS DATA REQUIREMENTS Table of Data Requirements of Ecological Effects for Oxadiazon Guideline # Data Requirement Is Data Requirement Satisfied? MRID #' s Study Classification 71 1 850.2100 Avian Oral LD50 yes 41610101 core 71 2 850.2200 Avian Dietary LC50 yes 41610102 41610103 core core 71 4 850.2300 Avian Reproduction yes 41993201 41993202 supplemental core 72 1 850.1075 Freshwater Fish LC50 yes 42350601 42330401 core core 72 2 850.1010 Freshwater Invertebrate Acute LC50 yes 41784301 core 72 3( a) 850.1075 Estuarine/ Marine Fish LC50 yes 42615801 core 72 3( b) 850.1025 Estuarine/ Marine Mollusk EC50 yes 42570301 core 72 3( c) 850.1035 850.1045 Estuarine/ Marine Shrimp EC50 yes 42615802 core 72 4( a) 850.1400 Estuarine Fish Early Life Stage no 72 4( b) 850.1300 850.1350 Estuarine/ Marine Invertebrate Life Cycle no 72 5 850.1500 Freshwater Fish Full Life Cycle na

122 1( a) 850.4100 Seed Germ./ Seedling Emergence no

122 1( b) 850.4150 Vegetative Vigor no   70 122 2 850.4400 Aquatic Plant Growth partially

123 1( a) 850.4225 Seed Germ./ Seedling Emergence no 123 1( b) 850.4250 Vegetative Vigor no 123 2 850.4400 Aquatic Plant Growth partially 5 41610105 41610106 41610106 41610108 core 141 1 850.3020 Honey Bee Acute Contact LD50 yes 4268301 core 141 2 850.3030 Honey Bee Residue on Foliage not required 70 1 Acute and Chronic Sediment Toxicity Testing no6 70 1 Aquatic Phototoxicity Studies no 1 Although the mallard study was supplemental since a NOAEC was not established, the study does not have to be repeated; the bobwhite was more sensitive and was used for risk assessment purposes.

2 Early life stage fish testing with an estuarine species is required. The raw data for the rainbow trout study MRID 41811601 must be submitted. This information was requested in 1997 under D165510.

4 The rates used should be low enough to elicit an NOAEC or allow for accurate estimation of the EC05 for all measured parameters. The measured endpoints should include: shoot length, root length and/ or height, and a phytotoxic rating of the visible effects. Testing must be conducted with a liquid typical end use product, rather than technical product, due to the insolubility of the material and since historically, plant species have been found to be more sensitive to the end use product, than technical. Concentrations must be measured, and results must be based on measured concentrations. The nominal concentrations used in statistical analyses most likely did not represent actual exposure. This information was requested in 1995 under D166982.

5 A freshwater blue green algae ( Anabaena flos aquae) is required; the study submitted ( MRID 41610104) was invalid.

6 The high KOC of oxadiazon, combined with the high persistance exhibited in the aerobic soil metabolism, as well as the anaerobic aquatic metabolism (>> 10 days) trigger the requirement of a Chronic Sediment Toxicity Testing with both Hyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans. 2 Waived due to the relatively low vapor pressure for oxadiazon ( 1.00x10 6 mm Hg).

3Satisfied by submission of an Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism study.

71 Table of Data Requirements of Environmental Effects for Oxadiazon Guideline # Data Requirement Is Data Requirement Satisfied? MRID #' s Study Classificatio n 161 1 835.2120 Hydrolysis Yes 41863603 acceptable 161 2 835.2240 Photodegradation in Water Yes 41897201 acceptable 161 3 835.2410 Photodegradation on Soil Yes 41898201 acceptable 161 4 835.2370 Photodegradation in Air waived2 N/ A N/ A 162 1 835.4100 Aerobic Soil Metabolism Yes 42772801 acceptable 162 2 835.4200 Anaerobic Soil Metabolism Yes3 NA N/ A 162 3 835.4400 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Yes 42773802 supplemental 162 4 835.4300 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism not required N/ A N/ A 163 1 835.1240 835.1230 Leaching Adsorption/ Desorption Yes 44555608 , 41898202 acceptable,

supplemental 163 2 835.1410 Laboratory Volatility waived1 N/ A N/ A 163 3 835.8100 Field Volatility waived1 N/ A N/ A 164 1 835.6100 Terrestrial Field Dissipation Yes 41767401 acceptable 164 2 835.6200 Aquatic Field Dissipation not required N/ A N/ A 164 3 835.6300 Forestry Dissipation not required N/ A N/ A 72 164 4 835.6400 Combination Products and Tank Mixes Dissipation not required N/ A N/ A 165 4 850.1730 Accumulation in Fish Yes 42226701 acceptable 165 5 850.1950 Accumulation aquatic non target not required N/ A N/ A 166 1 835.7100 Ground Water small prospective not required N/ A N/ A 201 1 840.1100 Droplet Size Spectrum reserved N/ A N/ A 202 1 840.1200 Drift Field Evaluation reserved N/ A N/ A 73 APPENDIX H: QUALITATIVE USE ASSESSMENT Case No.: 2485 PC Code: 109001 Date: 01 10 01 Analyst: Stephen Smearman Oxadiazon is a selective preemergence and early post emergence herbicide used primarily to control annual grasses and broadleaf weeds. The tradename for Oxadiazon in the US is Ronstar ( formerly Chipco Ronstar) and formulations are available as emulsifiable concentrates, granules, flowable and wetable powders.

Based upon the available EPA data and other pesticide usage survey information for Oxadiazon on all sites for the years 1989 through 1999, an annual estimate of Oxadiazon's total usage on all sites averaged 249,000 pounds of active ingredient ( a. i.) on an average of 52,000 acres treated over the last 10 years. Most of the acreage is treated with up to 2.4 pounds of a. i. per acre owing most of the usage applies to golf courses which based on reported usage has higher application rates than other uses. Oxadiazon's largest markets in terms of total pounds of active ingredient is allocated to golf courses ( 65%). The remaining usage is primarily for horticultural/ nursery uses and on processed tomatoes ( 22%). Other reported uses include potatoes and barley which accounts for an respective 1.5% and less than 1% of the total pounds a. i. annually. However, there are no tolerances nor labeled uses for these site and therefore should not be considered during risk assessment. However, there is international reported use of Oxadiazon on rice in China and on cotton in Mexico and Sudan.

Additional estimates of total acres grown and total acres treated for the non crop sites of road right of ways ( ROW), landscape maintenance, horticultural/ nursery and park uses are not currently available although there is estimates of pounds of a. i. applied. The following table illustrates the usage of Oxadiazon. 74 USAGE OF OXADIAZON Site Acres Grown ( 000) Acres Treated ( 000) % of Crop Treated LB AI Applied ( 000) Average Application Rate Wtd Avg Est Max Wtd Avg Est Max Wtd Avg Est Max lb ai/ acre/ yr # appl / yr lb ai/ A/ appl * Potatoes 1,373 2 4 0% 0% 4 8 2.0 1.0 2.0 * Barley 7,326 0 1 0% 0% 0 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lots/ Farmsteads/ etc 56,000 1 3 0% 0% 1 4 1.3 1.0 1.3 Golf Courses 1,618 49 98 3% 6% 160 235 2.4 1.0 2.4 Landscape Mainten      12 24 3.0

Rights of Way      5 10

Parks      11 22

Horticultural Nurseries      56 112 4.0

Total 51.915 106 249.03 416 COLUMN HEADINGS Wtd Avg = Weighted average the most recent years and more reliable data are weighted more heavily. Est Max = Estimated maximum, which is estimated from available data. Average application rates are calculated from the weighted averages.

NOTES ON TABLE DATA Usage data primarily covers 1988  1998. Calculations of the above numbers may not appear to agree because they are displayed as rounded to the nearest 1000 for acres treated or lb. a. i. ( Therefore 0 = < 500) to the nearest whole percentage point for % of crop treated. ( Therefore 0% = < 0.5%) * = Available EPA sources indicate that usage is observed for potatoes and barley in the reported data for this site. However, there are no tolerances or labeled uses for these site. Reason for reported usage is undetermined and therefore usage for these sites should not be used for risk assessment.  = missing information or lack of confidence in the data to determine an accurate estimate of usage. However, these sites were included in the table because of indicated usage.

SOURCES: EPA data, 1988 98; USDA, NASS, 1999 75 APPENDIX I. GENEEC 2.0 INPUT PARAMETERS, RESULTS, AND OUTPUTS Environmental Fate Input Parameters for GENEEC 2.0.

Chemical Oxadiazon PC Code 109001 Water Solubility ( 25  C) 1 ppm Hydrolysis Half Life ( pH 7) stable Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half Life stable Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half life not available Photolysis Half Life 2.75 days Soil/ Water Equilibrium Partition Coefficient ( K d) 16.91 Depth of Incorporation ( Broadcast) 0.0 in.

Wetted In Yes Table 2. Modeling Results for Use on Turf Ground spray1 granular Application Rate 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Application Frequency 1 1 1 2 2 Application Interval ( days) N/ A N/ A 182 182 182 GENEEC 2.0 Peak EEC 44 67 89 173 150 21 Day EEC 43 65 87 170 147 60 Day EEC 42 63 84 163 142 4. Low boom ground sprayer with fine spray quality ( EFED defaults), no buffer ( no spray zone). 76 RUN No. 1 FOR Oxadiazon ON Turf * INPUT VALUES *  RATE (#/ AC) No. APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO SPRAY INCORP ONE( MULT) INTERVAL Kd ( PPM ) (% DRIFT) ( FT) ( IN)  4.000( 8.000) 2 182 16.9 1.0 GRHIFI( 6.6) .0 .0 FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES ( DAYS)  METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED ( FIELD) RAIN/ RUNOFF ( POND) ( POND EFF) ( POND) ( POND)  .00 0 N/ A 2.75 341.00 .00 341.00 GENERIC EECs ( IN MICROGRAMS/ LITER ( PPB))  PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC  173.14 172.44 169.50 163.00 158.23 RUN No. 2 FOR Oxadiazon ON Turf * INPUT VALUES *  RATE (#/ AC) No. APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO SPRAY INCORP ONE( MULT) INTERVAL Kd ( PPM ) (% DRIFT) ( FT) ( IN)  2.000( 4.000) 2 42 16.9 1.0 GRHIFI( 6.6) .0 .0 FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES ( DAYS)  METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED ( FIELD) RAIN/ RUNOFF ( POND) ( POND EFF) ( POND) ( POND)  .00 0 N/ A 2.75 341.00 .00 341.00 GENERIC EECs ( IN MICROGRAMS/ LITER ( PPB))  PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC  88.20 87.84 86.34 83.03 80.60 77 RUN No. 3 FOR Oxadiazon ON Turf * INPUT VALUES *  RATE (#/ AC) No. APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO SPRAY INCORP ONE( MULT) INTERVAL Kd ( PPM ) (% DRIFT) ( FT) ( IN)  3.000( 6.000) 2 182 16.9 1.0 GRHIFI( 6.6) .0 .0 FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES ( DAYS)  METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED ( FIELD) RAIN/ RUNOFF ( POND) ( POND EFF) ( POND) ( POND)  .00 0 N/ A 2.75 341.00 .00 341.00 GENERIC EECs ( IN MICROGRAMS/ LITER ( PPB))  PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC  129.85 129.33 127.12 122.25 118.67 RUN No. 4 FOR Oxadiazon ON Turf * INPUT VALUES *  RATE (#/ AC) No. APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO SPRAY INCORP ONE( MULT) INTERVAL Kd ( PPM ) (% DRIFT) ( FT) ( IN)  4.000( 8.000) 2 182 16.9 1.0 GRANUL( .0) .0 .0 FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES ( DAYS)  METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED ( FIELD) RAIN/ RUNOFF ( POND) ( POND EFF) ( POND) ( POND)  .00 0 N/ A 2.75 341.00 .00 341.00 GENERIC EECs ( IN MICROGRAMS/ LITER ( PPB))  PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC  150.41 149.80 147.25 141.60 137.46 78 RUN No. 1 FOR Oxadiazon ON Turf * INPUT VALUES *  RATE (#/ AC) No. APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO SPRAY INCORP ONE( MULT) INTERVAL Kd ( PPM ) (% DRIFT) ( FT) ( IN)  2.000( 2.000) 1 1 16.9 1.0 GRHIFI( 6.6) .0 .0 FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES ( DAYS)  METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED ( FIELD) RAIN/ RUNOFF ( POND) ( POND EFF) ( POND) ( POND)  .00 0 N/ A 2.75 341.00 .00 341.00 GENERIC EECs ( IN MICROGRAMS/ LITER ( PPB))  PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC  44.39 44.21 43.46 41.79 40.57 RUN No. 1 FOR Oxadiazon ON Turf * INPUT VALUES *  RATE (#/ AC) No. APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO SPRAY INCORP ONE( MULT) INTERVAL Kd ( PPM ) (% DRIFT) ( FT) ( IN)  3.000( 3.000) 1 1 16.9 1.0 GRHIFI( 6.6) .0 .0 FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES ( DAYS)  METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED ( FIELD) RAIN/ RUNOFF ( POND) ( POND EFF) ( POND) ( POND)  .00 0 N/ A 2.75 341.00 .00 341.00 GENERIC EECs ( IN MICROGRAMS/ LITER ( PPB))  PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC  66.59 66.32 65.19 62.69 60.85 79 RUN No. 1 FOR Oxadiazon ON Turf * INPUT VALUES *  RATE (#/ AC) No. APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO SPRAY INCORP ONE( MULT) INTERVAL Kd ( PPM ) (% DRIFT) ( FT) ( IN)  4.000( 4.000) 1 1 16.9 1.0 GRHIFI( 6.6) .0 .0 FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES ( DAYS)  METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED ( FIELD) RAIN/ RUNOFF ( POND) ( POND EFF) ( POND) ( POND)  .00 0 N/ A 2.75 341.00 .00 341.00 GENERIC EECs ( IN MICROGRAMS/ LITER ( PPB))  PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC  88.79 88.43 86.92 83.59 81.14 4Matringe, M., J. M. Camadro, P. Labbe, and R. Scalla. 1989. Protoporphyrinogen oxidase as a molecular target for diphenyl ether herbicides. Biochem. J. 260: 231 235.

5Birchfield, N. B., and J. E. Casida. 1997. Protoporphyrinogen oxidase of mouse and maize: Target site selectivity and thiol effects on peroxidizing herbicide action. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 57, 36 43.

6Halling, B. P., D. A. Yuhas, V. F. Fingar, and J. W. Winkleman. 1994. " Protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitors for tumor therapy" in Porphyric Pesticides: Chemistry, Toxicology, and Pharmaceutical Applications, ( S. O. Duke and C. A. Rebeiz, Eds.) pp. 280 290, American Chemical Society Symposium Series 559, Am. Chem. Soc., Washington, D. C., 1994.

7Birchfield, N. B. Protoporphyrinogen Oxidase as a Herbicide Target: Characterization of the [ 3H] Desmethylflumipropyn Binding Site. Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. 1996.

80 APPENDIX J. PHOTOXICITY STUDY PROTOCOL for LIGHT DEPENDENT PEROXIDIZING HERBICIDES The light dependent peroxidizing herbicides ( LDPHs) are a growing class of weed control chemicals ( see partial listing attached). They act in plants by inhibiting the enzyme protoporphyrinogen oxidase ( protox), which is the last common enzyme in the heme and chlorophyll biosynthetic pathways. 4 Protox exists in both plants and animals and the enzyme from both sources has been shown to be highly sensitive to many LDPHs. 5 LDPH protox inhibition in plants results in a rapid accumulation of protoporphyrin IX, a phototoxic heme and chlorophyll precursor. In the presence of light, protoporphyrin IX is a powerful generator of singlet oxygen which in plants causes lipid membrane peroxidation leading to a rapid loss of turgidity and foliar burns. LDPH exposure in mammals has been shown to result in excretion of porphyrins in urine ( porphynuria) and feces, increased liver weight, elevated blood porphyrin levels, developmental abnormalities, and cancer. Humans with a hereditary protox disorder ( variegate porphyria) which results in lowered protox activity exhibit many symptoms similar to LDPH exposure in addition to photosensitivity. However, photosensitivity is not a commonly reported symptom of LDPH exposure in animals.

An LDPH induced occurrence of phototoxicity in rats6 and increased cytotoxicity to human skin cells grown in culture in the presence of light and an LDPH7 have been reported but many other LDPH toxicity studies make no mention of phototoxicity in animals. The scarcity of phototoxicity data in animals could result from physiological or biochemical distinctions from plants. For instance, animals exposed to LDPHs may not normally accumulate protoporphyrin IX in their epidermis. However, phototoxicity may not be reported in many LDPH toxicity tests because of relatively low light conditions in laboratories and/ or protection afforded by the animals' fur or feathers. Animals without fur or feathers existing in sunny environments would be expected to be at highest risk for potential phototoxic effects.

The Aquatic Biology Tech Team ( ABTT) recommends that phototoxicity studies be conducted on 8American Society for Testing and Materials. 1994. Standard guide for conducting the frog embryo teratogenesis assay Xenopus. E 1439 91. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 11.5, pp. 825 835. Philadelphia, PA.

81 herbicides with this mode of action to determine if animals exposed to LDPHs and intense light ( similar to sunlight) show increased toxicity relative to controls exposed to LDPHs and low intensity light. The results of these studies will help to determine if animals that are exposed to sunlight in LDPH use areas are at higher risk than guideline toxicity studies suggest.

The ABTT is requesting that a LDPH phototoxicity protocol be submitted for review and agreement by EFED and the registrant prior to study initiation. Protocols for standard toxicity tests have also been published. 8 In nature, fish and other aquatic organisms are expected to be exposed to LDPHs through run off and spray drift. Aquatic organisms inhabiting small, shallow water bodies, exposed to high levels of solar radiation would be expected to be at greatest risk for potential phototoxic effects. Therefore, the ABTT is requesting a small fish species be used in a phototoxicity assay to assess the potential of light to increase LDPH toxicity.

The ABTT requests that the study adequately address the following issues and suggests the paper, " Photoenhanced Toxicity of a Carbamate Insecticide to Early Life Stage Anuran Amphibians", 5 and other studies in the peer reviewed scientific literature serve as sources of additional guidance:

Species The fathead minnow may be an appropriate test species because of existing toxicity protocols which may be adapted for this study.

Exposure duration A subchronic exposure duration would be adequate for proof of principle. A single exposure may not allow adequate time for porphyrin accumulation, however, a life cycle is not necessary to identify a phototoxic effect.

Dosing A range finding study should be conducted under defined low light conditions to identify an LC 50 value and lower dose levels expected to be similar to controls. Doses used in the phototoxicity study should not be expected to result in significant mortality in low light controls. Dissolved concentrations of the test chemical should be confirmed by an appropriate analytical method.

Endpoints Behavioral observations should be made in addition to measurements of mortality, growth, weight, morphology, and appearance. Ideally, measurements of protoporphyrin and heme concentrations in the blood and protox activity in the liver of each test organisms should be made.

Light sources Artificial light may be preferred to natural light that will vary in different regions and seasons as well as 82 with weather. If artificial light is used, the light should resemble full, natural sunlight as closely as possible, particularly around 400 nm. The most important wavelength for porphyrin induced phototoxicity in ~ 400 nm. No matter what the light source, the duration and intensity of UV and visible light should be reported at all wavelengths ( 200 800 nm). At this point EFED does not have a specific recommendation for an artificial light source.

Dark, light, and positive controls As this study is intended to identify potential effects of light on LDPH toxicity, an appropriate study protocol should include a dark, or low light, control group. Another group not exposed to chemicals but exposed to full light should be included ( a full light control). In addition to the dark and light controls, a positive control group using protoporphyrin IX may be useful.

Exposure chambers and light filters Light intensity should be measured inside test chambers if glass or any other material is placed between the light source and the test animals. Any filters should be cured under the study light for 72 hours prior to study initiation to ensure consistent transmittance. 83 ATTACHMENT 1.

The following list of herbicides are believed to act by inhibiting protoporphyringen oxidase in the heme and chlorophyll biosynthetic pathway.

acifluorfen azafenidin carfentrazone ethyl flumiclorac pentyl flumioxazin fluthiacet methyl fomesafen lactofen oxadiargyl oxadiazon oxyfluorfen sulfentrazone thidiazimin


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 208 (Monday, October 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64262-64264]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25272]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2013-0131]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments of
a Previously Approved Information Collection: Procedures for
Transportation Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of
Management and Budget for review and comments. A Federal Register
Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on renewing the
same information collection was published on July 12, 2013 [78 FR
41974]. There were three responses to the docket with a total of seven
comments. Two of the respondents were consortium/third party
administrators from the trucking and pipeline industries, and one
respondent represented a collection site that performs DOT urine
collections and pre-employment medical exams. Our responses to the
respondents' comments are explained in this notice and the supporting
statement to OMB.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 27, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the proposed information collection,
including burden estimate, and suggestions for reducing the burden, to
the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the
Office of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, 725
17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via
electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bohdan Baczara, Office of Drug and
Alcohol Policy and Compliance, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W62-317,
Washington, DC 20590;<PHONE_NUMBER> (voice),<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax), or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(email).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2105-0529.
    Title: Procedures for Transportation Drug and Alcohol Testing
Programs.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a Previously Approved Information
Collection.
    Background: Under the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act
of 1991, DOT is required to implement a drug and alcohol testing
program in various transportation-related industries. This specific
requirement is elaborated in 49 CFR Part 40, Procedures for
Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs. This
request for a renewal of the information collection for the program
includes 43 burden items among which are the U.S. Department of
Transportation Alcohol Testing Form (ATF) and the DOT Drug and Alcohol
Testing Management Information System (MIS) Data Collection Form.
    The ATF includes the employee's name, the type of test taken, the
date of the test, and the name of the employer. The ATF is essential to
the alcohol testing program. Data on each test conducted, including
test results, are necessary to document tests conducted and actions
taken to ensure safety in the workplace.
    The MIS form includes employer specific drug and alcohol testing
information such as the reason for the test and the cumulative number
of positive, negative and refusal test results. The MIS data is used by
each of the affected DOT Agencies (i.e., Federal Aviation
Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Railroad
Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration) and the United
States Coast Guard when calculating their random testing rates.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: The information will be used by
transportation employers, Department representatives, and a variety of
service agents. Estimated total number of respondents is 2,639,331.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 6,548,043.
    Frequency: The information will be collected annually.
    Annual Estimated Total Number Burden Hours: 678,986

Discussion of Comments to the Docket

    There were three respondents to the docket with a total of seven
comments. Two of the respondents are consortium/third party
administrators from the trucking and pipeline industries, and one
respondent represented a collection site that performs pre-employment
medical exams and DOT urine collections. Below are our responses to the
respondents' comments.

Comment

    Most of the respondents expressed support for the Department's use
of the Alcohol Testing Form (ATF) to be the record of an alcohol test
and the Management Information System (MIS) form to document an
employer's DOT testing data. They also supported the Department's
estimate of burden hours associated with collection and handling each
of the forms.

DOT Response

    The Department agrees with the commenters' supportive statements
regarding use of the forms and the calculation of burden hours.

Comment

    Two of the respondents wondered if the DOT was contemplating an
electronic ATF in the future and suggested moving away from a paper-
based system.

DOT Response

    The Department has no objection to pursuing establishing the
framework for an electronic ATF. We are interested in and currently
working with the Department of Health and Human Services on issues
related to implementing an electronic Federal Drug Testing Custody and
Control Form (CCF). We believe that issues associated with the
electronic CCF will be similar to issues associated with the electronic
ATF. For these reasons, the Department will explore implementing an
electronic ATF after an electronic CCF has been implemented.

Comment

    One respondent suggested that we modify the urine collection
process to permit a portion of the DOT urine sample to also be used for
other tests.

DOT Response

    Because the comment is not germane to the ATF or MIS form, the
Department has no response other than to welcome the respondent to
submit comments on this issue during any future rulemaking involving
Part 40's urine collections.

Comment

    One respondent, a large C/TPA providing services to the trucking
industry, recommended allowing ``. . . third-party administrators to be
part of the remediation process for alcohol tests as is the case with
controlled substances tests.'' The C/TPA went on to say that the
current three-part ATF does not provide for the capability for
employers to rapidly share information leading to a hole in
recordkeeping and making wrong choices regarding drivers with positive
test results.

DOT Response

    The ATF is a 3-page form and the drug test CCF is a 5-page form.
The difference in who ultimately gets certain pages of the form is
based upon the fact that drug testing utilizes laboratories and Medical
Review Officers, and alcohol testing does not. Hence, the ATF is 3
pages, not 5. As in drug testing, copies of the ATF go to the employee,
the employer, and the BAT [in drug testing, the collector]. It is
unclear as to what remediation process the respondent is referring. If
the issue is that of permitting C/TPAs to transmit positive alcohol
test results to employer, the Department has already an established
position. The immediate transmission of positive alcohol test result to
the employer is a safety matter. Because time is of the essence, the
Breath Alcohol Technician (BAT) is required to immediately transmit the
result of the confirmation test result (i.e. .020 or greater) to the
Designated Employer Representative (DER) so the DER can take the
appropriate action. For these reasons, C/TPAs are not permitted to act
as intermediaries in transmitting this information to the DER. The
Department has no reason to believe that BATs have not been
transmitting or cannot immediately transmit this information to the
DER.
    With respect to employers making incorrect choices regarding what
to do with employees who have positive alcohol test results, as a
service agent, a C/TPA can advise an employer on the regulation. For
example, a C/TPA can explain that an employer's responsibility is to
permanently remove an employee from safety sensitive duties when the
employee has an alcohol test result of .040 or greater. They can also
advise the employer about actions for results 0.02 through 0.039.

Comment

    One respondent, a C/TPA servicing the pipeline industry, did not
have any concern over the Department's estimated burden hours for
either form. That same respondent went on to say that the burden hours
should include an estimate for data entry into the Drug and Alcohol
Management Information System (DAMIS) as the DAMIS procedures vary by
Agency.

DOT Response

    DAMIS is an on-line portal to the electronic MIS form. Because of
the nature of each transportation industry, each DOT Agency may require
different log-in and setup procedures to ensure the accountability by
those entities required to submit MIS information. These administrative
procedures are external to the actual completion of the MIS form and
are independent of the estimated time to actually enter the MIS data
once in DAMIS.

Comment

    One respondent, a C/TPA servicing the pipeline industry, wanted to
know ``. . . what other uses the Department makes of this data in the
aggregate and by agency.''

DOT Response

    As the respondent noted, the MIS data is primarily used by the DOT
Agencies to determine their respective industry's random testing rate
for the next calendar year. We would like to add that the DOT Agencies
often use the MIS data for planning audit/inspection strategy as well.

Comment

    One respondent, a C/TPA servicing the pipeline industry, made
several comments related to minimizing the burden of the collection of
information on respondents. Their comments focused on the pipeline
industry and were on issues leading up to the submission of the MIS
data, such as: (1) The varying request dates for submitting the MIS
data; (2) the standardization of data entry into DAMIS, as well as
permitting to upload a data file into DAMIS; (3) standardizing the
input process for contractors in the pipeline industry; and (4)
permitting an audit service to log into DAMIS as the employer in order
to be able to enter contractor data into DAMIS.

DOT Response

    With respect to item 1, it is a well-known fact that the due-date
for submitting MIS data is set in each of the Agency's regulations as
March 15 of the following year. A DOT Agency may see the need to extend
that date to accommodate the stakeholders' request for an extension or
the DOT Agency may have identified issues that have prevented their
efforts to provide notice to employers in a timely manner so that
employers could enter information by the March 15 due-date. In either
scenario, extending the due-date would not add a paperwork burden to
employers.
    With respect to item 2, the one DOT Agency referenced in this
comment as a potential beneficiary of ``data entry standardization'' is
PHMSA. In particular, it appears the login process for this agency was
the commenter's primary issue and was characterized as,
``complicated.'' According to PHMSA, the suggestion to change this
process for the sake of ``standardization'' may result in unintended
consequences when there is a misunderstanding of the overarching intent
of the login process. For PHMSA, each transportation employer--
designated as either an ``operator'' or ``contractor''--is issued a
unique ``user name'' and ``password'' for purposes of data integrity
and security. It is important to understand that operators are solely
accountable for their contractors' ``covered employees'' during the MIS
reporting year. This means that contractors must provide MIS testing
data under the banner of each operator for their contractor's covered
employees when they have

performed covered functions, at any time and duration, on the
operator's jurisdictional pipeline facilities. With this operator-
contractor association rule lodged in the programming, DAMIS designates
contractor login information that is solely and directly associated
with the operator who has listed them as a ``covered function
performing'' contractor. DAMIS also captures one contractor employer
entry as a ``data of record'' for accounting purposes and avoiding
duplication of data. Eliminating these processes has the possible
unintended consequence of degrading data security or forcing the agency
to create a login process that is complicated, requiring additional
processes such as contractor registration, to assure data integrity.
    The suggestion for developing a process for downloading a DAMIS
file onto a transportation employer's computer server and then
uploading it back to DAMIS while laudable is replete with potential IT
security challenges. Among them are: Providing prescriptive stakeholder
data entry procedures (especially those with limited computer skills);
programing challenges associated with each DOT Agency; and agency
budgetary considerations for developing such programming.
    With respect to item 3, we mentioned earlier DAMIS is an on-line
portal to the electronic MIS form. Because of the nature of the each
transportation industry, each DOT Agency may require different log-in
and setup procedures to ensure the accountability by those entities
required to submit MIS information. These administrative procedures are
external to the actual completion of the MIS form and are independent
of the estimated time to actually enter the MIS data once in DAMIS.
    In the DOT Agency example, PHMSA is being cited as duplicating the
reporting requirements for contractor employers. Each contractor login
designation is uniquely associated with the operator employer who has
identified them in the DAMIS electronic reporting system. This
reporting association is consistent with PHMSA regulatory mandate
regarding operator monitoring and reporting requirements under Title 49
CFR part 199, 199.115 and 245, which address contractor covered
employees.
    With respect to item 4, while we recognized the value of MIS
provider service performed by C/TPAs, accommodating them for business
process efficiency, with a single login, presents significant potential
risk to maintaining data integrity and security. Moreover, current
regulations assign accountability and responsibility on the employer
for MIS reporting.
    With regard to entering multiple contractor MIS data under the
PHMSA regulation, operator employers, or their designated C/TPAs,
always had the option of issuing the DAMIS unique user name and
password to these contractors, and then allowing them to enter their
data directly into DAMIS. This option is utilized effectively with DOT/
FTA grantees/grantors, which allows for shared responsibility for this
MIS information. In similar fashion, the pipeline safety operator
employer, or their designated C/TPA, can monitor contractor employers'
submissions for data review and approval. Utilizing this process could
alleviate the number of contractor MIS data has to be physically
entered by operator employers or their C/TPA.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 1, 2013.

    Authority and Issuance.
Patricia Lawton,
DOT PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-25272 Filed 10-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: March 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 43)]
[Notices]
[Page 11695]
[DOCID:fr04mr08-116]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

 Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of Delays in
Processing of Special Permits Applications

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of applications delayed more than 180 days.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5117( c),
PHMSA is publishing the following list of special permit applications
that have been in process for 180 days or more. The reason(s) for delay
and the expected completion date for action on each application is
provided in association with each identified application.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Delmer F. Billings, Director, Office
of Hazardous Materials Special Permits and Approvals, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Key to ``Reason for Delay''

    1. Awaiting additional information from applicant.
    2. Extensive public comment under review.
    3. Application is technically complex and is of significant impact
or precedent-setting and requires extensive analysis.
    4. Staff review delayed by other priority issues or volume of
special permit applications.

Meaning of Application Number Suffixes

N--New application.
M--Modification request.
PM--Party to application with modification request.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 27, 2008.
Delmer F. Billings,
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials, Special Permits and Approvals.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Reason for
    Application No.         Applicant        delay of     Estimated date
                                            completion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Modification to Special Permits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11579-M...............  Austin Powder               3, 4      03-31-2008
                         Company,
                         Cleveland, OR.
10964-M...............  Kidde Aerospace                4      03-31-2008
                         & Defense,
                         Wilson, NC.
13173-M...............  Dynetek                        1      03-31-2008
                         Industries
                         Ltd., Calgary
                         Alberta, Canada.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     New Special Permit Applications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14385-N...............  Kansas City                    4      03-31-2008
                         Southern
                         Railway
                         Company, Kansas
                         City, MO.
14566-N...............  Nantong CIMCTank               3      03-31-2008
                         Equipment Co.
                         Ltd., Nantong
                         City.
14576-N...............  Structural                     1      03-31-2008
                         Composites
                         Industries(SCI)
                         , Pomona, CA.
14572-N...............  WEW                            3      03-31-2008
                         Westerwaelder
                         Eisenwerk,
                         Weitefeld
                         Germany.
14549-N...............  Greif, Inc.,                 3,4      03-31-2008
                         Delaware, OR.
14402-N...............  Lincoln                      3,4      03-31-2008
                         Composites,
                         Lincoln, NE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E8-4111 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P