UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES June 6, 2001 Memorandum SUBJECT: Review of Determination of Dermal ( Hand and Forearm) and Inhalation Exposure to Disulfoton Resulting from Residential Application of Bayer Advanced Garden 2 in 1 Systemic Rose and Flower Care to Shrubs and Flower Beds . MRID No. 453334 01. DP Barcode: 273144.

FROM: Shanna Recore, Industrial Hygienist Reregistration Branch 2 Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

THRU: Al Nielsen, Branch Senior Scientist Reregistration Branch 2 Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

TO: Christina Scheltema, Chemical Review Manager Reregistration Branch 3 Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508W)

Attached is a review of the dermal and inhalation exposure data submitted by Bayer Corporation. This review was completed by Versar, Inc. on March 20, 2001, under supervision of HED. It has undergone secondary review in HED and has been revised to reflect Agency policies.

1 Executive Summary The data collected, reflecting the residential applicator dermal and inhalation exposure of disulfoton, meets most of the criteria specified by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency   s ( US EPA) OPPTS Series 875, Occupational and Residential Exposure Test Guidelines, Group A: Application Exposure Monitoring Test Guidelines, 875.1300, Inhalation Exposure   Outdoor and 875.1100, Dermal Exposure   Outdoor. used to determine dermal and inhalation exposure pending clarification/ response to our outstanding concerns. The data are of sufficient scientific quality to be Summary The purpose of this study was to quantify potential dermal ( forearm and hand) and inhalation exposure for residential applicators of Bayer Advanced Garden 2 in 1 Systemic Rose and Flower Care ® , a granular formulation, which contains 1.04 percent disulfoton as the active ingredient. Disulfoton is a systemic organophosphate insecticide registered for use on residential ornamentals including rosebushes, shrubs, and flowerbeds. The maximum application rate for flower beds ( 4 ounces formulated product per 12 square feet) and for shrubs, which includes rosebushes, ( 4 ounces formulated product per 1 foot shrub height) was used in this study.

The field study was conducted at the Bayer Corporation Research Farm, Vero Beach, Florida. A total of 15 volunteers were monitored using passive dosimetry ( hand/ forearm wash solutions and personal air monitors) . Application of the product was made by pouring the granules into the measuring cup/ lid attached to the product package, and then distributing the granules onto the soil around the base of a shrub or onto a flower bed. The granules were then soil incorporated with a garden rake. Each volunteer applied granular disulfoton around shrubs while wearing gloves and then again without gloves. A total of 60 ( i. e. , 15 volunteers x 4 exposure scenarios) replicates were monitored. Only exposure data from the 30 replicates who did not wear gloves were reported. The test site was a fallow test field, approximately 1 acre in size. Two sets of sub plots were established: ( 1) shrub test plots, each containing 10 oleander shrubs ( approximately 48 inches high) ; and ( 2) flower bed sub plots, each containing simulated plants, ( e. g. , 12 to 14 inch high stakes placed on approximately 24 inch centers) .

Each volunteer applied approximately 10 pounds of formulated product per application. Shrubs were treated by spreading 16 ounces of granules ( i. e. , 4 ounces per 1 foot of shrub) in a circle around each shrub   s base. The granules were then incorporated into the top 1 2 inches of soil using a new garden rake. Flower beds were treated by sprinkling 4 ounces of granules to each 12 square feet of a total 480 square feet area, and incorporating the product into the top 1 2 inches of soil using a new garden rake.

All of the inhalation exposure data were either non detect or less than the limit of quantitation ( LOQ) . Most of the hand/ forearm dermal washing samples returned results greater than the LOQ. Disulfoton residues found on the hand and forearm samples collected from monitoring periods where volunteers did not wear gloves were highest when applying Bayer Advanced Garden 2 in 1 Systemic Rose and Flower Care ® to shrubs. . All of the samples collected while subjects treated oleander shrubs were positive, with residue levels ranging from 1.39 to 36 µ g/ sample ( N= 15) and with a mean value of 13.5 µ g. Ten of 15 samples collected 2 while subjects treated flowerbeds had results > LOQ, ranging from 1.88 to 20.6 µ g/ sample with a mean of 5.45 µ g. The author speculates   applying and working around the larger plants in the shrub plots, and possibly opening and closing the product container at each shrub increased the hand and forearm exposure as compared to flower bed applications.   The author reported that the time it took to treat shrubs ranged between 18 and 29 minutes. The time that it took to treat flowerbeds ranged between 20 and 40 minutes.

Conclusion The dermal and inhalation exposure study completed in support of the regulatory requirements contained the following omissions and flaws with respect to Series 875 Group A Application Exposure Monitoring Test Guidelines. The most important discrepancies and issues of concern include: ( 1) the Agency is particularly concerned with the sleeve length worn by the study participants ( i. e. long sleeves vs. short sleeves) ; however, the clothing worn by each study participant was not thoroughly described, the author stated only that   for the first three sessions, volunteers wore new pairs of Tyvek ® pants over their clothes   and described participants   clothing as   fresh set of clothes   and   street clothes;   ( ( 2) the investigator did not test for breakthrough and it was not ensured that collected material was not lost from the medium during sampling; and ( 3) calibration data for air sampling pumps was not provided and it is not indicated whether the air flow changed and the mean flow was used for all calculations.

The following additional items of concern have been noted:

The field fortification samples were prepared using liquid disulfoton. Although it is difficult to prepare granular field spikes, there is no known way to compare the recovery results to recoveries of a granular formulation. The significance of this difference is therefore unknown.

EPA provided the registrant with comments on study outlines submitted to the Agency. The following comment was not fully addressed in the conduct of the study, as both real plants and simulated plants were used:

Use of Simulated Plants: The Agency prefers that the study use real plants because it is difficult, if not impossible, to tell how closely the   simulated   plant environment reflects what is actually encountered by a homeowner. If the registrant could not find a study site with enough roses or shrubs to treat, the Agency recommended that the study at least include a subset of real plants in established beds to compare the   real   and the   simulated   plants. .

The Agency requests a response from the registrant on the above mentioned outstanding issues. However, the data collected in this study are of interim sufficient scientific quality and HED will use the results in the RED. Final acceptability of the study will be determined pending the registrant   s response to our concerns.

3 inc.

MEMORANDUM TO: Christina Jarvis cc: 000.001 01 File Margarita Collantes FROM: Diane Forrest/ Susan Anderson Al Nielsen Linda Phillips DATE: March 20, 2001 SUBJECT: Review of Determination of Dermal ( Hand and Forearm) and Inhalation Exposure to Disulfoton Resulting from Residential Application of Bayer Advanced Garden 2 in 1 Systemic Rose and Flower Care to Shrubs and Flower Beds, MRID No. 453334 01 This report reviews an applicator exposure study , Determination of Dermal ( Hand and Forearm) and Inhalation Exposure to Disulfoton Resulting from Residential Application of Bayer Advanced Garden 2 in 1 Systemic Rose and Flower Care to Shrubs and Flower Beds , submitted by Bayer Corporation. A summary of the study and its general accordance with the U. S. EPA Series 875 Guidelines is provided. The following information may be used to identify the study:

Title: Determination of Dermal ( Hand and Forearm) and Inhalation Exposure to Disulfoton Resulting from Residential Application of Bayer Advanced Garden 2 in 1 Systemic Rose and Flower Care to Shrubs and Flower Beds , 178 pages Sponsor: Wayne Carlson, VP Regulatory Affairs and Product Safety Bayer Corporation 8400 Hawthorne Road Kansas City, MO 64120 Testing Facility: D. Larry Merricks Agrisearch Inc. 5734 Industry Lane Frederick, MD 21704 7293 Analytical Laboratory: Michael Williams Horizon Laboratories 1610 Business Loop, 70 West Columbia, MO 65205 3608 Author: D. Larry Merricks Report Date: February 8, 2001 Identifying Codes: MRID # 453334 01, Agrisearch or Lab. Project ID: 4201; Report No. 110136 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this study was to quantify potential dermal ( forearm and hand) and inhalation exposure for residential applicators of Bayer Advanced Garden 2 in 1 Systemic Rose and Flower Care ® , a granular formulation, which contains 1.04 percent disulfoton as the active ingredient. Disulfoton is a systemic organophosphate insecticide registered for use on agricultural crops ( e. g. , cereals, potatoes, tobacco, cotton, vegetables) and ornamentals. The maximum application rate for flower beds ( 4 ounces formulated product per 12 square feet) and for shrubs ( 4 ounces formulated product per 1 foot shrub height) was used in this study.

The field study was conducted at the Bayer Corporation Research Farm, Vero Beach, Florida. A total of 15 volunteers were monitored using passive dosimetry ( hand/ forearm wash solutions and personal air monitors) . Application of the product was made by pouring the granules into the measuring cup/ lid attached to the product package, and then distributing the granules onto the soil around the base of a shrub or onto a flower bed. The granules were then soil incorporated with a garden rake. Each volunteer applied granular disulfoton around shrubs while wearing gloves and then again without gloves. A total of 60 ( i. e. , 15 volunteers x 4 exposure scenarios) replicates were monitored. Only exposure data from the 30 replicates who did not wear gloves were reported. The test site was a fallow test field, approximately 1 acre in size. Two sets of sub plots were established: ( 1) shrub test plots, each containing 10 oleander shrubs ( approximately 48 inches high) ; and ( 2) flower bed sub plots, each containing simulated plants, ( e. g. , 12 to 14 inch high stakes placed on approximately 24 inch centers) .

Each volunteer applied approximately 10 pounds of formulated product per application. Shrubs were treated by spreading 16 ounces of granules ( i. e. , 4 ounces per 1 foot of shrub) in a circle around each shrub   s base. The granules were then incorporated into the top 1 2 inches of soil using a new garden rake. Flower beds were treated by sprinkling 4 ounces of granules to each 12 square feet of a total 480 square feet area, and incorporating the product into the top 1 2 inches of soil using a new garden rake.

All of the inhalation exposure data were either non detect or less than the LOQ. Most of the hand/ forearm dermal washing samples returned results greater than the LOQ. Disulfoton residues found on the hand and forearm samples collected from monitoring periods where volunteers did not wear gloves were highest when applying Bayer Advanced Garden 2 in 1 Systemic Rose and Flower Care ® to shrubs. . All of the samples collected while subjects treated oleander shrubs were positive, with residue levels ranging from 1.39 to 36 µ g/ sample ( N= 15) and with a mean value of 13.5 µ g. Ten of 15 samples collected while subjects treated flowerbeds had results > LOQ, ranging from 1.88 to 20.6 µ g/ sample with a mean of 5.45 µ g. The author speculates   applying and working around the larger plants in the shrub plots, and possibly opening and closing the product container at each shrub increased the hand and forearm exposure as compared to flower bed applications.   The author reported that the time it took to treat shrubs ranged between 18 and 29 minutes. The time that it took to treat flowerbeds ranged between 20 and 40 minutes. Five of these exposure periods exceeded the maximum 29 minutes it took to treat a shrub sub plot.

The study was conducted in compliance with the major technical aspects of OPPTS Group A: 875.1300, Inhalation Exposure   Outdoor and 875.1100, Dermal Exposure   Outdoor, and Series 875 Group B, Part C, as they relate to this study. Reviewers noted the following issues of potential interest in interpreting the results:

C EPA provided the registrant with comments on study outlines submitted to the Agency. The following comment was not addressed in the conduct of the study:

Use of Simulated Plants: The Agency prefers that the study use real plants because it is 5 difficult, if not impossible, to tell how closely the   simulated   plant environment reflects what is actually encountered by a homeowner. If the registrant could not find a study site with enough roses or shrubs to treat, the Agency recommended that the study at least include a subset of real plants in established beds to compare the   real   and the   simulated   plants. .

C For the first three days of exposure monitoring, wind speeds ranged between 4.2 and 8.9 mph. Therefore, conditions were generally windy.

C The test sites were irrigated once the evening prior to each day   s exposure monitoring, and again during the lunch break on the first day of exposure monitoring. Sprinkler irrigation was used, and 0.5 inches of water was applied to maintain a packed surface and minimize dust cross contamination. This is not considered appropriate for a handler exposure study because it may have decreased handler pesticide exposure and may not be representative of typical residential handler behavior.

C There were a total of 60 samples collected for inhalation exposure, and 60 samples collected for dermal exposure, reflecting 15 volunteer subjects, applying disulfoton to both shrubs and flowers bed test plots, with and without gloves. Only the 30 samples, for the inhalation exposure, and 30 samples, for the dermal exposure, representing the   no glove   scenario were reported. . All data should have been reported, especially the inhalation exposure samples, which would not have been affected by the use of gloves.

6 STUDY REVIEW Study Background The purpose of this study was to quantify potential dermal ( forearm and hand only) and inhalation exposure for residential applicators of Bayer Advanced Garden 2 in 1 Systemic Rose and Flower Care ® , a granular formulation, containing 1.04 percent disulfoton as the active ingredient. The CAS name for disulfoton is O, O diethyl S [ 2 ethylthio) ethyl ]  phosphorodithioate, and the CAS No. is # 298 04 4. Disulfoton is a systemic organophosphate insecticide registered for use in agricultural crops ( e. g. , cereals, potatoes, tobacco, cotton, vegetables) and ornamentals.

Exposure monitoring took place on four days: October 23, 24, 25, and 26, 2000. Sample analyses were complete by December 16, 2000.

Attestations The study sponsor waived claims of confidentiality within the scope of FIFRA Section 10 ( d) ( 1) ( A) , ( B) , or ( C) . The study sponsor and author attested that the study was conducted according to current EPA FIFRA Good Laboratory Practice Standards ( 40 CFR Part 160) . There was one notation to the effect that a pocket penetrometer ( used to gauge the degree of soil compaction in the test plots) could not be calibrated. A Quality Assurance Statement was included covering: test procedures, raw and final data review, draft and final report.

Test Plots The field study was conducted at the Bayer Corp. Research Farm, Vero Beach, Florida. The test site a one acre fallow test field, was disked and prepared in early September 2000. The exact soil type was not reported, but the soil was reported to be sandy.

Two sets of sub plots were established, one planted with oleander shrubs and the other containing simulated plants. There were 32 shrub test plots, each measuring 3 feet by 39 feet, and each containing 10 oleander shrubs which were approximately 48 inches high. The shrubs had been planted approximately 33 days prior to exposure monitoring. Each shrub test plot was separated from the next test plot by at least 4 feet to minimize cross contamination.

Likewise, there were 32 flower beds, each measuring 480 square feet ( 4 feet by 120 feet) . Each sub plot contained simulated plants, that is, 12 to 14 inch high stakes placed on approximately 24 inch centers. The beds were not cultivated for 30 days prior to the exposure monitoring. The flower beds had enough separation between beds to minimize cross contamination.

A pocket penetrometer was used to collect soil compaction measurements. The soil was relatively uniform throughout; the compaction ranged between 0.75 and 1.25 tons / square foot.

Replicates This study collected hand and forearm dermal exposure data and inhalation exposure data from volunteers applying granular disulfoton around shrubs, and to flower beds. The product was applied by pouring the granules into a measuring cup/ lid, sprinkling onto the soil, and soil incorporating with a garden rake. There were 15 volunteer subjects, each monitored for 4 exposure periods. Sampling included 30 replicates collected during gloved hand application, and 30 replicates collected during applications made without the use of protective gloves. Only exposure data from the 30 replicates who did not wear gloves were reported.

7 Volunteers ranged in age from 20 to 73 years old, had 0 to 40 years experience gardening, and worked from 18 minutes to 50 minutes during each application. There were nine female and six male applicators. Information on each individual volunteer such as height, weight, age, sex, and years experience using residential pesticide products may be found on page 16 of the Study Report.

Work Activities Each of the 15 volunteers was monitored for both inhalation and hand/ forearm dermal exposure at 4 sampling times on the same day ( total number of replicates = 60) . Each of the 2 use pattern applications ( rose bushes/ shrubs and flower beds) was conducted by volunteers wearing gloves. Then the same use pattern applications were conducted by the same volunteers without gloves. Four volunteers were monitored on each of the first three days, followed by the monitoring of three volunteers on the fourth day. Prior to each exposure period, volunteers washed their hands and arms with soap and water. Volunteers were asked to wear a fresh set of clothes to minimize possible contamination. For the first three sessions, volunteers wore new pairs of Tyvek ® pants over their clothes. . Due to heat, some of the volunteers did not wear Tyvek ® trousers on their fourth application, since their street clothes had been protected during the three prior exposure periods. Only exposure data from the 30 replicates who did not wear gloves were reported.

Essentially, each volunteer carried an unopened 10 pound container of 1 percent disulfoton granules to the application location. The measuring cap/ lid was removed, and the desired amount poured into the cap. Shrubs were treated by spreading 16 ounces of granules ( i. e. , 4 ounces per 1 foot of shrub) in a circle around each shrub   s base. The granules were then incorporated into the top 1 2 inches of soil using a new garden rake. The applicator then carried the product container to the next shrub and repeated the procedure ( pouring, sprinkling, incorporating) . After all 10 shrubs were treated the applicator replaced the measuring cap onto the container, tightened the cap and returned to the staging area for the hand/ forearm wash procedure. Flower beds were treated by sprinkling 4 ounces of granules to each 12 square feet of the flower bed, and repeating the pouring and sprinkling steps until the whole 480 square feet of area was covered. Then the applicators incorporated the granules into the top 1 2 inches of soil using a new garden rake. Finally, each volunteer replaced the measuring cap and returned to the staging area with their closed, empty ( or nearly empty) containers. The amount applied was estimated by weighing each container before and after application. Each volunteer applied approximately 10.1 pounds of formulated product per application, or about 40.4 pounds overall for each day.

The study author included a table briefly noting observations made of each worker during each disulfoton granule application ( see page 19 of the Study Report) .   Some volunteers worked upwind while applying or cultivating the product and did not enter the test plot bedding area, and some worked downwind while applying or cultivating the product or worked in the test plot bedding area. Overall, volunteers were observed working in the test plot beds more when working with the shrubs than during the flower bed applications since they worked around larger plants as opposed to simulated plants. Some volunteers walked in treated beds to rake, at least one volunteer rubbed their eye with their hands. Some volunteers were observed wiping sweat from their face with their forearms. In general, the author stated that it took about 20 percent more time to apply and incorporate disulfoton granules into flower bed soil.

Meteorology and Irrigation The test sites were irrigated once the evening prior to each day   s exposure monitoring, and again during the lunch break on the first day of exposure monitoring ( October 23, 2000) . Sprinkler irrigation was used, and 0.5 inches of water was applied to maintain a packed surface and minimize dust cross contamination.

An onsite weather station was set up at the test site, and recorded hourly average ( collected at 1 minute intervals) ambient air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and wind direction on each 8 application day. In general, meteorological monitoring was conducted between approximately 8 AM and 4 PM ( ending times each day were different) . Ambient air temperatures ranged between 69.6 E F and 83.3 E F, relative humidity ranged between 51.9 and 92.9 percent, and wind speeds ranged between 1.3 mph and 8.9 mph. For the first three days of exposure monitoring, wind speeds ranged between 4.2 and 8.9 mph. Therefore, conditions were generally windy. No historical weather data were provided for review.

Pesticide Use History Paraquat was applied once to the flower bed plots and Roundup ® was applied as needed to both plots, prior to the exposure monitoring dates, to control unwanted vegetation. No other pesticide use history information was provided.

Materials and Application Method The product used in the study was EPA Reg. No. 3125 517, containing 10 pounds granular product, packaged as a plastic container with a measuring cup/ lid. The product contains approximately 1 percent disulfoton active ingredient. The maximum application rate for flower beds ( 4 ounces formulated product per 12 square feet) and for shrubs ( 4 ounces formulated product per 1 foot shrub height) was used in this study. Application was made by pouring the product into the measuring cap/ lid and then sprinkling around shrubs or on flower bed test plots, followed by soil incorporation using a garden rake.

Sample Collection Personal air monitoring samples and hand/ forearm wash samples were collected in this study.

1. Inhalation Exposure Samples Personal air samples were collected from each volunteer using OVS tubes containing two sections ( 140 mg/ 270 mg) of XAD 2 resin, connected via plastic tubing to Gilian ® air sampling pumps calibrated to an approximate flow rate of 2. 0 liters/ minute. Pump on and off times were recorded. There were a total of 60 breathing zone samples collected, reflecting 15 volunteer subjects, applying disulfoton to both shrub and flower bed test plots, with and without gloves. Again, data for only 30 of the 60 samples were reported.

2. Dermal Exposure Samples Exposure to the hands and forearms was determined by detergent washed hand and foreaarm solutions collected at the staging area.

One 500 mL aliquot of an aqueous solution of anionic surfactant ( i. e. sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate ( OTS)  0.01 percent w/ v in distilled water) was used to wash subjects   hands and forearms. As reported by the author:   The volunteer placed his hands and forearms in and over a metal container while an investigator slowly poured the aliquot of OTS over them ensuring complete contact of all skin surfaces. At the end of sixty seconds of the volunteer scrubbing his/ her hands and forearms in the OTS, the solution was carefully poured into a labeled glass jar.   There were a total of 60 dermal exposure samples collected, reflecting 15 volunteer subjects, applying disulfoton to both shrub and flower bed test plots, with and without gloves. Data for only 30 of the 60 samples collected overall were reported ( i. e. , the no glove scenarios) .

9 QA/ QC Sample Handling & Storage Each jar of OTS skin washing solution was capped with a Teflon ®   lined lid, heat sealed in a plastic bag, and stored in freezer conditions until shipment to the laboratory. Each OVS sample was capped in the field at both ends, labeled, placed in a reclosable plastic bag, and placed into freezer storage until shipment to the laboratory. Field freezers ranged in temperature between (  ) 25.8 E C and (  ) 12.2 E C. Samples were packed with shock insulators and shipped frozen on dry ice. Air samples were sent on October 26, 2000, the final sampling day. All samples received by the analytical laboratory were stored in freezers at temperatures ranging between (  ) 26 E C and (  ) 10 E C.

Sample History A sample history table was not provided. Exposure monitoring took place on four days: October 23, 24, 25, and 26, 2000. The field OVS air samples were received at the analytical laboratory on October 27, 2000. Field dermal wash samples were received at the analytical laboratory on November 7, 2000. Raw data sheets attached to the analytical report included some sample tracking information.

Product Analyses Each lot of test substance was analyzed for purity and the percentage of active ingredient was verified. The Certificate of Analysis was provided as an attachment to the Study Report.

Analytical Methodology It appears that a proprietary method was used. A copy of the method was not included in the study report.

1. OVS Air Sampling Tubes Tube contents were analyzed as a single sample. Disulfoton was desorbed from the tube contents with acetone. The acetone extract was filtered, diluted to an appropriate volume in acetone, and residues quantified via GC/ FPD( P) .

2. OTS Dermal Washing Samples Dermal washing samples were thawed, mixed with an equal volume of methanol ( 500 mLs) , and aliquots were cleaned up on a conditioned C 18 SPE column. The analyte was eluted from the column with acetone. Disulfoton residues were quantified via GC/ FPD( P) .

Chromatographic conditions are listed on page 80 of the Study Report. The method employed a DB 5MS column ( 30M x 0.25 mm, 0.25 µ M film thickness) . Retention time for disulfoton was about 6.7 minutes. Calibration standards were run with each set, at levels ranging between 5 ng/ mL and 250 ng/ mL. Data were collected using the Chrom Perfect for Windows ® ( ( CPWIN) data acquisition system. Data were imported into Quattro Pro ® spreadsheets and calculations were performed using Horizon   s LINCURV4 ® calculation program, which prepares standard curves of response vs. ng/ mL using least squares regression. This system was validated on each computer with a model data set prior to each day   s run.

10 Limits of Detection ( LOD) & Limits of Quantitation ( LOQ)

The LOD was not defined. The reported LOQs were 0.3 µ g/ air sampling tube, and 1.5 µ g/ dermal wash sample. The basis for the determination of LOQ was not reported.

Concurrent Laboratory Recovery Field samples were analyzed in sets containing from 12 to 20 samples each. Laboratory controls were included in each set. These fortified controls were fortified at 4 levels as follows: untreated, LOQ, 10X LOQ and 100X LOQ. A summary of the results is presented on page 92 of the Study Report. The overall mean percent recovery of concurrent laboratory fortifications from OVS air sampling tubes was 99.9 ± 6.42 percent ( N= 15) . The overall mean percent recovery from hand/ forearm wash solution was 99. 5 ± 9.15 percent ( N= 24) .

Five out of the 8 untreated control air sampling tube samples contained apparent disulfoton residues greater than zero. The residues were less than 10 percent of the LOQ, and the authors state that this residue had a negligible effect on recoveries at any level. Laboratory recovery samples, but not field fortification samples, were corrected for residues found in the companion untreated control samples. No residue in any field sample was corrected for laboratory fortification recoveries.

No disulfoton residues were detected in any of the untreated hand/ forearm wash control solutions.

Field Fortification Recovery Fortified disulfoton solutions and pre fortified sorbent OVS tubes were prepared by Horizon Laboratories, and then shipped on dry ice overnight to the field facility, where they were also kept frozen.

Field fortified controls were prepared once each day of exposure monitoring ( i. e. , four times) . They were prepared at the test site staging area, near to the test sites, but away from possible contamination. Specifically, a vial of fortification solution was uncapped and the entire vial ( contents plus container) was dropped into a 500 mL aliquot of OTS solution. Pre fortified OVS air sampling tubes were brought to ambient temperature in the field, connected to a multiport pump and manifold system and the pump was run for the approximate length of a replicate exposure period at 2.0 liters per minute.

Five replicates of each exposure matrix were fortified on each of the four monitoring days, at three fortification levels. For dermal wash samples, the fortification levels were 1.5, 15, and 150 µ g/ sample, and for the air samples the fortification levels were 0.3, 3 and 30 µ g/ sample. The field fortification samples were packaged, stored, and shipped under the same environmental conditions as the field samples.

For air samples, the overall average fortified field recovery was 98.2 ± 6.32 percent ( N= 62) with no apparent differences in mean recoveries between days or fortification levels. Table 1 summarizes field recoveries by fortification level. No measurable disulfoton was measured in any field fortification untreated control sample except for one sample which had a reading of 0.022 F g ( < LOQ) .

For hand/ forearm wash samples collected from volunteers who did not wear gloves, 5 of 30 samples were less than LOQ. The highest level of disulfoton found in any sample was 36 µ g/ sample. Therefore, the fortification levels analyzed covered the full range of field sample levels. Overall field fortified recovery for these samples was 99.4 ± 7.95 percent ( ( N= 36) with no apparent differences in recovery values between days. As noted by the author, there was a slight trend towards increased mean recovery values as the disulfoton 11 concentration increased, however, all recovery values were well within guideline specifications ( i. e. , 70 to 120 percent) . Table 1 presents a summary of field fortifications recoveries by fortification level. No measurable disulfoton residue was measured in any field fortification untreated control hand wash sample.

Table 1. Summary of Field Fortification Recoveries Sample Fortification Level Average Recovery ( Percent)

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Air Sampling Tubes 0.3 F g 95.7 ± 5.26 ( N = 5) 96.0 ± 4.38 ( N = 3) 97.2 ± 4.54 ( N = 3) 98.4 ± 2.86 ( N = 3)

3.0 F g 105 ± 2.60 ( N = 5) 103 ± 3.45 ( N = 3) 103 ± 2.48 ( N = 3) 99.9 ± 0.500 ( N = 3)

30 F g 94.0 ± 11.4 ( N = 5) 91.8 ± 7.42 ( N = 3) 102 ± 2.13 ( N = 3) 93.5 ± 2.88 ( N = 3)

Dermal Wash Solution 1.5 F g 92.1 ± 5.65 ( N = 3) 96.8 ± 2.75 ( N = 3) 91.8 ± 5.14 ( N = 3) 92.0 ± 3.69 ( N = 3)

15 F g 104 ± 2.92 ( N = 3) 104 ± 4.70 ( N = 3) 94.3 ± 16.1 ( N = 3) 97.7 ± 9.96 ( N  3)

150 F g 107 ± 0.907 ( N = 3) 108 ± 1.75 ( N = 3) 101 ± 4.09 ( N = 3) 105 ± 2.90 ( N = 3)

Storage Stability Recovery No storage stability samples were prepared. Instead, the authors relied on field recovery samples, which were handled and analyzed in conjunction with the field test samples.

Results Tables 2 and 3 summarize the exposure monitoring results by replicate for application to shrubs and flower beds, respectively. All of the inhalation exposure data were either non detect or less than the LOQ. Possible reasons for these finding include: 1) disulfoton is not volatile, and the formulation used was granular; 2) samples were collected on sorbent tubes; 3) the exposure periods were very brief, ranging between 18 and 38 minutes; and 4) samples were collected outdoors under rather windy conditions and small air volumes were collected, ranging between 36 and 76 liters per sample.

12 Table 2. Summary of Exposure Data By Replicate  Shrub Application Volunteer Body Weight ( kg) Formulation Applied ( lb ai) rounded Hours Worked Air Volume ( Liters) Inhalation Exposure ( F g/ sample) Hand/ Forear m Exposure ( F g/ sample)

1 68 0. 1 0.35 42 ND 13.40 2 66 0. 1 0.30 36 < LOQ 30.20 3 114 0.1 0. 32 38 < LOQ 18.70 4 64 0. 1 0.38 46 < LOQ 15.00 5 66 0. 1 0.45 54 ND 3.53 6 73 0. 1 0.40 48 ND 17.20 7 57 0. 1 0.45 54 < LOQ 4.51 8 55 0. 1 0.38 46 < LOQ 1.63 9 59 0. 1 0.38 46 ND 9.46 10 70 0.1 0. 37 44 ND 36.00 11 80 0.1 0. 35 42 < LOQ 4. 11 12 132 0.1 0. 35 42 ND 24.50 13 66 0.1 0. 40 48 < LOQ 1. 39 14 102 0.1 0. 48 58 ND 6. 99 15 77 0.1 0. 37 44 ND 16.10 Arithmetic Mean      12.9 Standard Deviation      10.0 Coefficient of Variance      78 percent LOQ = 0.3 F g/ air sampling tube ( ½ LOQ or 0.15 F g was assigned to values < LOQ or ND)

13 Table 3. Summary of Exposure Data By Replicate  Flower Bed Application Volunteer Body Formulation Hours Air Volume Inhalation Hand/ Forear Weight ( kg) Applied ( lb ai) ( rounded) Worked ( Liters) Exposure ( F g/ sample) m Exposure ( F g/ sample)

1 68 0. 1 0.37 44 < LOQ < LOQ 2 66 0. 1 0.42 50 < LOQ 2.94 3 114 0.1 0. 33 40 < LOQ 1. 88 4 64 0. 1 0.37 44 < LOQ 20.60 5 66 0. 1 0.63 76 < LOQ 8.45 6 73 0. 1 0.57 68 < LOQ < LOQ 7 57 0. 1 0.53 64 < LOQ < LOQ 8 55 0. 1 0.67 80 < LOQ < LOQ 9 59 0. 1 0.47 56 < LOQ 4.24 10 70 0.1 0. 40 48 < LOQ 5. 00 11 80 0.1 0. 42 50 < LOQ 12.10 12 132 0.1 0. 43 52 < LOQ 3. 16 13 66 0.1 0. 45 54 < LOQ 11.90 14 102 0.1 0. 52 62 < LOQ < LOQ 15 77 0.1 0. 45 54 < LOQ 8. 20 Arithmetic Mean     0.15 5.4 Standard Deviation      5.8 Coefficient of Variance      106 percent LOQ = 0.3 F g/ air sampling tubes ( ½ LOQ or 0.15 F g was assigned to values < LOQ) LOQ = 1.5 F g/ dermal wash ( ½ LOQ or 0.75 F g was assigned to values < LOQ for calculation of mean)

Most of the hand/ forearm dermal washing samples returned residue levels greater than the LOQ. All of the samples collected while subjects treated oleander shrubs were positive, ranging from 1. 39 to 36 µ g/ sample ( N= 15) . Ten of 15 samples collected while subjects treated flowerbeds were positive. For those 10 positive samples, values ranged between 1.88 to 20.6 µ g/ sample. The author reported that the time it took to treat shrubs ranged between 18 and 29 minutes. The time that it took to treat flowerbeds ranged between 20 and 40 minutes; five of these exposure periods exceeded the maximum 29 minutes it took to treat a shrub sub plot.

Tables 4 and 5 present the exposure data in unit exposure values, normalized to pounds active ingredient per amount handled per sampling period, and pounds active ingredient per amount handled per hour, and pounds active ingredient per amount handled per kilogram body weight per sampling period. These values were calculated by Versar. An inhalation unit exposure volume was not determined for shrub plot applications because no numerical value was assigned in the report to non detect values. In the risk assessment accompanying the Study Report ( MRID 453334 02) the registrant using a value of 30 percent of the LOQ ( 0.09 F g) for non detects.

14 Table 4. Unit Exposure Values  Shrubs Type mg/ lb ai mg/ hour e mg/ kg/ sampling period f Dermal a, d Inhalation b, c Dermal a Inhalation b Dermal a Inhalation b Arithmetic Mean 0.14 0.013 0.038 0.0004 0.0002 0.0000055 Std. Dev. 0.11 0.000079 0.032 0.00005 0.00018 0.0000013 Geo Mean 0.092 0.013 0.024 0.0004 0.00013 0.0000053 25th % tile 0.043 0.012 0.011 0.00038 0.000061 0.0000051 75th % tile 0.18 0.013 0.051 0.00043 0.00024 0.0000062 90th % tile 0.27 0.013 0.086 0.00045 0.00049 0.0000070 95th % tile 0.32 0.013 0.098 0.00048 0.00053 0.0000073 99th % tile 0.35 0.013 0.10 0.0005 0.00056 0.0000075 LOQ = 0.3 F g/ air sampling tube LOQ = 1.5 F g/ dermal wash A respiratory rate of 16.7 L/ min was assumed, based on the draft NAFTA recommended inhalation rates. a The unit exposure value is base on data where some values are < LOQ b The unit exposure value is based on data where all values are < LOQ. Inhalation unit exposure ( mg/ lb ai) = [ residue ( F g* 0.001) / air volume ( l) ] * 16.7 l/ min( minute volume of human) * minutes worked / pounds ai handled. d residue ( F g* 0.001) / pounds ai handled e residue ( F g* 0.001) / hours worked f residue ( F g* 0.001) / body weight/ hours worked Table 5. Unit Exposure Values  Flower Beds Type mg/ lb ai mg/ hour e mg/ kg/ sampling period f Dermal a, d Inhalation b, c Dermal a Inhalation b Dermal a Inhalation b Arithmetic Mean 0.054 0.013 0.013 0.00033 0.000079 0.0000045 Std. Dev. 0.058 0.0000829 0.015 0.000065 0.000087 0.0000011 Geo Mean 0.030 0.013 0.0066 0.00033 0.00044 0.0000044 25th % tile 0.0075 0.012 0.0017 0.00029 0.00015 0.0000038 75th % tile 0.083 0.013 0.016 0.00037 0.00012 0.0000054 90th % tile 0.12 0.013 0.028 0.00041 0.00017 0.0000057 95th % tile 0.15 0.013 0.037 0.00042 0.00022 0.0000061 99th % tile 0.19 0.013 0.052 0.00045 0.0003 0.0000063 LOQ = 0.3 F g/ air sampling tube LOQ = 1.5 F g/ dermal wash A respiratory rate of 16.7 L/ min was assumed, based on the draft NAFTA recommended inhalation rates. a The unit exposure value is base on data where some values are < LOQ b The unit exposure value is based on data where all values are < LOQ. c Inhalation unit exposure ( mg/ lb ai) = [ residue ( F g* 0.001) / air volume ( l) ] * 16.7 l/ min( minute volume of human) * minutes worked / pounds ai handled. d residue ( F g* 0.001) / pounds ai handled e residue ( F g* 0.001) / hours worked f residue ( F g* 0.001) / body weight/ hours worked 15 c Compliance Checklist s Compliance with OPPTS Series 875, Occupational and Residential Exposure Test Guidelines is critical. The itemized checklist below outlines compliance with the major technical aspects of OPPTS Group A: 875.1300, Inhalation Exposure   Outdoor and 875.1100, Dermal Exposure   Outdoor, as they relate to the study.

C Typical end use product of the active ingredient used. This criterion was met.

C End use product handled and applied using recommended equipment, application rates, and typical work practices. It is uncertain whether this criteria was met. The application technique employed in this study might not represent the typical method of application of granular pesticide to rose bushes or shrubs. It is likely that a homeowner could apply the product while on hands and knees and reaching underneath foliage ( with hands or hand trowel) to reach the base of the plant. If this work practice was assessed, additional dermal monitoring would be required in order to adequately characterize potential dermal exposure ( i. e. , exposure to knees, upper and lower legs, and feet) .

C A minimum of five replicates each at a minimum of three different sites are to be employed. This criterion was met.

C Dermal and/ or inhalation exposure should be monitored by validated methodologies. This criterion was met.

C There should be a minimum of one field fortified sample per worker per monitoring period for each fortification level, plus unfortified field blanks . This criterion was met.

C The efficiency of extraction of hand rinses conducted in one solvent with subsequent partition into a second solvent for analysis should be determined . This criterion was met. Method validation, laboratory and field fortified recovery values were satisfactory.

C The stability of the analyte of interest in the medium of interest must be determined . This criterion was met as demonstrated by satisfactory field fortification recoveries.

C The following information should be reported for agricultural applications, yards, gardens: ( 1) description of the crop, plot size, row spacing; ( 2) description of application ( including rate, type of formulation, tank capacity, type of carrier, final mix concentration, total pounds active ingredient applied or mixed) ; ( 3) description of application equipment ( type, model) ; ( 4) weather data: relative humidity, wind speed, wind direction, and temperature; ( 5) work activity monitored; ( 6) exposure observations; ( 7) exposure time . These criteria were met.

C After collection, field samples should be stored immediately in a freezer pending further treatment. This criterion was met.

C A sample history sheet should be included in the report, tracking sample number, date of collection, date of extraction, date of analysis, and identification of who participated in each stage . This criterion was partially met. While a history sheet as such was not provided, most of the information was available in the report.

16 C Clothing worn by each study participant should be thoroughly described. This criterion was not met. The author states that   for the first three sessions, volunteers wore new pairs of Tyvek ® pants over their clothes   . The other clothing worn by study participants ( e. g. , long sleeved vs. short sleeved shirt) is described only as   fresh set of clothes   and   street clothes   .

C Quantity of active ingredient handled and duration of monitoring period should be reported for each replication. This criterion was met.

C Testing should include at least one field fortification sample per worker per monitoring period per fortification level for each matrix should and at least one field blank per worker per monitoring period for each matrix. This criterion was met.

C Efficiency of extraction in laboratory provided as a mean plus or minus one standard deviation. This criterion was met.

C The analytical method for inhalation monitoring should be sufficiently sensitive so that, coupled with the trapping and extraction procedures chosen, it is capable of measuring exposure to 1 µ g/ hour ( or less) . This criterion was met. The LOQ for the method was 0.3 µ g/ sample. Samples were collected on OVS XAD sorbent tubes. Exposure periods ranged between 18 and 38 minutes, and were collected at 2 liters/ minute, yielding sample volumes, ranging between 36 and 76 liters per sample.

C To ensure that collected material is not lost from the medium during sampling, the investigator should also test for breakthrough . This criterion was not met. The investigator did not test for breakthrough to ensure that collected material was not lost.

C If trapping media are to be stored after exposure, a test for the storage stability of the compound should be documented. The time periods for storage are to be chosen so that the longest corresponds to the longest projected storage period for field samples . This criterion was met. Field fortified recovery samples analyzed at about the same time as the field samples indicated satisfactory storage stability.

C Applicator   s inhalation exposure should be measured with battery powered personal monitoring pumps capable of producing an airflow of at least 2 liters per minute and pump batteries should be capable of sustaining maximum airflow for at least 4 hours without recharging. This criterion was met.

C The intake tube of any pump powered sampler unit should be positioned so that the opening is downward. The intake tube should be placed as near as possible to the nose level of the test subject . It is not known whether these criteria were met, as these details were not reported. The author did, however, state that monitoring occurred in the breathing zone.

C Calibration data for air sampling pumps should be provided. If the air flow has been found to change, the mean flow should be used for all calculations . This criterion was not met. Calibration data for air sampling pumps was not provided.

The following additional items of concern have been noted:

The field fortification samples were prepared using liquid disulfoton. Although it is difficult to prepare granular field spikes, there is no known way to compare the recovery results to recoveries of a granular formulation. The significance of this difference is therefore unknown.

17 EPA provided the registrant with comments on study outlines submitted to the Agency. The following comment was not fully addressed in the conduct of the study, as both real plants and simulated plants were used:

Use of Simulated Plants: The Agency prefers that the study use real plants because it is difficult, if not impossible, to tell how closely the   simulated   plant environment reflects what is actually encountered by a homeowner. If the registrant could not find a study site with enough roses or shrubs to treat, the Agency recommended that the study at least include a subset of real plants in established beds to compare the   real   and the   simulated   plants. .

18


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 209 (Monday, October 29, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65518-65520]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26522]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0521; FRL-9745-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Delaware; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas
Permitting Authority and Tailoring Rule Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control (DNREC). This revision pertains to EPA's
greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting provisions as promulgated on June 3,
2010. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 28,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2012-0521 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0521, Kathleen Cox, Associate Director,
Office of Permits and Air Toxics, Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2012-0521. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401, Dover, Delaware
19903.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Talley,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. On October 12, 2011, DNREC
submitted a proposed revision to the Delaware SIP. The revision is to 7
DE Admin. Code 1125--Requirements for Preconstruction Review. The
amendments incorporate preconstruction permitting requirements for GHG
sources consistent with federal requirements.

I. Background

    On October 12, 2011, DNREC submitted a revision to EPA for approval
into the Delaware SIP to establish appropriate emission thresholds for
determining which new or modified stationary sources are

subject to Delaware's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
permitting requirements for GHG emissions. Subsequent to that
submittal, it was discovered that Delaware's proposed revision
contained an error which would have inadvertently and incorrectly
limited the circumstances under which a source could trigger PSD
requirements for GHG emissions. Delaware initiated steps to undertake
rulemaking action to correct the error, and on August 9, 2012,
submitted a formal supplement to the October 12, 2011 SIP submittal.
The supplement contained the corrected text of 7 DE Admin. Code 1125.
Final approval of Delaware's October 12, 2011 SIP revision will put in
place the GHG emission thresholds for PSD applicability set forth in
EPA's ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse
Gas Tailoring Rule,'' (the Tailoring Rule) Final Rule, 75 FR 31514
(June 3, 2010), ensuring that smaller GHG sources emitting less than
these thresholds are not subject to permitting requirements.\1\
Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve this
revision into the Delaware SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Tailoring Rule also applies to the title V program,
which requires operating permits for existing sources. However,
today's action does not affect Delaware's title V program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's proposed action on the Delaware SIP generally relates to
four federal rulemaking actions. The first rulemaking action is EPA's
Tailoring Rule. The second rulemaking action is EPA's ``Action to
Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding
of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,'' Proposed Rule (GHG SIP Call),
75 FR 53892 (September 2, 2010). The third rulemaking action is EPA's
``Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan,'' Proposed Rule, 75 FR 53883
(September 2, 2010) (GHG FIP), which serves as a companion rulemaking
action to EPA's proposed GHG SIP Call. The fourth rulemaking action is
the ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State
Implementation Plans'' 75 FR 82536 (Narrowing Rule) (December 30,
2010). A summary of each of these rulemaking actions is provided below.
    In the first rulemaking action, the Tailoring Rule, EPA established
appropriate GHG emission thresholds for determining the applicability
of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources. In the second rulemaking
action, the GHG SIP Call, EPA found that the EPA-approved PSD programs
in 13 States (not including Delaware) were substantially inadequate to
meet CAA requirements because they did not appear to apply PSD
requirements to GHG-emitting sources. For each of these States, EPA
proposed to require the State (through a ``SIP Call'') to revise its
SIP as necessary to correct such inadequacies. EPA proposed an
expedited schedule for these States to submit their SIP revision, in
light of the fact that as of January 2, 2011, certain GHG-emitting
sources were subject to the PSD requirements and may not have been able
to obtain a PSD permit in order to construct or modify. In the third
rulemaking action, the GHG FIP, EPA issued a FIP to apply in any state
that was unable to submit, by its deadline, a SIP revision to ensure
that the state had authority to issue PSD permits for GHG-emitting
sources. Because Delaware already had authority to regulate GHGs,
Delaware is only seeking to revise its SIP to put in place the GHG
emission thresholds for PSD applicability set forth in EPA's Tailoring
Rule, thereby ensuring that smaller GHG sources emitting less than
these thresholds are not subject to permitting requirements for sources
of GHG. In the Narrowing Rule, EPA limited its approval of those
states' programs which had the authority to regulate GHG's, but lacked
a vehicle to limit applicability to the higher thresholds established
by the Tailoring Rule.
    For a detailed discussion of GHGs and GHG-emitting sources, the CAA
PSD program, minimum SIP elements for a PSD program, and EPA's recent
actions regarding GHG permitting, the relationship between the proposed
Delaware SIP revision and EPA's other national rulemakings, as well as
EPA's analysis of Delaware's SIP revision, refer to the Technical
Support Document in the docket for this action which can be found at
www.regulations.gov (Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0521).

II. EPA's Analysis of Delaware's SIP Revision

    On October 12, 2011, DNREC submitted a proposed revision to
Delaware's SIP to EPA for approval. The revision is to 7 DE Admin. Code
1125--Requirements for Preconstruction Review.
    On July 29, 2010, Delaware provided a letter to EPA with
confirmation that the state not only had the authority to regulate GHG
in its PSD and title V programs, but could also interpret the term
``subject to regulation'' consistent with the Tailoring Rule.
Nevertheless, Delaware undertook rulemaking to explicitly incorporate
the Tailoring Rule thresholds into their PSD program. Delaware's
October 12, 2011, proposed SIP revision establishes thresholds for
determining which stationary sources and modification projects become
subject to permitting requirements for GHG emissions under Delaware's
PSD program.
    The changes to Delaware's PSD program regulations at 7 DE Admin.
Code 1125 are substantively the same as the federal provisions amended
in EPA's Tailoring Rule. As part of its review of the Delaware
submittal, EPA performed a line-by-line review of Delaware's proposed
revisions and has preliminarily determined that they are consistent
with the Tailoring Rule. The August 9, 2012 revision that was formally
submitted as a supplement to the October 12, 2011 submittal addresses
an error in the definition of ``Subject to Regulation'' at 7 DE Admin.
Code 1125, section 1.9--Definitions. The definition as originally
submitted would have inappropriately limited the circumstances under
which a facility can trigger PSD review for its GHG emissions. The
proposed revision to the definition submitted in the August 9, 2012
supplement appropriately mirrors the federal requirements. These
changes to Delaware's regulations are also consistent with section 110
of the CAA because they are incorporating GHGs for regulation in the
Delaware SIP.

III. Proposed Action

    Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve
Delaware's October 12, 2011, SIP revision (as amended by the August 9,
2012 supplement), relating to PSD requirements for GHG-emitting
sources. Specifically, Delaware's October 12, 2011, proposed SIP
revision establishes appropriate emissions thresholds for determining
PSD applicability to new and modified GHG-emitting sources in
accordance with EPA's Tailoring Rule. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that this SIP revision is approvable because it is in
accordance with the CAA and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting
for GHGs. EPA is soliciting public comments on our proposed approval of
the revisions to the Delaware SIP. These comments will be considered
before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission

that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal
regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they
meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely
approves the State's law as meeting federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by the State's law.
For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed SIP revision pertaining to greenhouse
gas permitting does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and
EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: October 10, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-26522 Filed 10-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


PIGTOE, OVAL Pleurobema pyriforme Clam PIGTOE, ROUGH Pleurobema plenum Clam CLUBSHELL, OVATE Pleurobema perovatum Clam HEELSPLITTER, INFLATED Potamilus inflatus Clam CLUBSHELL Pleurobema clava Clam BANKCLIMBER, PURPLE Elliptoideus sloatianus Clam PIGTOE, SOUTHERN Pleurobema georgianum Clam THREERIDGE, FAT Amblema neislerii Clam PEARLYMUSSEL, PINK MUCKET Lampsilis abrupta Clam PEARLYMUSSEL, ORANGE FOOTED Plethobasus cooperianus Clam PEARLYMUSSEL, HIGGINS' EYE Lampsilis higginsii Clam POCKETBOOK, FAT Potamilus capax Clam POCKETBOOK, FINE LINED Lampsilis altilis Clam POCKETBOOK, SHINY RAYED Lampsilis subangulata Clam MUCKET, ORANGE NACRE Lampsilis perovalis Clam MOCCASINSHELL, GULF Medionidus penicillatus Clam CLUBSHELL, SOUTHERN Pleurobema decisum Clam PIGTOE, SHINY Fusconaia cor Clam HEELSPLITTER, CAROLINA Lasmigona decorata Clam SHRIMP, ALABAMA CAVE Palaemonias alabamae Crustacean SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE Lepidurus packardi Crustacean SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL FAIRY Branchinecta lynchi Crustacean SHRIMP, SQUIRREL CHIMNEY CAVE Palaemonetes cummingi Crustacean SHRIMP, SAN DIEGO FAIRY Branchinecta sandiegonensis Crustacean Thursday, June 09, 2005 Page 5 of 20 ( Phase III 3/ 07/ 06)      123    147 SHRIMP, RIVERSIDE FAIRY Streptocephalus woottoni Crustacean SHRIMP, CONSERVANCY FAIRY Branchinecta conservatio Crustacean SHRIMP, CALIFORNIA FRESHWATER Syncaris pacifica Crustacean SHRIMP, LONGHORN FAIRY Branchinecta longiantenna Crustacean ISOPOD, MADISON CAVE Antrolana lira Crustacean AMPHIPOD, KAUAI CAVE Spelaeorchestia koloana Crustacean SALMON, CHUM ( HOOD CANAL Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) keta Fish SUMMER POPULATION)

SALMON, ATLANTIC Salmo salar Fish SALMON, CHINOOK ( CALIFORNIA Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) tshawytscha Fish COASTAL ESU)

SALMON, CHINOOK ( CENTRAL Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) tshawytscha Fish VALLEY SPRING RUN)

SALMON, CHINOOK ( LOWER Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) tshawytscha Fish COLUMBIA RIVER)

SALMON, CHINOOK ( PUGET SOUND) Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) tshawytscha Fish SALMON, CHINOOK ( SACRAMENTO Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) tshawytscha Fish RIVER WINTER RUN)

SALMON, CHINOOK ( SNAKE RIVER Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) tshawytscha Fish FALL RUN)

SALMON, CHINOOK ( SNAKE RIVER Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) tshawytscha Fish SPRING/ SUMMER)

SALMON, CHINOOK ( UPPER Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) tshawytscha Fish COLUMBIA RIVER SPRING)

STEELHEAD, UPPER COLUMBIA Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) mykiss Fish RIVER POPULATION SALMON, CHUM ( COLUMBIA RIVER Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) keta Fish POPULATION)

CHUB, MOHAVE TUI Gila bicolor mohavensis Fish SALMON, COHO ( CENTRAL Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) kisutch Fish CALIFORNIA COAST POP)

SALMON, COHO ( OREGON COAST Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) kisutch Fish POPULATION)

SALMON, COHO ( SOUTHERN Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) kisutch Fish OR/ NORTHERN CA COAST)

SALMON, SOCKEYE ( SNAKE RIVER Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) nerka Fish POPULATION)

STEELHEAD, SOUTHERN Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) mykiss Fish CALIFORNIA POPULATION SAWFISH, SMALLTOOTH Pristis pectinata Fish STEELHEAD, SOUTH CENTRAL Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) mykiss Fish CALIFORNIA POP SALMON, CHINOOK ( UPPER Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) tshawytscha Fish WILLAMETTE RIVER)

TROUT, BULL Salvelinus confluentus Fish DARTER, SNAIL Percina tanasi Fish Thursday, June 09, 2005 Page 6 of 20 ( Phase III 3/ 07/ 06)      124    147 DARTER, SLACKWATER Etheostoma boschungi Fish DARTER, OKALOOSA Etheostoma okaloosae Fish DARTER, LEOPARD Percina pantherina Fish DARTER, ETOWAH Etheostoma etowahae Fish DARTER, CHEROKEE Etheostoma scotti Fish DARTER, BAYOU Etheostoma rubrum Fish TROUT, PAIUTE CUTTHROAT Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris Fish STEELHEAD, UPPER WILLAMETTE Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) mykiss Fish RIVER POPULATION TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi Fish STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) mykiss Fish POPULATION PUPFISH, DESERT Cyprinodon macularius Fish SUCKER, SANTA ANA Catostomus santaanae Fish SUCKER, RAZORBACK Xyrauchen texanus Fish STURGEON, SHORTNOSE Acipenser brevirostrum Fish STURGEON, PALLID Scaphirhynchus albus Fish STURGEON, GULF Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Fish STURGEON, ALABAMA Scaphirhynchus suttkusi Fish CHUB, OREGON Oregonichthys crameri Fish STICKLEBACK, UNARMORED Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni Fish THREESPINE TROUT, LITTLE KERN GOLDEN Oncorhynchus aguabonita whitei Fish STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) mykiss Fish VALLEY POP SMELT, DELTA Hypomesus transpacificus Fish MADTOM, SCIOTO Noturus trautmani Fish GOBY, TIDEWATER Eucyclogobius newberryi Fish SILVERSIDE, WACCAMAW Menidia extensa Fish SQUAWFISH, COLORADO Ptychocheilus lucius Fish STEELHEAD, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) mykiss Fish POPULATION STEELHEAD, LOWER COLUMBIA Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) mykiss Fish RIVER POPULATION CHUB, BONYTAIL Gila elegans Fish STEELHEAD, MIDDLE COLUMBIA Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) mykiss Fish RIVER POPULATION SHINER, TOPEKA Notropis topeka (= tristis) Fish SHINER, CAPE FEAR Notropis mekistocholas Fish SHINER, CAHABA Notropis cahabae Fish SHINER, ARKANSAS RIVER Notropis girardi Fish Thursday, June 09, 2005 Page 7 of 20 ( Phase III 3/ 07/ 06)      125    147 STEELHEAD, NORTHERN Oncorhynchus (= Salmo) mykiss Fish CALIFORNIA POPULATION SHINER, BLUE Cyprinella caerulea Fish BUTTERFLY, SAINT FRANCIS' SATYR Neonympha mitchellii francisci Insect BUTTERFLY, QUINO CHECKERSPOT Euphydryas editha quino (= E. e. wrighti) Insect BUTTERFLY, BEHREN'S SILVERSPOT Speyeria zerene behrensii Insect BUTTERFLY, BAY CHECKERSPOT Euphydryas editha bayensis Insect BUTTERFLY, MITCHELL'S SATYR Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii Insect MOTH, BLACKBURN'S SPHINX Manduca blackburni Insect BUTTERFLY, KARNER BLUE Lycaeides melissa samuelis Insect BUTTERFLY, SAN BRUNO ELFIN Callophrys mossii bayensis Insect BUTTERFLY, LOTIS BLUE Lycaeides argyrognomon lotis Insect BEETLE, PURITAN TIGER Cicindela puritana Insect SKIPPER, LAGUNA MOUNTAIN Pyrgus ruralis lagunae Insect MOTH, KERN PRIMROSE SPHINX Euproserpinus euterpe Insect BUTTERFLY, MISSION BLUE Icaricia icarioides missionensis Insect BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Insect LONGHORN BEETLE, DELTA GREEN GROUND Elaphrus viridis Insect BUTTERFLY, CALLIPPE SILVERSPOT Speyeria callippe callippe Insect BUTTERFLY, FENDER'S BLUE Icaricia icarioides fenderi Insect BEETLE, OHLONE TIGER Cicindela ohlone Insect BEETLE, NORTHEASTERN BEACH Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis Insect TIGER FLY, DELHI SANDS FLOWER LOVING Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis Insect BEETLE, HUNGERFORD'S CRAWLING Brychius hungerfordi Insect WATER BUTTERFLY, SMITH'S BLUE Euphilotes enoptes smithi Insect BUTTERFLY, MYRTLE'S SILVERSPOT Speyeria zerene myrtleae Insect BEETLE, AMERICAN BURYING Nicrophorus americanus Insect GRASSHOPPER, ZAYANTE Trimerotropis infantilis Insect BAND WINGED DRAGONFLY, HINES EMERALD Somatochlora hineana Insect BEETLE, MOUNT HERMON JUNE Polyphylla barbata Insect BAT, HAWAIIAN HOARY Lasiurus cinereus semotus Mammal BAT, INDIANA Myotis sodalis Mammal FOX, SANTA CRUZ ISLAND Urocyon littoralis santacruzae Mammal FOX, SANTA ROSA ISLAND Urocyon littoralis santarosae Mammal BAT, OZARK BIG EARED Corynorhinus (= Plecotus) townsendii Mammal KANGAROO RAT, FRESNO Dipodomys nitratoides exilis Mammal KANGAROO RAT, STEPHENS' Dipodomys stephensi ( incl. D. cascus) Mammal Thursday, June 09, 2005 Page 8 of 20 ( Phase III 3/ 07/ 06)      126    147 FERRET, BLACK FOOTED Mustela nigripes Mammal KANGAROO RAT, SAN BERNARDINO Dipodomys merriami parvus Mammal KANGAROO RAT, MORRO BAY Dipodomys heermanni morroensis Mammal WOODRAT, RIPARIAN Neotoma fuscipes riparia Mammal WOLF, RED Canis rufus Mammal WOLF, GRAY Canis lupus Mammal OCELOT Leopardus (= Felis) pardalis Mammal OTTER, SOUTHERN SEA Enhydra lutris nereis Mammal KANGAROO RAT, GIANT Dipodomys ingens Mammal LYNX, CANADA Lynx canadensis Mammal FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT Vulpes macrotis mutica Mammal MOUSE, SALT MARSH HARVEST Reithrodontomys raviventris Mammal MOUSE, PACIFIC POCKET Perognathus longimembris pacificus Mammal BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK Ursus americanus luteolus Mammal MOUSE, CHOCTAWHATCHEE BEACH Peromyscus polionotus allophrys Mammal FOX, SAN MIGUEL ISLAND Urocyon littoralis littoralis Mammal MOUNTAIN BEAVER, POINT ARENA Aplodontia rufa nigra Mammal DEER, COLUMBIAN WHITE TAILED Odocoileus virginianus leucurus Mammal WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Eubalaena glacialis Mammal CARIBOU, WOODLAND Rangifer tarandus caribou Mammal SQUIRREL, DELMARVA PENINSULA Sciurus niger cinereus Mammal FOX RABBIT, PYGMY Brachylagus idahoensis Mammal RABBIT, RIPARIAN BRUSH Sylvilagus bachmani riparius Mammal SHREW, BUENA VISTA Sorex ornatus relictus Mammal SHEEP, PENINSULAR BIGHORN Ovis canadensis Mammal BAT, VIRGINIA BIG EARED Corynorhinus (= Plecotus) townsendii Mammal virginianus SEAL, GUADALUPE FUR Arctocephalus townsendi Mammal SEAL, HAWAIIAN MONK Monachus schauinslandi Mammal KANGAROO RAT, TIPTON Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides Mammal MANATEE, WEST INDIAN Trichechus manatus Mammal BEAR, GRIZZLY Ursus arctos horribilis Mammal GOLDENROD, HOUGHTON'S Solidago houghtonii Plant GOLDFIELDS, BURKE'S Lasthenia burkei Plant GOLDEN SUNBURST, HARTWEG'S Pseudobahia bahiifolia Plant IRIS, DWARF LAKE Iris lacustris Plant HAHA ( CYANEA COPELANDII SSP. Cyanea copelandii ssp. copelandii Plant COPELANDII)

HA'IWALE ( CYRTANDRA Cyrtandra limahuliensis Plant LIMAHULIENSIS)

Thursday, June 09, 2005 Page 9 of 20 ( Phase III 3/ 07/ 06)      127    147 HA'IWALE ( CYRTANDRA GIFFARDII) Cyrtandra giffardii Plant HAHA ( CYANEA SHIPMANII) Cyanea shipmannii Plant JEWELFLOWER, CALIFORNIA Caulanthus californicus Plant IPOMOPSIS, HOLY GHOST Ipomopsis sancti spiritus Plant HAHA ( CYANEA STICTOPHYLLA) Cyanea stictophylla Plant HAHA ( CYANEA HAMATIFLORA SSP. Cyanea hamatiflora carlsonii Plant CARLSONII)

KAMAKAHALA ( LABORDIA Labordia lydgatei Plant LYDGATEI)

HAHA ( CYANEA REMYI) Cyanea remyi Plant KAMAKAHALA ( LABORDIA Labordia tinifolia var. wahiawaensis Plant TINIFOLIA VAR. WAHIAWAEN GOLDFIELDS, CONTRA COSTA Lasthenia conjugens Plant GOOSEBERRY, MICCOSUKEE Ribes echinellum Plant ( FLORIDA)

GOUANIA MEYENII ( NCN) Gouania meyenii Plant GRASS, CALIFORNIA ORCUTT Orcuttia californica Plant GRASS, COLUSA Neostapfia colusana Plant FOUR O'CLOCK, MACFARLANE'S Mirabilis macfarlanei Plant GRASS, HAIRY ORCUTT Orcuttia pilosa Plant JOINT VETCH, SENSITIVE Aeschynomene virginica Plant HEAU ( EXOCARPOS LUTEOLUS) Exocarpos luteolus Plant FRITILLARY, GENTNER'S Fritillaria gentneri Plant HAPLOSTACHYS HAPLOSTACHYA Haplostachys haplostachya Plant ( NCN)

HALA PEPE ( PLEOMELE Pleomele hawaiiensis Plant FRINGEPOD, SANTA CRUZ ISLAND Thysanocarpus conchuliferus Plant HARPERELLA Ptilimnium nodosum Plant HAU KAUHIWI ( HIBISCADELPHUS Hibiscadelphus woodii Plant WOODI)

FRINGE TREE, PYGMY Chionanthus pygmaeus Plant GEOCARPON MINIMUM Geocarpon minimum Plant GERARDIA, SANDPLAIN Agalinis acuta Plant HAU KUAHIWI ( HIBISCADELPHUS Hibiscadelphus distans Plant DISTANS)

GILIA, HOFFMANN'S Gilia tenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii Plant SLENDER FLOWERED GRASS, SACRAMENTO ORCUTT Orcuttia viscida Plant HYPERICUM, HIGHLANDS SCRUB Hypericum cumulicola Plant HEARTLEAF, DWARF FLOWERED Hexastylis naniflora Plant ILIAU ( WILKESIA HOBDYI) Wilkesia hobdyi Plant HEDYOTIS ST. JOHNII ( NCN) Hedyotis st. johnii Plant Thursday, June 09, 2005 Page 10 of 20 ( Phase III 3/ 07/ 06)      128    147 HESPEROMANNIA LYDGATEI ( NCN) Hesperomannia lydgatei Plant HIBISCUS, CLAY'S Hibiscus clayi Plant GRASS, SLENDER ORCUTT Orcuttia tenuis Plant HAHA ( CYANEA RECTA) Cyanea recta Plant GRASS, SOLANO Tuctoria mucronata Plant HAHA ( CYANEA PLATYPHYLLA) Cyanea platyphylla Plant GILIA, MONTEREY Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria Plant HILO ISCHAEMUM ( ISCHAEMUM Ischaemum byrone Plant BYRONE)

HAHA ( CYANEA ASARIFOLIA) Cyanea asarifolia Plant HOLEI ( OCHROSIA KILAUEAENSIS) Ochrosia kilaueaensis Plant HOWELLIA, WATER Howellia aquatilis Plant HAREBELLS, AVON PARK Crotalaria avonensis Plant GRASS, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY Orcuttia inaequalis Plant ORCUTT BIRD'S BEAK, PENNELL'S Cordylanthus tenuis ssp. capillaris Plant AUPAKA ( ISODENDRION Isodendrion longifolium Plant LONGIFOLIUM)

' AWIWI ( CENTAURIUM Centaurium sebaeoides Plant ' AWIWI ( HEDYOTIS COOKIANA) Hedyotis cookiana Plant BACCHARIS, ENCINITAS Baccharis vanessae Plant BARBARA'S BUTTONS, MOHR'S Marshallia mohrii Plant BARBERRY, ISLAND Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis Plant BARBERRY, NEVIN'S Berberis nevinii Plant BEAKED RUSH, KNIESKERN'S Rhynchospora knieskernii Plant BEARGRASS, BRITTON'S Nolina brittoniana Plant BONAMIA, FLORIDA Bonamia grandiflora Plant BIRD'S BEAK, PALMATE BRACTED Cordylanthus palmatus Plant ASTER, FLORIDA GOLDEN Chrysopsis floridana Plant BIRD'S BEAK, SALT MARSH Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus Plant BIRD'S BEAK, SOFT Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis Plant BLADDERPOD, MISSOURI Lesquerella filiformis Plant BLADDERPOD, WHITE Lesquerella pallida Plant BLAZING STAR, SCRUB Liatris ohlingerae Plant BLUEGRASS, HAWAIIAN Poa sandvicensis Plant BLUEGRASS, MANN'S ( POA MANNII) Poa mannii Plant BLUEGRASS, SAN BERNARDINO Poa atropurpurea Plant CHECKER MALLOW, NELSON'S Sidalcea nelsoniana Plant BEDSTRAW, ISLAND Galium buxifolium Plant ALOPECURUS, SONOMA Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis Plant Thursday, June 09, 2005 Page 11 of 20 ( Phase III 3/ 07/ 06)      129    147 ADOBE SUNBURST, SAN JOAQUIN Pseudobahia peirsonii Plant A'E ( ZANTHOXYLUM DIPETALUM Zanthoxylum dipetalum var. tomentosum Plant VAR. TOMENTOSUM)

A'E ( ZANTHOXYLUM HAWAIIENSE) Zanthoxylum hawaiiense Plant ' AIEA ( NOTHOCESTRUM Nothocestrum breviflorum Plant BREVIFLORUM)

' AIEA ( NOTHOCESTRUM Nothocestrum peltatum Plant ' AKOKO ( EUPHORBIA Euphorbia haeleeleana Plant ALANI ( MELICOPE HAUPUENSIS) Melicope haupuensis Plant ALANI ( MELICOPE KNUDSENII) Melicope knudsenii Plant ALANI ( MELICOPE PALLIDA) Melicope pallida Plant AUPAKA ( ISODENDRION Isodendrion laurifolium Plant LAURIFOLIUM)

ALANI ( MELICOPE Melicope zahlbruckneri Plant AUPAKA ( ISODENDRION HOSAKAE) Isodendrion hosakae Plant ALSINIDENDRON VISCOSUM ( NCN) Alsinidendron viscosum Plant AMARANTH, SEABEACH Amaranthus pumilus Plant AMBROSIA, SAN DIEGO Ambrosia pumila Plant Amole, Camatta Canyon Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum Plant AMOLE, PURPLE Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum Plant AMPHIANTHUS, LITTLE Amphianthus pusillus Plant ' ANUNU ( SICYOS ALBA) Sicyos alba Plant ASPLENIUM FRAGILE VAR. Asplenium fragile var. insulare Plant INSULARE ( NCN)

ASTER, DECURRENT FALSE Boltonia decurrens Plant BRODIAEA, THREAD LEAVED Brodiaea filifolia Plant ALANI ( MELICOPE Melicope quadrangularis Plant QUADRANGULARIS)

DROPWORT, CANBY'S Oxypolis canbyi Plant CROWNSCALE, SAN JACINTO Atriplex coronata var. notatior Plant CYANEA UNDULATA ( NCN) Cyanea undulata Plant CYPRESS, GOWEN Cupressus goveniana ssp. goveniana Plant CYPRESS, SANTA CRUZ Cupressus abramsiana Plant DAISY, LAKESIDE Hymenoxys herbacea Plant DAISY, PARISH'S Erigeron parishii Plant DAISY, WILLAMETTE Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens Plant DAWN FLOWER, TEXAS PRAIRIE Hymenoxys texana Plant (= TEXAS BITTERWEED DELISSEA RHYTODISPERMA ( NCN) Delissea rhytidosperma Plant BONAMIA MENZIESII ( NCN) Bonamia menziesii Plant DIELLIA PALLIDA ( NCN) Diellia pallida Plant CLOVER, SHOWY INDIAN Trifolium amoenum Plant Thursday, June 09, 2005 Page 12 of 20 ( Phase III 3/ 07/ 06)      130    147 DUBAUTIA LATIFOLIA Dubautia latifolia Plant DUBAUTIA PAUCIFLORULA Dubautia pauciflorula Plant DUDLEYA, MARCESCENT Dudleya cymosa ssp. marcescens Plant DUDLEYA, SANTA CLARA VALLEY Dudleya setchellii Plant DUDLEYA, SANTA CRUZ ISLAND Dudleya nesiotica Plant EVENING PRIMROSE, ANTIOCH Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii Plant DUNES FERN, AMERICAN HART'S TONGUE Asplenium scolopendrium var. Plant FERN, PENDANT KIHI Adenophorus periens Plant ( ADENOPHORUS PERIENS)

FIDDLENECK, LARGE FLOWERED Amsinckia grandiflora Plant DIELLIA ERECTA ( NCN) Diellia erecta Plant CHAFFSEED, AMERICAN Schwalbea americana Plant BUCKWHEAT, SCRUB Eriogonum longifolium var. Plant BULRUSH, NORTHEASTERN Scirpus ancistrochaetus Plant (= BARBED BRISTLE)

BUSH CLOVER, PRAIRIE Lespedeza leptostachya Plant BUSHMALLOW, SANTA CRUZ Malacothamnus fasciculatus var. Plant BUTTON CELERY, SAN DIEGO Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii Plant CACTUS, BAKERSFIELD Opuntia treleasei Plant CACTUS, UINTA BASIN HOOKLESS Sclerocactus glaucus Plant CAMPION, FRINGED Silene polypetala Plant CATCHFLY, SPALDING'S Silene spaldingii Plant CROWN BEARD, BIG LEAVED Verbesina dissita Plant CEANOTHUS, VAIL LAKE Ceanothus ophiochilus Plant CONEFLOWER, SMOOTH Echinacea laevigata Plant CHAMAESYCE HALEMANUI Chamaesyce halemanui Plant CHECKER MALLOW, KECK'S Sidalcea keckii Plant CHECKER MALLOW, KENWOOD Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida Plant MARSH CLADONIA, FLORIDA PERFORATE Cladonia perforata Plant CLARKIA, PISMO Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculata Plant CLARKIA, SPRINGVILLE Clarkia springvillensis Plant CLARKIA, VINE HILL Clarkia imbricata Plant CLOVER, MONTEREY Trifolium trichocalyx Plant CLOVER, RUNNING BUFFALO Trifolium stoloniferum Plant FLANNELBUSH, MEXICAN Fremontodendron mexicanum Plant CEANOTHUS, COYOTE Ceanothus ferrisae Plant SCHIEDEA NUTTALLII ( NCN) Schiedea nuttallii Plant REMYA KAUAIENSIS ( NCN) Remya kauaiensis Plant REMYA MONTGOMERYI ( NCN) Remya montgomeryi Plant Thursday, June 09, 2005 Page 13 of 20 ( Phase III 3/ 07/ 06)      131    147 ROCK CRESS, HOFFMANN'S Arabis hoffmannii Plant ROCK CRESS, MCDONALD'S Arabis mcdonaldiana Plant ROSEMARY, SHORT LEAVED Conradina brevifolia Plant ROSEROOT, LEEDY'S Sedum integrifolium ssp. leedyi Plant SANDLACE Polygonella myriophylla Plant SAND VERBENA, LARGE FRUITED Abronia macrocarpa Plant SANDWORT, MARSH Arenaria paludicola Plant SCHIEDEA HELLERI ( NCN) Schiedea helleri Plant PHYLLOSTEGIA KNUDSENII ( NCN) Phyllostegia knudsenii Plant SCHIEDEA MEMBRANACEA ( NCN) Schiedea membranacea Plant QUILLWORT, BLACK SPORED Isoetes melanospora Plant SCHIEDEA SPERGULINA VAR. Schiedea spergulina var. leiopoda Plant LEIOPODA ( NCN)

SCHIEDEA SPERGULINA VAR. Schiedea spergulina var. spergulina Plant SPERGULINA ( NCN)

SEA BLITE, CALIFORNIA Suaeda californica Plant SEDGE, WHITE Carex albida Plant SILENE HAWAIIENSIS ( NCN) Silene hawaiiensis Plant SILENE LANCEOLATA ( NCN) Silene lanceolata Plant SILVERSWORD, KA'U Argyroxiphium kauense Plant ( ARGYROXIPHIUM KAUENSE)

SILVERSWORD, MAUNA KEA Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. Plant (' AHINAHINA) sandwicense SNEEZEWEED, VIRGINIA Helenium virginicum Plant SPERMOLEPIS HAWAIIENSIS ( NCN) Spermolepis hawaiiensis Plant SCHIEDEA KAUAIENSIS ( NCN) Schiedea kauaiensis Plant KAUILA ( COLUBRINA Colubrina oppositifolia Plant PHYLLOSTEGIA VELUTINA ( NCN) Phyllostegia velutina Plant PHYLLOSTEGIA WAIMEAE ( NCN) Phyllostegia waimeae Plant PHYLLOSTEGIA WARSHAUERI ( NCN) Phyllostegia warshaueri Plant PHYLLOSTEGIA WAWRANA ( NCN) Phyllostegia wawrana Plant PINK, SWAMP Helonias bullata Plant PINKROOT, GENTIAN Spigelia gentianoides Plant PIPERIA, YADON'S Piperia yadonii Plant PITCHER PLANT, ALABAMA Sarracenia rubra alabamensis Plant CANEBRAKE PITCHER PLANT, GREEN Sarracenia oreophila Plant PLATANTHERA HOLOCHILA ( NCN) Platanthera holochila Plant RATTLEWEED, HAIRY Baptisia arachnifera Plant POA SIPHONOGLOSSA ( NCN) Poa siphonoglossa Plant QUILLWORT, LOUISIANA Isoetes louisianensis Plant Thursday, June 09, 2005 Page 14 of 20 ( Phase III 3/ 07/ 06)      132    147 POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED Isotria medeoloides Plant MINT, OTAY MESA Pogogyne nudiuscula Plant POLYGONUM, SCOTT'S VALLEY Polygonum hickmanii Plant PONDBERRY Lindera melissifolia Plant POPOLO ' AIAKEAKUA ( SOLANUM Solanum sandwicense Plant SANDWICENSE)

POPOLO KU MAI ( SOLANUM Solanum incompletum Plant INCOMPLETUM)

POTATO BEAN, PRICE'S Apios priceana Plant POTENTILLA, HICKMAN'S Potentilla hickmanii Plant PUSSYPAWS, MARIPOSA Calyptridium pulchellum Plant PU'UKA'A ( CYPERUS Cyperus trachysanthos Plant TRACHYSANTHOS)

SPINEFLOWER, MONTEREY Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens Plant PLUM, SCRUB Prunus geniculata Plant WATERCRESS, GAMBEL'S Rorippa gambellii Plant SPINEFLOWER, BEN LOMOND Chorizanthe pungens var. hartwegiana Plant TORREYA, FLORIDA Torreya taxifolia Plant TRILLIUM, RELICT Trillium reliquum Plant TUCTORIA, GREEN'S Tuctoria greenei Plant UHIUHI ( CAESALPINIA KAVAIENSIS) Caesalpinia kavaiense Plant VETCH, HAWAIIAN ( VICIA Vicia menziesii Plant VIGNA O WAHUENSIS ( NCN) Vigna o wahuensis Plant VIOLA HELENAE ( NCN) Viola helenae Plant WAHINE NOHO KULA Isodendrion pyrifolium Plant ( ISODENDRION PYRIFOLIUM)

WALLFLOWER, BEN LOMOND Erysimum teretifolium Plant THORNMINT, SAN DIEGO Acanthomintha ilicifolia Plant WAREA, WIDE LEAF Warea amplexifolia Plant THISTLE, SUISUN Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilum Plant WATER PLANTAIN, KRAL'S Sagittaria secundifolia Plant WAWAE'IOLE ( PHLEGMARIURUS Huperzia mannii Plant (= HUPERZIA) MANNII)

WAWAE'IOLE ( PHLEGMARIURUS Lycopodium (= Phlegmariurus) nutans Plant (= LYCOPODIUM) NUTAN WHITLOW WORT, PAPERY Paronychia chartacea Plant WILD BUCKWHEAT, CLAY LOVING Eriogonum pelinophilum Plant WINGS, PIGEON Clitoria fragrans Plant WIREWEED Polygonella basiramia Plant WOOLLY STAR, SANTA ANA RIVER Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum Plant WOOLLY THREADS, SAN JOAQUIN Monolopia (= Lembertia) congdonii Plant XYLOSMA CRENATUM ( NCN) Xylosma crenatum Plant Thursday, June 09, 2005 Page 15 of 20 ( Phase III 3/ 07/ 06)      133    147 YERBA SANTA, LOMPOC Eriodictyon capitatum Plant WALLFLOWER, MENZIE'S Erysimum menziesii Plant SUNFLOWER, EGGERT'S Helianthus eggertii Plant PO'E ( PORTULACA SCLEROCARPA) Portulaca sclerocarpa Plant SPINEFLOWER, ORCUTT'S Chorizanthe orcuttiana Plant SPINEFLOWER, ROBUST Chorizanthe robusta ( incl. vars. robusta Plant and hartwegii)

SPINEFLOWER, SCOTTS VALLEY Chorizanthe robusta var. hartwegii Plant SPINEFLOWER, SLENDER HORNED Dodecahema leptoceras Plant SPINEFLOWER, SONOMA Chorizanthe valida Plant SPURGE, HOOVER'S Chamaesyce hooveri Plant STENOGYNE ANGUSTIFOLIA ( NCN) Stenogyne angustifolia var. angustifolia Plant STENOGYNE CAMPANULATA ( NCN) Stenogyne campanulata Plant STICKYSEED, BAKER'S Blennosperma bakeri Plant THORNMINT, SAN MATEO Acanthomintha obovata ssp. duttonii Plant SUMAC, MICHAUX'S Rhus michauxii Plant SPINEFLOWER, HOWELL'S Chorizanthe howellii Plant SUNFLOWER, SAN MATEO WOOLLY Eriophyllum latilobum Plant SUNFLOWER, SCHWEINITZ'S Helianthus schweinitzii Plant TARPLANT, GAVIOTA Deinandra increscens ssp. villosa Plant TARPLANT, OTAY Deinandra (= Hemizonia) conjugens Plant TARPLANT, SANTA CRUZ Holocarpha macradenia Plant TETRAMOLOPIUM ARENARIUM Tetramolopium arenarium Plant THELYPODY, HOWELL'S Thelypodium howellii spectabilis Plant SPECTACULAR THISTLE, CHORRO CREEK BOG Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense Plant THISTLE, FOUNTAIN Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale Plant THISTLE, LA GRACIOSA Cirsium loncholepis Plant THISTLE, PITCHER'S Cirsium pitcheri Plant STONECROP, LAKE COUNTY Parvisedum leiocarpum Plant LYSIMACHIA FILIFOLIA ( NCN) Lysimachia filifolia Plant MARISCUS FAURIEI ( NCN) Mariscus fauriei Plant LOMATIUM, BRADSHAW'S Lomatium bradshawii Plant LOMATIUM, COOK'S Lomatium cookii Plant LOOSESTRIFE, ROUGH LEAVED Lysimachia asperulaefolia Plant LOULU ( PRITCHARDIA AFFINIS) Pritchardia affinis Plant LOULU ( PRITCHARDIA Pritchardia napaliensis Plant LOULU ( PRITCHARDIA Pritchardia schattaueri Plant LOULU ( PRITCHARDIA VISCOSA) Pritchardia viscosa Plant LOUSEWORT, FURBISH Pedicularis furbishiae Plant Thursday, June 09, 2005 Page 16 of 20 ( Phase III 3/ 07/ 06)      134    147 LUPINE, CLOVER Lupinus tidestromii Plant LOBELIA NIIHAUENSIS ( NCN) Lobelia niihauensis Plant LUPINE, SCRUB Lupinus aridorum Plant LIVEFOREVER, SANTA BARBARA Dudleya traskiae Plant ISLAND MAHOE ( ALECTRYON Alectryon macrococcus Plant MACROCOCCUS)

MAKOU ( PEUCEDANUM Peucedanum sandwicense Plant SANDWICENSE)

MALACOTHRIX, ISLAND Malacothrix squalida Plant MALACOTHRIX, SANTA CRUZ Malacothrix indecora Plant MALLOW, KERN Eremalche kernensis Plant MANZANITA, DEL MAR Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia Plant MANZANITA, MORRO Arctostaphylos morroensis Plant POLYGALA, LEWTON'S Polygala lewtonii Plant MA'O HAU HELE ( HIBISCUS Hibiscus brackenridgei Plant BRACKENRIDGEI)

PHLOX, TEXAS TRAILING Phlox nivalis ssp. texensis Plant MAPELE ( CYRTANDRA Cyrtandra cyaneoides Plant LUPINE, NIPOMO MESA Lupinus nipomensis Plant LAU'EHU ( PANICUM NIIHAUENSE) Panicum niihauense Plant KAULU ( PTERALYXIA KAUAIENSIS) Pteralyxia kauaiensis Plant KIO'ELE ( HEDYOTIS CORIACEA) Hedyotis coriacea Plant KIPONAPONA ( PHYLLOSTEGIA Phyllostegia racemosa Plant RACEMOSA)

KOKI'O ( KOKIA DRYNARIOIDES) Kokia drynarioides Plant KOKI'O ( KOKIA KAUAIENSIS) Kokia kauaiensis Plant KOKI'O KE'OKE'O ( HIBISCUS Hibiscus waimeae ssp. hannerae Plant WAIMEAE SSP. HANNER KOLEA ( MYRSINE LINEARIFOLIA) Myrsine linearifolia Plant KO'OLOA'ULA ( ABUTILON Abutilon menziesii Plant KUAWAWAENOHU Alsinidendron lychnoides Plant ( ALSINIDENDRON LYCHNOIDES)

LADIES' TRESSES, NAVASOTA Spiranthes parksii Plant LOCOWEED, FASSETT'S Oxytropis campestris var. chartacea Plant LARKSPUR, YELLOW Delphinium luteum Plant MA'OLI'OLI ( SCHIEDEA Schiedea apokremnos Plant LAUKAHI KUAHIWI ( PLANTAGO Plantago hawaiensis Plant HAWAIENSIS)

LAUKAHI KUAHIWI ( PLANTAGO Plantago princeps Plant PRINCEPS)

LAULIHILIHI ( SCHIEDEA Schiedea stellarioides Plant STELLARIOIDES)

Thursday, June 09, 2005 Page 17 of 20 ( Phase III 3/ 07/ 06)      135    147 LAYIA, BEACH Layia carnosa Plant LEATHER FLOWER, ALABAMA Clematis socialis Plant LEATHER FLOWER, MOREFIELD'S Clematis morefieldii Plant LESSINGIA, SAN FRANCISCO Lessingia germanorum (= L. g. var. Plant germanorum)

LILY, MINNESOTA TROUT Erythronium propullans Plant LILY, PITKIN MARSH Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense Plant LILY, WESTERN Lilium occidentale Plant LIPOCHAETA VENOSA ( NCN) Lipochaeta venosa Plant LADIES' TRESSES, UTE Spiranthes diluvialis Plant ' OHA WAI ( CLERMONTIA Clermontia drepanomorpha Plant DREPANOMORPHA)

ZIZIPHUS, FLORIDA Ziziphus celata Plant MONKEY FLOWER, MICHIGAN Mimulus glabratus var. michiganensis Plant MONKSHOOD, NORTHERN WILD Aconitum noveboracense Plant MOUNTAINBALM, INDIAN KNOB Eriodictyon altissimum Plant ' OHA WAI ( CLERMONTIA PELEANA) Clermontia peleana Plant ' OHA WAI ( CLERMONTIA Clermontia lindseyana Plant LINDSEYANA)

MUNROIDENDRON RACEMOSUM Munroidendron racemosum Plant ( NCN)

MUSTARD, CARTER'S Warea carteri Plant NANI WAI'ALE'ALE ( VIOLA Viola kauaiensis var. wahiawaensis Plant KAUAENSIS VAR. WAHIAW ACHYRANTHES MUTICA ( NCN) Achyranthes mutica Plant NAVARRETIA, MANY FLOWERED Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha Plant MINT, SAN DIEGO MESA Pogogyne abramsii Plant ' OHA ( DELISSEA UNDULATA) Delissea undulata Plant MANZANITA, SANTA ROSA ISLAND Arctostaphylos confertiflora Plant NAVARRETIA, SPREADING Navarretia fossalis Plant NEHE ( LIPOCHAETA FAURIEI) Lipochaeta fauriei Plant NEHE ( LIPOCHAETA MICRANTHA) Lipochaeta micrantha Plant ' OHA ( DELISSEA RIVULARIS) Delissea rivularis Plant NOHOANU ( GERANIUM Geranium multiflorum Plant MULTIFLORUM)

NEHE ( LIPOCHAETA WAIMEAENSIS) Lipochaeta waimeaensis Plant NERAUDIA OVATA ( NCN) Neraudia ovata Plant NERAUDIA SERICEA ( NCN) Neraudia sericea Plant NAVARRETIA, FEW FLOWERED Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora Plant (= N. pauciflora)

MEADOWFOAM, SEBASTOPOL Limnanthes vinculans Plant PHACELIA, ISLAND Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis Plant Thursday, June 09, 2005 Page 18 of 20 ( Phase III 3/ 07/ 06)      136    147 PENTACHAETA, WHITE RAYED Pentachaeta bellidiflora Plant PENNY CRESS, KNEELAND PRAIRIE Thlaspi californicum Plant PAINTBRUSH, TIBURON Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta Plant PAINTBRUSH, SOFT LEAVED Castilleja mollis Plant PAINTBRUSH, GOLDEN Castilleja levisecta Plant OWL'S CLOVER, FLESHY Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta Plant ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE Platanthera praeclara Plant ORCHID, EASTERN PRAIRIE Platanthera leucophaea Plant MONARDELLA, WILLOWY Monardella linoides ssp. viminea Plant MARISCUS PENNATIFORMIS ( NCN) Mariscus pennatiformis Plant MINT, LONGSPURRED Dicerandra cornutissima Plant ' OHAI ( SESBANIA TOMENTOSA) Sesbania tomentosa Plant MILK VETCH, TRIPLE RIBBED Astragalus tricarinatus Plant ONION, MUNZ'S Allium munzii Plant ' OHA WAI ( CLERMONTIA Clermontia pyrularia Plant MEADOWRUE, COOLEY'S Thalictrum cooleyi Plant MILK VETCH, JESUP'S Astragalus robbinsii var. jesupi Plant MILK VETCH, COASTAL DUNES Astragalus tener var. titi Plant MILK VETCH, COACHELLA VALLEY Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae Plant MILK VETCH, CLARA HUNT'S Astragalus clarianus Plant ' OLULU ( BRIGHAMIA INSIGNIS) Brighamia insignis Plant MEHAMEHAME ( FLUEGGEA Flueggea neowawraea Plant NEOWAWRAEA)

LIZARD, ISLAND NIGHT Xantusia riversiana Reptile TURTLE, YELLOW BLOTCHED MAP Graptemys flavimaculata Reptile TURTLE, RINGED SAWBACK Graptemys oculifera Reptile TURTLE, PLYMOUTH RED BELLIED Pseudemys rubriventris bangsi Reptile TURTLE, OLIVE ( PACIFIC) RIDLEY Lepidochelys olivacea Reptile TORTOISE, DESERT Gopherus agassizii Reptile LIZARD, BLUNT NOSED LEOPARD Gambelia silus Reptile SNAKE, SAN FRANCISCO GARTER Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia Reptile TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA Caretta caretta Reptile SNAKE, GIANT GARTER Thamnophis gigas Reptile SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO Drymarchon corais couperi Reptile SKINK, BLUE TAILED MOLE Eumeces egregius lividus Reptile LIZARD, COACHELLA VALLEY Uma inornata Reptile FRINGE TOED SKINK, SAND Neoseps reynoldsi Reptile TORTOISE, GOPHER Gopherus polyphemus Reptile TURTLE, ALABAMA RED BELLIED Pseudemys alabamensis Reptile Thursday, June 09, 2005 Page 19 of 20 ( Phase III 3/ 07/ 06)      137    147 TURTLE, FLATTENED MUSK Sternotherus depressus Reptile TURTLE, GREEN SEA Chelonia mydas Reptile TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA Eretmochelys imbricata Reptile TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA Dermochelys coriacea Reptile SNAKE, CONCHO WATER Nerodia paucimaculata Reptile SNAIL, NEWCOMB'S Erinna newcombi Snail SNAIL, SNAKE RIVER PHYSA Physa natricina Snail SNAIL, BLISS RAPIDS Taylorconcha serpenticola Snail SPRINGSNAIL, IDAHO Fontelicella idahoensis Snail SNAIL, MORRO SHOULDERBAND Helminthoglypta walkeriana Snail SNAIL, TULOTOMA Tulotoma magnifica Snail SPRINGSNAIL, BRUNEAU HOT Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis Snail ROCKSNAIL, PLICATE Leptoxis plicata Snail ROCKSNAIL, PAINTED Leptoxis taeniata Snail SHAGREEN, MAGAZINE MOUNTAIN Mesodon magazinensis Snail No species were excluded.

Thursday, June 09, 2005 Page 20 of 20 ( Phase III 3/ 07/ 06)      138    147 APPENDIX J: MCPA/ MCPB Calculations Acute to Chronic Ratio Aquatic Organisms ( Phase III 3/ 07/ 06)      139    147 Summary of endpoints ( LC50 or EC50, mg ae/ L) for MCPA acute and chronic aquatic toxicity studies ORGANISM GROUP MCPA ( acute) MCPB ( acute ) MCPA ( chroni c) MCPB ( chronic )

freshwater fish ( rainbow trout) 96 ( MCPA DMAS) 3.9 No data No data freshwater fish ( fathead minnow) only chronic freshwater fish study for MCPA No data No data 12 No data freshwater inverts ( Daphnid) only one study chronic freshwater invertebrate study for MCPA 82 ( MCPA DMAS) 50 11 No data estuarine/ marine fish Atlantic Silverside 179 ( MCPA Acid) No data No data No data estuarine/ marine inverts eastern oyster 4.9 ( MCPA sodium salt) No data No data No data Summary of endpoints ( LC50 or EC50, mg ae/ L) determined by acute and chronic ratios ORGANISM GROUP MCPB ( acute) MCPB ( chronic )

freshwater fish 3.9 .5 a Acute to chronic ratio freshwater inverts 50 6.7b Acute to chronic ratio estuarine/ marine fish 7.3c Acute to chronic .9d Acute to chronic estuarine/ marine invert 2.9e Freshwate r/ estuarin e marine ratio .4f aMCPB Freshwater fish ( chronic) .5= [ 12( chronic freshwater fish MCPA ) / 96( acute freshwater fish MCPA)] x3.9( acute freshwater fish MCPB) b MCPB Freshwater invertebrate ( chronic) 6.7=[ 11( chronic freshwater invertebrate MCPA ) / 96( acute freshwater invertebrate MCPA)] x 50( acute freshwater invertebrate MCPB) cMCPB Estuarine marine fish ( acute) 7.3=[ 96( acute freshwater fish MCPA ) / 179( acute estuarine marine fish MCPA)] x 3.9( acute freshwater fish MCPB) ( Phase III 3/ 07/ 06)      140    147 dMCPB Estuarine marine fish ( chronic) .9=(. 5 chronic freshwater fish MCPB ) / 3.9( acute freshwater fish MCPB)] x 7.3( acute estuarine marine fish MCPB) eMCPB Estuarine marine invertebrates ( acute) 2.9=[ 50( acute freshwater invertebrate MCPB ) / 82( acute freshwater invertebrates MCPA)] x 4.9( acute estuarine marine invertebrates MCPA) FMCPB Estuarine marine invertebrates ( chronic) .4 =[ 50( acute freshwater invertebrate MCPB ) / 82( acute freshwater invertebrates MCPA)] x 4.9( acute estuarine marine invertebrates MCPA) x[ 11( chronic freshwater invertebrate MCPA ) / 82( acute freshwater invertebrates MCPA)] ( Phase III 3/ 07/ 06)      141    147 Summarized Chronic Aquatic Organism Risk Quotients for MCPB Acid a, b Application/ Scenario Freshwater Fishc, d Freshwater Invertebrates e, f Estuarine Fishc, d Estuarine Invertebrates e, f Peas ( ground spray application) Oregon 0.06 <. 01 0.03 0.07 Peas ( aerial spray application) Oregon 0.06 <. 01 0.04 0.08 Peas ( ground spray application) California 0.07 <. 01 0.04 0.10 Peas ( aerial spray application) California 0.07 <. 01 0.04 0.10 a Detailed calculations of PRZM 3.12/ EXAMS 2.98 modeling for peas grown in Oregon and California are provided in Appendix B.

bChronic toxicity thresholds ( LC50 or EC50) calculated by acute to chronic ratio with values from MCPA were .5 and 6.7 mg ae/ L for freshwater fish and freshwater invertebrates, respectively. Chronic toxicity thresholds ( LC50 or EC50) calculated by acute to chronic ratio with values from MCPA were .9 and .4 mg ae/ L for estuarine marine fish and estuarine marine invertebrates, respectively.

Chronic Fish C EECs for Oregon bean Scenario were 28.1 and 31.5 µ g/ L for ground spray and aerial spray, respectively. DEECs for California lettuce Scenario were 36.4 and 38.9 µ g/ L for ground spray and aerial spray, respectively.

Chronic Invertebrates eEECs for Oregon bean Scenario were 29.0 and 32.5 µ g/ L for ground spray and aerial spray, respectively. FEECs for California lettuce Scenario were 39.0 and 41.7 µ g/ L for ground spray and aerial spray, respectively.

Summarized Acute Aquatic Organism Risk Quotients for MCPB Acid a, b Application/ Scenario Freshwater Fisha, b Freshwater Invertebrates a, b Estuarine Fisha, b Estuarine Invertebrates a, b Peas ( ground spray application) Oregon < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.07 Peas ( aerial spray application) Oregon < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.08 Peas ( ground spray application) California 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.10 Peas ( aerial spray application) California 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.10 For an estuarine marine and freshwater ratio MCPB and MCPA: Acute toxicity thresholds ( LC50 or EC50) calculated with acute estuarine marine fish and estuarine invertebrate values from MCPA 179 and 4.9 respectively; Values from MCPB were 3.9 and 50 mg ae/ L for acute freshwater fish and freshwater invertebrates, respectively.

Acute Fish and Invertebrates a EECs for Oregon bean Scenario were 29.5 and 33.1 µ g/ L for ground spray and aerial spray, respectively. BEECs for California lettuce Scenario were 40.4 and 43.2 µ g/ L for ground spray and aerial spray, respectively.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 106 (Friday, June 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 30040]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11736]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9056-8]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed May 24, 2021 10 a.m. EST Through May 28, 2021 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20210061, Final, USFS, CA, Stanislaus National Forest Over-Snow
Vehicle (OSV) Use Designation, Review Period Ends: 07/06/2021, Contact:
Kathryn Wilkinson<PHONE_NUMBER>.

EIS No. 20210062, Final, TREAS, MD, Construction and Operation of a
Currency Production Facility within the National Capital Region, Review
Period Ends: 07/06/2021, Contact: Charles Davis<PHONE_NUMBER>.

EIS No. 20210063, Draft Supplement, USACE, CA, American River Watershed
Common Features Water Resources Development Act of 2016, American River
Contract 2, Comment Period Ends: 07/19/2021, Contact: Public Affairs
Office<PHONE_NUMBER>.

EIS No. 20210064, Draft, GSA, MD, U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Muirkirk Road Campus Master Plan, Comment Period Ends: 07/19/2021,
Contact: Marshall Popkin<PHONE_NUMBER>.

EIS No. 20210065, Final, BIA, NV, Southern Bighorn Solar Projects,
Review Period Ends: 07/06/2021, Contact: Chip Lewis<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 28, 2021.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2021-11736 Filed 6-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P