[Federal Register: March 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 54)]
[Notices]
[Page 13337-13338]
[DOCID:fr21mr07-107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55475; File No. SR-OC-2007-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; OneChicago, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Block
Trades

March 15, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-7 under the Act,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 5, 2007, OneChicago, LLC (``OneChicago'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and
III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons. OneChicago has
also filed the proposed rule change with the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (``CFTC'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OneChicago filed a written certification with the CFTC under
Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act \3\ on February 2, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 7 U.S.C. 7a-2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Description of the Proposed Rule
Change

    OneChicago is proposing to amend its policy regarding block trades,
the text of which is available at the Exchange and the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    OneChicago is proposing to amend its Policies: Block Trades, Pre-
Execution Discussions and Cross Trades (``Block Trade Policy'')
relating to the block trade minimum contracts size. In addition to the
current minimum contract size of 100 contracts for block trades, the
proposed rule change would permit a minimum block trade contract size
that is the equivalent to 10,000 shares of the underlying security for
futures on single security (or combined securities if a relevant
corporate event has occurred).
    Based on its experience, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change would permit an appropriate minimum contract size for block
trades. The proposed rule change would set a minimum contract size for
block trades that is equivalent to the customary size of large
transactions in relevant markets, i.e., the securities market. The
proposed rule change would also permit a block trade size based on
combined securities if a relevant corporate event has occurred.
Combined securities would be relevant with certain corporate events,
such as spin offs or three for two splits.

For example, the Exchange has a March 2007 ABCD futures contract, which
has a trading unit of 100 shares of ABCD. ABCD announces a spin-off in
which an entity PQRS has been created and the spin-off ratio is one
share of PQRS for every 10 shares of ABCD. The spin-off will occur
(``the Ex date'') before the expiration of the March 2007 ABCD futures
contract. After the Ex date, the trading unit or deliverable shares for
the March 2007 ABCD futures contracts would be 100 shares of ABCD and
10 shares of PQRS. The minimum block trade size for the March 2007 ABCD
futures contract after the Ex date would be 91. Another example would
be when a corporate event results in a three for two split of shares.
In that case, the trading unit or deliverable shares would be 150
(provided the trading unit for the futures contract was 100 shares),
making the minimum block trade size 67 contracts.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \4\ in general and Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act \5\ in particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OneChicago does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Comments on the proposed rule change have not been solicited and
none have been received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(7) of the Act.\6\ Within 60 days of the date of
effectiveness of the proposed rule change, the Commission, after
consultation with the CFTC, may summarily abrogate the proposed rule
change and require that the proposed rule change be refiled in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-OC-2007-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OC-2007-02. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of OneChicago. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-OC-2007-02 and should be submitted on or before April
11, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(73).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5114 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: May 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 90)]
[Notices]
[Page 26657-26659]
[DOCID:fr10my07-113]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 27818; 812-13268]

First American Investment Funds, Inc., et al.; Notice of
Application

May 4, 2007.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section
15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain
disclosure requirements.

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

Summary of the Application: Applicants request an order that would
permit them to enter into and materially amend subadvisory agreements
without shareholder approval and would grant relief from certain
disclosure requirements.

Applicants: First American Investment Funds, Inc. (``FAIF'') and FAF
Advisors, Inc. (``Adviser'').

Filing Dates: The application was filed on March 8, 2006, and amended
on May 1, 2007.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on May 29, 2007 and should be accompanied by proof of service on
applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's
interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons
who wish to be notified of a hearing may request by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, 800 Nicollet Mall,
Minneapolis, MN 55402.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lewis B. Reich, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6919, or Julia Kim Gilmer, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Office of Investment Company Regulation, Division of Investment
Management).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549-0102 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. FAIF is organized as a Maryland corporation and is registered
under the Act as an open-end management investment company. FAIF
currently offers its shares in 39 series, each with its own investment
objectives, restrictions and policies. Two of these series, the
International Fund and the International Select Fund (collectively, the
``International Funds'') will operate under a manager of managers
structure. Applicants also request relief for any other existing or
future series of FAIF that is advised by the Adviser or by an entity
that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the
Adviser, uses the manager of managers investment management approach,
and complies with the terms and conditions of the application (such
series, together with the International Funds, the ``Funds'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All existing entities that currently intend to rely on the
order are named as applicants. If the name of any Fund contains the
name of a Money Manager (as defined below), the name of the Adviser,
or the name of the entity controlling, controlled by, or under
common control with the Adviser that serves as the primary adviser
to the Fund will precede the name of the Money Manager.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Adviser is registered as an investment adviser under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Advisers Act'') and serves as
investment adviser to the International Funds pursuant to an investment
advisory agreement (``Advisory Agreement'') with each Fund. The
Advisory Agreement between the Adviser and FAIF, acting on behalf of
the International Funds, was approved by the shareholders of the
International Fund and the initial shareholder of the International
Select Fund and by the Board of each International Fund, including a
majority of the directors who are not ``interested persons'' as defined
in section 2(a)(19) of the Act (``Independent Directors''), of the
International Funds.
    3. Under the terms of the Advisory Agreements, the Adviser will
provide

general investment management services to each Fund, including overall
supervisory responsibility for the general management and investment of
the Fund's assets, and have the authority, subject to Board approval,
to enter into investment subadvisory agreements (``Investment
Subadvisory Agreements'') with one or more subadvisers (``Money
Managers''). Each Money Manager will be registered under the Advisers
Act. The Adviser will evaluate, allocate assets to and oversee the
Money Managers and recommend to the Board their hiring, retention or
termination. Money Managers recommended to the Board by the Adviser are
selected and approved by the Board, including a majority of the
Independent Directors. Each Money Manager will have discretionary
authority to invest the assets or a portion of the assets of the
applicable Fund. The Adviser will compensate each Money Manager out of
the fees paid to the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement.
    4. Applicants request an order that would permit the Adviser to
select and hire Money Managers and materially amend Investment
Subadvisory Agreements without obtaining shareholder approval. The
requested relief will not extend to any Money Manager that is an
affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of a Fund
or the Adviser, other than by reason of serving as a Money Manager to
one or more of the Funds (``Affiliated Money Manager'').
    5. Applicants also request an exemption from various disclosure
provisions described below that may require a Fund to disclose fees
paid by the Adviser to each Money Manager. An exemption is requested to
permit a Fund to disclose (as both a dollar amount and as a percentage
of the Fund's net assets): (a) The aggregate fees paid to the Adviser
and any Affiliated Money Managers; and (b) the aggregate fees paid to
Money Managers other than Affiliated Money Managers (collectively,
``Aggregate Fee Disclosure''). For any Fund that employs an Affiliated
Money Manager, the Fund will provide separate disclosure of any fees
paid to the Affiliated Money Manager.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that it is
unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered
investment company except under a written contract that has been
approved by the vote of a majority of the company's outstanding voting
securities. Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class
of stock in a series company affected by a matter must approve such
matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
    2. Form N-1A is the registration statement used by open-end
investment companies. Item 14(a)(3) of Form N-1A requires disclosure of
the method and amount of an investment adviser's compensation.
    3. Rule 20a-1 under the Act requires proxies solicited with respect
to an investment company to comply with Schedule 14A under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``1934 Act''). Items 22(c)(1)(ii),
22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A, taken together,
require a proxy statement for a shareholder meeting at which the
advisory contract will be voted upon to include the ``rate of
compensation of the investment adviser,'' the ``aggregate amount of the
investment adviser's fees,'' a description of the ``terms of the
contract to be acted upon,'' and, if a change in the advisory fee is
proposed, the existing and proposed fees and the difference between the
two fees.
    4. Form N-SAR is the semi-annual report filed with the Commission
by registered investment companies. Item 48 of Form N-SAR requires
investment companies to disclose the rate schedule for fees paid to
their investment advisers, including the Money Managers.
    5. Regulation S-X sets forth the requirements for financial
statements required to be included as part of investment company
registration statements and shareholder reports filed with the
Commission. Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X require
that investment companies include in their financial statements
information about investment advisory fees.
    6. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or
from any rule thereunder, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors
and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the
Act. Applicants state that their requested relief meets this standard
for the reasons discussed below.
    7. Applicants assert that the shareholders of a Fund rely on the
Adviser to select one or more Money Managers which have the appropriate
skills and experience to manage the assets of the Fund. Applicants
assert that, from the perspective of an investor in a Fund, the role of
the Money Managers is substantially equivalent to that of the
individual portfolio managers employed by traditional investment
company advisory firms. Applicants state that requiring shareholder
approval of each Investment Subadvisory Agreement would impose costs
and unnecessary delays on the Funds, and may preclude the Adviser from
acting promptly in a manner considered advisable by the Board.
Applicants note that the Advisory Agreement and any Investment
Subadvisory Agreement with an Affiliated Money Manager will remain
subject to section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.
    8. Applicants assert that some Money Managers use a ``posted'' rate
schedule to set their fees. Applicants state that while Money Managers
are willing to negotiate fees that are lower than those posted on the
schedule, they are reluctant to do so where the fees are disclosed to
other prospective and existing customers. Applicants submit that the
requested relief would allow the Adviser to negotiate more effectively
with each individual Money Manager.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Before a Fund may rely on the order requested in the
application, the operation of the Fund in the manner described in the
application will be approved by a majority of the Fund's outstanding
voting securities, as defined in the Act, or, in the case of a Fund
whose public shareholders purchase shares on the basis of a prospectus
containing the disclosure contemplated by condition 2 below, by the
sole initial shareholder before offering the Fund's shares to the
public.
    2. The prospectus for each Fund will disclose the existence,
substance, and effect of any order granted pursuant to the Application.
Each Fund will hold itself out to the public as employing the
management structure described in the Application. The prospectus will
prominently disclose that the Adviser has ultimate responsibility
(subject to oversight by the Board) to oversee the Money Managers and
recommend their hiring, termination, and replacement.
    3. Within 90 days of the hiring of a new Money Manager, the
affected Fund shareholders will be furnished all information about the
new Money Manager that would be included in a proxy statement, except
as modified by the order to permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure. This
information will include Aggregate Fee Disclosure and

any change in such disclosure caused by the addition of the new Money
Manager. To meet this obligation, the Fund will provide shareholders
within 90 days of the hiring of a new Money Manager with an information
statement meeting the requirements of Regulation 14C, Schedule 14C and
Item 22 of Schedule 14A under the 1934 Act, except as modified by the
order to permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
    4. The Adviser will not enter into an Investment Subadvisory
Agreement with any Affiliated Money Manager without that agreement,
including the compensation to be paid thereunder, being approved by
Fund shareholders.
    5. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be
Independent Directors, and the nomination of new or additional
Independent Directors will be at the discretion of the then existing
Independent Directors.
    6. When a Money Manager change is proposed for a Fund with an
Affiliated Money Manager, the Board, including a majority of the
Independent Directors, will make a separate finding, reflected in the
applicable Board minutes, that such change is in the best interests of
the Fund and its shareholders and does not involve a conflict of
interest from which the Adviser or the Affiliated Money Manager derives
an inappropriate advantage.
    7. Independent legal counsel, as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under
the Act, will be engaged to represent the Independent Directors. The
selection of such counsel will be within the discretion of the then
existing Independent Directors.
    8. Whenever a Money Manager is hired or terminated, the Adviser
will provide the Board with information showing the expected impact on
the profitability of the Adviser.
    9. The Adviser will provide general investment management services
to each Fund, including overall supervisory responsibility for the
general management and investment of the Fund's assets, and, subject to
review and approval of the Board, will: (a) Set each Fund's overall
investment strategies, (b) evaluate, select and recommend Money
Managers to manage all or a part of a Fund's assets, (c) when
appropriate, allocate and reallocate a Fund's assets among multiple
Money Managers, (d) monitor and evaluate the performance of Money
Managers, and (e) implement procedures reasonably designed to ensure
that the Money Managers comply with each Fund's investment objective,
policies and restrictions.
    10. No director or officer of a Fund, or director or officer of the
Adviser, will own directly or indirectly (other than through a pooled
investment vehicle that is not controlled by such person) any interest
in a Money Manager, except for (a) ownership of interests in the
Adviser or any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under
common control with the Adviser, or (b) ownership of less than 1% of
the outstanding securities of any class of equity or debt of a publicly
traded company that is either a Money Manager or an entity that
controls, is controlled by or is under common control with a Money
Manager.
    11. Each Fund will disclose in its registration statement the
Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
    12. The requested order will expire on the effective date of Rule
15a-5 under the Act, if adopted.
    13. The Adviser will provide the Board, no less frequently than
quarterly, with information about the profitability of the Adviser on a
per-Fund basis. The information will reflect the impact on
profitability of the hiring or termination of any Money Manager during
the applicable quarter.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-9001 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: March 31, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 61)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16007-16009]
[DOCID:fr31mr10-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0686]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lower Grand River, Iberville
Parish, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the regulation governing the
operation of the LA 75 pontoon bridge, mile 38.4, in Iberville Parish,
Louisiana. The Iberville Parish School Board requested that the
operating regulation of the LA 75 pontoon bridge be changed to add an
additional 30 minutes to the end of the morning scheduled closure
period to provide more time for school buses to transit across the
bridge. The additional time is needed as a result of school
redistricting.

DATES: This rule is effective April 30, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments and related materials received from the public, as
well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the
docket, are part of docket USCG-2009-0686 and are available online by
going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0686 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also
available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On November 10, 2009, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Lower Grand River,
Iberville Parish, LA in the Federal Register (74 FR 57884). We received
one comment on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and
none was held.

Background and Purpose

    The Iberville Parish School Board requested a change in the
operation regulation for the LA 75 pontoon and the LA 77 swing bridge
across the Lower Grand River, mile 38.4 and 47.0, respectively, in
Iberville Parish, Louisiana. The change would add an additional 30
minutes to the end of each scheduled closure period to provide more
time for school buses to transit across the bridge. Extra time is now
needed because one of Iberville Parish's high schools has been closed.
School bus lines have been rerouted, creating the need to have more
time to transit the students over the bridges.
    Presently, 33 CFR 117.478(a) and (b) states: The draw of the LA 75
bridge, mile 38.4 (Alternate Route) at Bayou Sorrel and the draw of the
LA 77 bridge, mile 47.0 (Alternate Route) at Grosse Tete, shall open on
signal; except that, from about August 15 to about June 5 (the school
year), the draw of the LA 75 bridge need not be opened from 6 a.m. to
7:30 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and the draw of the LA 77 bridge
need not be opened from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. and from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays. The draws shall
open on signal at any time for an emergency aboard the vessel.
    Concurrent with the publication of the notice of proposed
rulemaking, a test deviation [USCG-2009-0686] was issued to allow the
Iberville Parish School Board to test the proposed schedule and to
obtain data and public comments. The test deviation allowed the bridges
to operate as follows: The draw of the LA 75 bridge, mile 38.4
(Alternate Route) at Bayou Sorrel and the draw of the LA 77 bridge,
mile 47.0 (Alternate Route) at Grosse Tete, shall open on signal;
except that, from about August 15 to about June 5 (the school year),
the draw of the LA 75 bridge need not be opened from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m.
and from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. and the draw of the LA 77 bridge need not be
opened from 6 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 2:30 p.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday except Federal holidays. The draws shall open on signal
at any time for an emergency aboard the vessel. The test period was in
effect from November 25, 2009 until December 28, 2009.
    One comment was received on November 11, 2009, before the test
deviation went into effect, from a mariner expressing concern about the
curfew changes. He is concerned because he believes there is already a
congestion problem on the waterway during the closure periods and the
additional 30 minutes would make the congestion worse. We did not
receive any comments during or after the test deviation.
    The Coast Guard has reviewed bridge tender logs from before,
during, and after the test deviation became effective. The logs do not
indicate an appreciable difference in the number of openings with the
additional 30 minute closure period. The Coast Guard also reviewed the
school buses crossing the bridges during the test deviation. The report
indicated that the only time extension needed for the school buses is
the morning closure for LA 75 pontoon bridge at Bayou Sorrel. Based on
the research and data that was reviewed and the comment that was
received, the Coast Guard has determined that the permanent change to
the operating regulation for the Bayou Sorrel, LA 75 pontoon bridge
morning closure period is warranted. The LA 75 pontoon bridge at Bayou
Sorrel afternoon bridge closure and the LA 77 swing bridge at Grosse
Tete morning and afternoon closures will remain as they are presently
regulated.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received one comment from a mariner on November 11,
2009. Although he recognizes the importance of getting children to
school at the proper times, he is worried about the increase in the
duration of time that the bridges would be closed because it would add
to a current congestion issue during those periods of closure. The
Coast Guard has analyzed the data and research on the impact of the
time

adjustment on vessel traffic and has concluded that there is not a
significant impact. Furthermore, the Coast Guard has analyzed the data
and research on the impact the time adjustment has made on school bus
traffic and has concluded that the only bridge closure in need of the
time adjustment is the morning closure at the LA 75 pontoon bridge at
Bayou Sorrel. Therefore, this is the only closure that will be
permanently changed in the regulatory text.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The changes have a minimal
impact on maritime traffic transiting the bridge. Mariners can plan
their trips in accordance with the scheduled bridge openings. The
changes to the regulatory text published in the NPRM will be less
restrictive than what was published. The afternoon closure at the LA 75
pontoon bridge at Bayou Sorrel and both the morning and afternoon
closures at the LA 77 swing bridge at Grosse Tete will remain unchanged
to what is currently published in the operating regulations.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels that would be
transiting the bridge during that 30 minute increment of time. Because
the amount of time that would be added to the current bridge closure
period is minimal, this rule will not affect a substantial number of
small entities and therefore will not have a substantial economic
impact.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM (SNPRM) we offered
to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security

Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  117.478 paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  117.478  Lower Grand River.

    (a) The draw of the LA 75 bridge, mile 38.4 (Alternate Route) at
Bayou Sorrel, shall open on signal; except that from about August 15 to
about June 5 (the school year), the draw need not be opened from 6 a.m.
to 8 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except
holidays. The draw shall open on signal at any time for an emergency
aboard a vessel.
* * * * *

    Dated: March 15, 2010.
Mary E. Landry,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-7167 Filed 3-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: May 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 101)]
[Notices]
[Page 29528]
[DOCID:fr26my10-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 2

May 7, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP00-257-001.
    Applicants: Ozark Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Ozark Gas Transmission, LLC submits Annual Actual Fuel
Use Report for the period of 1/1/09 through 12/31/09.
    Filed Date: 04/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100416-0005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-148-004.
    Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Company, LLC.
    Description: Wyoming Interstate Company, LLC submits Eighteenth
Revised Sheet No. 1 et al., FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No
2.
    Filed Date: 04/19/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100420-0202.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-447-005.
    Applicants: Monroe Gas Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Monroe Gas storage Company, LLC submits the Substitute
First Revised Sheet 331.
    Filed Date: 05/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100506-0211.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 17, 2010.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all
the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-12619 Filed 5-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES DATE: June 23, 2004 SUBJECT: Response to Public Comments on the Diazinon IRED TO: Diazinon EDOCKET OPP 2002 0251 FROM: Debra Edwards, Director Special Review and Reregistration Division The Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the public comments submitted on the Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( IRED) document for diazinon. The comment period ended January 10, 2003. 32 sets of comments were received from growers, crop associations, non governmental environmental groups, state environmental organizations, the registrant ( Makhteshim Agan), and pest management researchers. The range of comments ran from groups who believe the Agency is being too conservative, and thus overstating risks in its risk estimates, to those who believe the Agency needs to take measures beyond those proposed in the IRED in order to protect humans and the environment.

This document contains the EPA's responses to comments submitted on the diazinon IRED. Most comments addressed one or a few use sites; and those issues that were raised repeatedly have been addressed generically. EPA considered all comments and made changes to the IRED where deemed appropriate.

1X Safety Factor ( Natural Resources Defense Council, World Wildlife Fund, Beyond Pesticides)

1. Comment: EPA should use a 10X, not a 1X FQPA safety factor in its diazinon risk assessments. The 1X safety factor does not adequately protect all fetuses, infants, and children. Developmental neurotoxicity studies are not available for diazinon, but those for other organophosphorous pesticides show that infants and children may be more sensitive than adults. 2 Response: The DNT study was submitted to the Agency in February 2004, after this comment was submitted. The data will be reviewed and the results incorporated into both the individual diazinon risk assessment and the cumulative effects risk assessment for the organophosphate pesticides. Accordingly, this information will be fully considered in issuing the RED for diazinon.

Children's Exposure ( Natural Resources Defense Council, World Wildlife Fund, Beyond Pesticides)

2. Comment: EPA should consider children of farm workers and residents of agricultural communities as identifiable, high risk sub populations. EPA has not taken into account the higher pesticide exposures these children receive as a result of contact with their parents' clothing, dust tracked into their homes, contaminated soil in areas where they play, food brought directly from the fields to the table, or airborne pesticide drift.

Response: In assessing the risk to infants and children, EPA takes an approach which is designed to be protective of all children, including farm children. These commenters assert that EPA is not fully considering pesticide exposures to farm children. EPA is carefully considering similar and more detailed comments that NRDC has made with regard to exposure to farm children in a series of objections to various tolerance actions. EPA expects that its response to NRDC's objections to these tolerance actions will be completed in the next few months. Any change to exposure assessment procedures that comes out of this review of NRDC's objections will be considered as EPA completes the diazinon RED.

3. Comment: Diazinon occurs most frequently on the foods that are eaten most by children. Therefore, in seasons where pest pressures result in high uses of diazinon, it is very likely that children will be exposed at unacceptably high levels through their " favorite foods."

Response: EPA agrees that many of the food commodities children eat most are treated with diazinon. The fact that many commodities consumed by children may have diazinon residues and that these levels vary depending on how much diazinon is used, however, does not mean that such levels are " unacceptably high." In calculating the level of risk faced by children, it is necessary to look not only at the number of foods that may contain residues, but also at the levels of residues in those foods and the amounts of those foods that are consumed by children. EPA's risk assessment for diazinon did precisely that. Therefore, EPA does not expect that children will be exposed to unacceptably high levels of diazinon through foods. 3 Water Assessment Process ( Natural Resources Defense Council, World Wildlife Fund, Beyond Pesticides)

4. Comment: EPA should have considered urban, public health, and section 18 emergency uses of diazinon in its drinking water risk assessment. 69 percent of diazinon used is not used agriculturally, and inclusion of these other uses would clearly result in higher risk than the EPA estimates based on the current model that only considers agricultural uses, since most diazinon used in applied in urban settings.

Response: The Agency does not believe it was necessary to include urban, public health, or section 18 emergency diazinon uses in its drinking water assessment for diazinon, due to the fact that the decision had been made to cancel all non agricultural diazinon uses at the time the IRED was written. All diazinon products formulated for non agricultural use are being phased out through an agreement that was made with the technical registrants in December of 2000. All such products will be sold only until December 31, 2004. Additionally, there is a relatively large amount of monitoring data available for diazinon that reflects urban uses. These monitoring data do not indicate a concern for residues in drinking water from urban uses of diazinon.

5. Comment: The acute DWLOC for surface water is exceeded for all reported populations. This means that people are exposed to excessive diazinon residue levels, which pose health risks. However, the Agency has ignored its own results and determined that these exceedances are " probably not of concern."

Response: The Agency acknowledges that the DWLOC is exceeded for populations from the PRZM EXAMS modeling cited in the IRED. However, the Agency did not ignore these data in concluding that there probably should not be concern from diazinon residues in drinking water. Rather, EPA took into account that the modeling did not reflect significant mitigation measures in the IRED and also far exceeded monitoring values.

The PRZM EXAMS modeling estimate is considered to be conservative, since it is based on the maximum allowable rate for three aerial applications of diazinon to peaches at seven day intervals. The aerial application spray drift default value assumes that 5% of the application goes directly to the water body. This also assumes a default percent cropped area of 87% of the watershed and that the entire cropped area is treated with diazinon. The site is chosen as a vulnerable area which can be cropped. The model is intended to be provide an upper bound conservative estimate so that the Agency is protective in the absence of monitoring data. Additionally, as a result of mitigation from the IRED, aerial applications are no longer allowed ( except to lettuce), and only one application can be made to peaches per year. These mitigation measures will lower the water modeling estimates.

There is a relatively large amount of water monitoring data available for diazinon which 4 was summarized in a May 1999 drinking water memorandum from R. Matzner to C. Eiden. This memorandum is available on the EPA website. Much of these data are likely to reflect the residential uses of diazinon, which have been canceled. Nonetheless, even assuming that all values are related solely to agricultural uses, these monitoring data show levels to be significantly below modeling values and also below the DWLOC. Some of these summarized monitoring data are separated into urban and agricultural uses of diazinon, while other sources do not differentiate. The maximum reported concentration of diazinon from any source was 3.8 ppb, but it was not clear whether this was an urban or an agricultural source. For agricultural usage, the monitoring value recommended for comparison to the acute DWLOC is 2.3 ppb. This is the 95th percentile residue value which was derived by considering the maximum value from each of the 94 agricultural monitoring sites. The acute DWLOC for children is 9 ppb.

6. Comment: The chronic DWLOC is exceeded for surface water for all reported populations. This means that people are exposed to excessive diazinon residue levels, which pose health risk. However, the Agency has ignored its own results and determined that these exceedances are " not of concern."

Response: As with the surface water modeling values used for acute risk assessment, the PRZM EXAMS chronic modeling estimate is considered to be conservative, since it is based on the maximum allowable rate for three aerial applications of diazinon to peaches at seven day intervals. The aerial application spray drift default value assumes that 5% of the application goes directly to the water body. The model also assumes a default percent cropped area of 87% of the watershed and that the entire cropped area is treated with diazinon. The site is chosen as a vulnerable area which can be cropped. The model is intended to be provide an upper bound conservative estimate so that the Agency is protective in the absence of monitoring data.

While the monitoring studies do cite a single value of 3.8 ppb which is above the DWLOC for children, the vast majority of samples are well below the 2 ppb DWLOC for children. In assessing chronic risk, EPA calculates the highest value to which a person may likely be exposed on a chronic basis, rather than focusing on a single high value that may be present occasionally. The average diazinon monitoring data point recommended for comparison is 0.5 ppb, which is well below the DWLOC for all populations. This value includes monitoring from urban and agricultural sites. Based on cancellation of residential uses and mitigation required by the IRED, these monitoring data can be considered an upper estimate of what would be found from current use. The Agency stands by its conclusion that for chronic risk assessments, the reported modeling exceedances are " not of concern for diazinon," based on ( 1) the extensive changes in the diazinon use pattern and ( 2) the conservative nature of the modeling runs when compared with the monitoring data.

Worker Risks Unacceptably High ( Natural Resources Defense Council, World Wildlife Fund)

7. Comment: Even with the mitigation measures called for in the IRED in place, EPA 5 cannot quantify the level of protection being provided to farm workers, and so cannot guarantee adequate protection of workers, some of whom are children and pregnant women. Therefore, farm workers are still at unacceptable levels of risk of injury during their work day. EPA should cancel all uses of diazinon that threaten the health and safety of agriculture workers.

Response: It is important to note that EPA is required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) to perform risk benefit analyses when reregistering all pesticides. Diazinon applications have been restricted to those where benefits are considered to be high.

While EPA acknowledges that the level of protection provided to farm workers as a result of the mitigation measures in the IRED cannot be explicitly quantified, the Agency does expect that these mitigation measures will provide some added protection of farm workers as a result of significantly reduced exposure. Mitigation measures called for in the IRED that protect workers include: 1) reduction in application rate and frequency 2) deletion of all aerial applications, except to lettuce ( See response # 16.), 3) deletion of foliar applications to most crops, 4) requirement of lock/ load engineering controls for all ground equipment, except for use on apples ( See response # 32.), and 5) establishment of crop specific re entry intervals, ranging from two to 18 days.

Protecting Only 99.9 Percent of the Population ( Natural Resources Defense Council, World Wildlife Fund, Beyond Pesticides)

8. Comment: NRDC claims that EPA's use of the 99.9th percentile population exposure in estimating acute risk violates the FQPA's safety standard because EPA is allowing " as many as one in twenty children to be exposed to levels of pesticides in excess of agencyestablished safe levels." EPA needs to do more than protect " most" children.

Response: As EPA has explained in its policy statement with regard to use of population percentiles of exposure in risk assessment, EPA, in estimating exposure and risk through the selection of exposure at a certain population percentile, is not attempting to precisely define exposure to that population percentile and protect that population group. See U. S. EPA, Choosing a Percentile of Acute Dietary Exposure as a Threshold of Regulatory Concern ( March 16, 2000). In other words, when EPA uses a population percentile of 99.9 ( or 95, for that matter), EPA is not implying that only 99.9 percent of the population need to be protected. Rather, EPA chooses different population percentiles of exposure in estimating risk depending on the data used to calculate exposure so as to ensure that its risk assessment provide protection to the general population and all major, identifiable subgroups. EPA generally uses a higher population percentile to estimate overall exposure when data used on exposure are more realistic. As EPA explained in its policy document, " it is [ EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs'] view that, with probabilistic 6 assessments, the use of the 99.9th percentile generally produces a reasonable high end exposure such that if that exposure does not exceed the safe level, OPP can conclude there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the general population and all significant population groups." Id. at 31.

Use of Percent Crop Treated Data in Acute Risk Assessments ( Natural Resources Defense Council, World Wildlife Fund, Beyond Pesticides)

9. Comment: Section 408( b)( 2)( F), which addresses use of percent crop treated data in chronic risk assessments impliedly bars use of such data in acute risk assessments. Use of percent crop treated data is appropriate only where the Agency is not concerned about exposure to residues in individual food items, but exposure to residues in multiple items over time. In the latter instance, people's exposure to pesticide residues are likely to even out as they consume a mixture of treated and untreated food.

Response: EPA believes NRDC and WWF have misinterpreted the statute as regards percent crop treated data. EPA does not rely on section Section 408( b)( 2)( F) for the authority to use percent crop treated data in acute risk assessment, but rather, section 408( b)( 2)( D). Section 408( b)( 2)( D) directs EPA to consider information on " aggregate exposure," as well as " other relevant factors" in making its safety determinations. This broad and open ended authorization clearly covers use of percent crop treated data in acute risk assessments. Moreover, section 408( b)( 2)( F) should not be read as implicitly limiting the direction provided in section 408( b)( 2)( D). On its face, subparagraph ( F) does nothing more that establish specific conditions on use of percent crop treated data when such data are used in chronic risk assessments. It neither speaks to acute risk assessments, nor includes " use in a chronic risk assessment" as one of the conditions that must be met when using percent crop treated data.

Further, NRDC and WWF are incorrect in their argument that EPA's use of percent crop treated data in acute risk assessments is scientifically unsound. NRDC and WWF contend that use of percent crop treated data only makes sense in chronic risk assessments where the treated and untreated crop are uniformly mixed. In these circumstances, the two groups acknowledge that a consumer, over the long term, is likely to be exposed to an average of the residue amounts on treated and untreated commodities. The two groups argue, however, that if residues among treated and untreated commodities are averaged in assessing acute risks, acute risks will be understated. NRDC and WWF correctly note that with acute risks, EPA needs to be concerned with the highest residue values found in individual commodities, and an averaging of residue values, especially when values from untreated commodities are included, can mask the high end values. The flaw in this argument is the assumption that EPA, in using percent crop treated data in acute risk assessments, uses such data to average residue values, and thus masks high end residue values. This is incorrect. EPA only uses percent crop treated data in acute risk assessments when it can be incorporated in a manner that preserves all individual high end residue values that can be expected on the treated commodity. The risk assessment technique EPA uses to accomplish the integration of percent crop treated data with actual 7 residue data on the range of possible residue values is a probability based approach. With probabilistic assessments such as was used for diazinon, EPA uses all residue values, including high end values to create a data set representing the full range of pesticide residue values in commodities that a consumer may encounter. These residue values are then matched randomly and reiteratively with consumption data to project likely exposure values. In such a probabilistic assessment " information on the percent of the crop which is treated, if available, is . . . used to adjust the probability of encountering a treated commodity." U. S. EPA, Choosing a Percentile of Acute Dietary Exposure as a Threshold of Regulatory Concern 14 ( March 16, 2000). This is done by populating the data set of commodity residue values with residue values of zero in a percentage directly proportional to the percentage of the crop that is not treated with the pesticide. In no way does EPA average residue values from untreated and treated commodities or otherwise reduce high end residue values that may occur in the treated crop. Probabilistic techniques such as this for assessing risk from pesticide residues in food have frequently been endorsed by the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. See, e. g., Final Report of the SAP on EPA's Policy Document on Acute Dietary Risk Assessment and the Product Chemistry and Residue Chemistry Testing Guidelines of the Harmonized Test Guidelines for OPPTS 9 ( October 19, 1995).

Consideration of Worker Exposure in FQPA Safety Finding ( Natural Resources Defense Council, World Wildlife Fund, Beyond Pesticides)

10. Comment: In calculating aggregate exposure to a pesticide for the purpose of making the safety finding under FFDCA section 408( b)( 2)( A)( ii), EPA must include exposure to the pesticide that persons incur as part of their occupations.

Response: EPA disagrees with this interpretation of the statute. Although the general language in section 408( b)( 2)( A)( ii) can arguably be interpreted as extending to worker exposures, to adopt such an interpretation would be to read out of the statute the very specific exclusion of occupational exposure from aggregate exposure in section 408( b)( 2)( D). 8 Restricting Uses When Alternatives Are Available ( Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Department of the Environment)

11. Comment: EPA should restrict applications of diazinon to situations where less toxic alternatives will not work, and design restrictions to make sure water quality criteria are met. EPA should avoid recommending harmful pesticide alternatives when less toxic ones exist.

Response: FIFRA requires the EPA to perform risk benefit analyses when reregistering all pesticides. Diazinon applications have been restricted to those where benefits are high. Phase out periods have been established to allow growers ample time to seek effective alternatives. Furthermore, EPA believes that the mitigation measures it has taken regarding diazinon use, such as cancelling all residential uses, cancelling some agricultural uses, and reducing the numbers of applications per year for most crops, will significantly reduce loading of diazinon to water bodies. As a general policy, the EPA does not endorse specific alternatives, but rather, informs stakeholders of which alternatives are efficacious.

Integrated Pest Management ( San Francisco Department of the Environment)

12. Comment: EPA's economic assessments for diazinon use did not consider viability of non pesticidal controls ( integrated pest management), nor did they consider the economic costs of the significant risk to aquatic organisms.

Response: The practice of integrated pest management includes the use of pesticides, along with cultural, biological, and other non chemical control measures. The Agency did take into consideration the availability of effective, non chemical alternatives. In many cases, however, non chemical control measures, although contributing to the management of particular pests, may not act as quickly when used alone, nor will they provide the degree of economic control required by many crops. EPA assesses the range and combination of available control options and identifies the least costly alternatives in predicting impact. The benefits assessments that the Agency performed for diazinon are available in EPA's public docket ( docket # OPP 2002 0251). Also, EPA historically has not assessed the economic impacts from risks to aquatic organisms, particularly because the Agency does not have a reliable source of information as to what the costs of water quality management are. ( See response to # 14.) 9 Benefits Assessment Process ( Makhteshim Agan of North America) 13. Comment: A clear, quantitative process for evaluating the benefits of using diazinon ( including uncertainty) should be provided in the IRED. The benefits assessment summary in the IRED does not provide this information.

Response: Each of EPA's benefits assessments includes a description of the scope and limitation of the methodology. The benefits assessments are designed to respond to risk managers' requests for information on the impact of regulatory changes proposed to protect workers or the environment ( as per FIFRA), and as such, are based on what risk managers believe are viable mitigation options.

In estimating the impacts of proposed mitigation options, the Agency first identifies the major pests controlled by the pesticide and any particularities of use, such as timing of applications and application methods. Sources of information include USDA Crop Profiles, USDA Agricultural Statistics, field experts, state recommendations, and proprietary data. EPA then examines those sources for alternate chemical or non chemical control measures for each major pest. EPA estimates yield and quality impacts from field studies, efficacy or product performance data, and experts in the production systems, and also considers the implications to IPM programs and potential outbreaks of secondary pests.

Based on the biological impacts, EPA calculates the economic impacts, taking into consideration revenue losses stemming from yield and quality losses, as well as cost increases stemming from more expensive alternatives and other changes in production. Sources used include USDA Crop Profiles, USDA Agricultural Statistics, and crop budgets prepared by land grant universities or state agencies. EPA examines the per acre losses to the individual dependent on the pesticide, and compares that to estimated returns with the pesticide. The Agency also aggregates losses at the state, regional and/ or national levels, given the percent of acres treated with the pesticide, and compares that to the gross value of production. In general, EPA assumes that there will be no changes in the price of the commodity, which could reduce the impacts to the growers, and the Agency does not consider the possibility of growers switching to an alternative crop.

( Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association and California Water Quality Control Board)

14. Comment: EPA should include costs to water quality agencies and economic impacts from habitat impairment in all pesticide use economic assessments. Only with such analyses can EPA present a fair picture of the benefits and detriments of continued diazinon use. 10 Response: Historically, EPA has not assessed the economic impacts to water quality agencies and from habitat impairment, particularly because the Agency does not have a reliable source of information as to what the costs of water quality management are. Also, EPA's benefits assessments typically focus on how proposed regulatory actions would affect pesticide users, mainly growers of particular commodities, rather than water quality agencies. In addition, in its drinking water assessment, the Agency did not consider acute or chronic risks resulting from use of diazinon to be of concern for any populations, and so would not have deemed a benefits assessment necessary, according to the normal criteria for benefits assessments ( see response to # 18).

Stop Sale Date ( Oklahoma State University Extension)

15. Comment: EPA should establish a stop use date that is different from the stop sale date for outdoor non agricultural use products, because people who buy products containing diazinon at the end of the two year phase out period will not be given ample time to use them. Retailers should be provided with a system by which to dispose of diazinoncontaining products after the stop sale date.

Response: The stop sale date for outdoor non agricultural use products by retailers is December 31, 2004; however, use of such products may continue until stocks are exhausted. Any such uses must be in accordance with the label. After December 31, 2004, the technical registrants, Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. and Makhteshim Chemical Works, Ltd., will buy back any unopened diazinon containing products formulated for outdoor non agricultural use from retailers.

Additionally, the two year phase outs recommended in the IRED apply to agricultural, not outdoor non agricultural diazinon products, and so will not affect people who buy outdoor non agricultural products close to the December 31, 2004, end sale date.

Cancellation of Aerial Application ( California Melon Research Board, Michigan Blueberry Growers Marketing, National Agricultural Avian Association, Western Growers Association, MANA)

16. Comment: EPA should continue to allow aerial applications on melons, lettuce, and blueberries. Late in the growing season, spray rigs cannot move through the fields without crushing fruit. In addition, in cases where furrow irrigation is used, it is impossible to enter fields after water begins to run.

Response: In the Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment, the Agency identified six major aerial handler scenarios, which, when combined with the typical range of application rates, resulted in nine handler risk scenarios for all crops treated with diazinon. Dermal and inhalation risk estimates are expressed in terms of the margin of 11 exposure ( MOE), which is the ratio of the NOAEL or LOAEL to the exposure. Of the scenarios considered in the diazinon risk assessment, only two short term inhalation MOEs exceed the target values, and are therefore below EPA's level of concern. Additionally, it is the Agency's belief that aerial applications of diazinon are directed primarily at late season pests, and that adequate alternatives are available for their control.

Based on additional data provided by the lettuce growers showing actual numbers of acres treated per day, EPA refined the exposure portion of the handler assessment for lettuce ( See " HED's Refinement of Handler Risks for Diazinon Treated Lettuce"). In this refined assessment, EPA calculated MOE and ARI values for handlers at the 90th percentile of acres treated at the 0.5 lb ai/ Acre rate, in addition to the maximum application rate. Risks to aerial applicators were found to be acceptable at the 90th percentile of acres treated at the 0.5 lb ai/ Acre application rate. Therefore, the Agency has decided to allow one aerial application of diazinon per crop to lettuce.

The risks to aerial applicators from diazinon when treating other crops are still unacceptable when the Agency default values for acres treated are considered. These default values are considered to be reasonable, based on available cropping patterns, and it is Agency policy to use the default values unless direct evidence allows the Agency to refine the assessment. The Agency believes that for crops other than lettuce, the risks from aerial applications are high compared to the benefits, and therefore, continues to support the cancellation of all other aerial applications.

Cancellation of Granular Uses ( Oklahoma State University Extension, California Melon Research Board, Western Growers Association, MANA)

17. Comment: EPA should allow continued use of granular formulations. Wet soils make liquid applications infeasible, and no alternatives are currently available at planting time. Without an at plant application of granular diazinon, stand reductions of over 50% may occur due to soil borne pests.

Response: EPA acknowledges that granular formulations are preferred to liquids by lettuce and melon growers because the soil textures in the lettuce and melon growing regions of Arizona and California make liquid applications difficult. The lettuce growers made a strong case for needing granular applications to lettuce. Therefore, EPA will continue to allow use of granular diazinon on lettuce at a reduced application rate of 2.0 lbs ai/ A as Special Local Needs labels for CA and AZ until December 2008, in order to give lettuce growers additional time to either find an acceptable alternative product, or to adapt to the use of other formulations. According to the Pest Management Strategic Plan for California Melons, irrigation is used for all California melons, and sprinkler irrigation can be used to germinate a direct seeded crop. This indicates that irrigation is already used on seedlings; the Agency believes that 12 the at plant chemigated sprays would therefore provide acceptable alternatives to granular formulations for melons.

Overall, however, diazinon granular formulations are one of the most toxic to birds. A single 14G granule is capable of killing small birds. Even when granules are incorporated, birds may still come in contact with them by foraging beneath the surface. Granular formulations also pose risks to applicators ( aggregate risk index values range from 0.24 to 0.90), since soil application rates tend to be high.

Because of the unacceptable risks posed to birds and the effectiveness of alternative formulations, EPA will not allow the continued use of granular formulations ( except for 24( c) registrations for lettuce and cranberries.

Nursery and Cut Flower Uses ( Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Department of the Environment)

18. Comment: EPA's Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( BEAD) should have performed a benefits analysis for nursery and cut flower uses and considered whether they are necessary in light of available alternatives.

Response: EPA selected diazinon uses requiring benefits assessments based on several criteria, including occupational risk, risk to wildlife, and percent of the crop's acreage treated with diazinon. Because the diazinon human health and environmental risk assessments did not identify risks of concern from nursery and cut flower uses, a formal benefits assessment was not deemed necessary. This, along with at least one indication of relatively low use of this chemical in this sector, meant that these use sites were not included on the limited list of sites EPA could reasonably include in its in depth benefits assessments. This indication was a low percent crop treated ( 4%) used in the ornamentals sector, as listed in the Quantitative Usage Analysis ( QUA) generated for diazinon in 1997.

Risks to Wildlife ( Natural Resource Defense Council, World Wildlife Fund, Beyond Pesticides, American Bird Conservancy)

19. Comment: EPA's environmental risk mitigation strategy does not adequately address risks to birds, aquatic wildlife, or beneficial insects. This risk is too great to justify reregistration of diazinon.

Response: EPA is required under FIFRA to take both the risks and benefits of a chemical's use into consideration during the reregistration process. Applications have 13 been restricted to those uses with high benefits. For uses that remain, EPA is requiring mitigation measures that are expected to reduce risks to wildlife. Deletion of granular formulations ( except lettuce and cranberries in California and Arizona), deletion of seed treatment uses, deletion of aerial applications ( except lettuce), reduction of allowable number of applications for most crops, and deletion of foliar applications to most vegetable crops will substantially reduce or eliminate the highest risk uses. Though it is not feasible to calculate the amount of risk reduction that will be achieved, these mitigation measures are expected to reduce the amount and duration of exposure, and therefore, reduce the risks to wildlife from diazinon.

Use on Seedcorn ( Gustafson LLC, National Corn Growers Association, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, MANA)

20. Comment: EPA should allow diazinon to remain on the market for use as a farmerapplied hopper box seed treatment for control of pests such as the seed corn maggot. Without diazinon, corn growers would need to apply more of an alternative active ingredient, pay substantially more for an effective alternative, or both. Alternatives are more costly and prone to resistance.

Response: EPA is canceling all diazinon seed treatments because of the associated high risks to birds. Risk Quotient values for seed corn treatments ranged as high as 1.38. A single 14G granule has been shown to be capable of killing a small bird, and a single treated seed can contain two and a half times the residue of a 14G granule, which is more than enough toxicant to kill a small bird.

Additionally, according to BEAD's Quantitative Usage Analysis ( QUA) of January, 2002, diazinon is applied to 0.1 percent of corn ( 71,264 acres), mostly for seed treatment against the seed corn maggot. The main seed treatment alternatives available for seed corn maggot control are: imidacloprid, permethrin, tefluthrin, and chlorpyrifos. The principal at plant treatment alternatives for seed corn maggot control include: chlorpyrifos, terbufos, tebupirimiphos + cyfluthrin, chlorethoxyfos, tefluthrin, fipronil, carbofuran and phorate. 14 Spray Drift Label Language ( Oklahoma State University Extension, Northwest Horticultural Council, U. S. Apple Association, MANA)

21. Comment: EPA should not require registrants to use either the spray drift language from the " Draft Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on New Labeling Statements for Spray and Dust Drift Mitigation" or the alternative language presented in the IRED. EPA should postpone spray drift changes or additions to the label until it has finalized its general policy reviews of spray drift language.

Response: EPA acknowledges that it is important to use consistent interim spray drift language until policy reviews of generic spray drift language have been completed. The Agency will therefore change the language that appears in the IRED to the following: " The Agency is currently working with stakeholders to develop appropriate generic label statements to address spray drift risk. Once this process has been completed, diazinon product labels will need to be revised to include this additional language."

Considering Degradates in Risk Assessments ( Natural Resources Defense Council and American Bird Conservancy)

22. Comment: EPA should consider diazinon's toxic degradates in its modeling and monitoring data, or at least include an uncertainty factor to compensate for their presence. The toxicity of diazinon's degradates is uncertain, but other OPs have toxicologically significant degradates.

Response: Diazinon has two primary degradates, diazoxon and oxypyrimidine. EPA acknowledges that diazoxon is toxicologically significant. However, in the environment, diazoxon is not persistent, and due to the short duration of time in which exposure could occur, EPA does not consider diazoxon to pose unreasonable risk. There is some recent evidence to suggest that diazoxon may form during water treatment. EPA will be pursuing this evidence and may decide that future mitigation is necessary. However, this investigation is ongoing and it would be premature to regulate based on this evidence at this time. Oxypyrimidine, diazinon's other primary degradate, is persistent, but not toxicologically significant. Therefore, the Agency does not believe it necessary to consider these degradates in its modeling and monitoring data. 15 Applications to Melons ( California Melon Research Board, Western Growers Association, MANA)

23. Comment: EPA should allow at least three foliar applications on melons, with a rate of 3/ 4 pound ( per acre) and a pre harvest interval of three days. Multiple applications would give growers flexibility without a radical hardship in management of sucking insects such as leafhoppers and aphids. Alternatives are more expensive and have not proven effective at providing residual, late season pest control. There are no alternatives for leafhopper control in California.

Response: EPA acknowledges that the pre harvest interval for melons was listed in Table 7 of the IRED as 7 days, and that this was in error. The correct pre harvest interval for melons is 3 days.

Additionally, EPA recognizes that most alternatives are more expensive than products containing diazinon. Based on available efficacy information ( discussed in the original benefits assessment), EPA believes that the available alternatives will provide adequate late season pest control. EPA acknowledges that two years may be an insufficient phaseout time for growers to adjust to the newer alternatives, such as thiamethoxam and pymetrozine; therefore, EPA will grant a 5 year phase out period for foliar applications to melons. After this phase out, the only allowable foliar application to melons will be for honeydew melons, in order to control thrips ( See response # 25.)

24. Comment: Granular formulations must be maintained for melons grown in desert areas, where no efficacious alternatives exist for soil borne pests. Without an at plant application of granular diazinon, stand reductions of over 50 percent may occur due to damage by soil pests.

Response: The importance of diazinon in controlling soil insect pests in melons was addressed in some detail in EPA's benefits assessment for melons. EPA believes that liquid formulations of diazinon used at plant will provide efficacious control of soil borne pests. EPA acknowledges that there may be some initial difficulty in adapting application of liquid diazinon to desert conditions. However, EPA is extending the phase out period for melons to five years, and believes that this phase out time period, along with effective alternatives for some of the pests involved ( e. g., imidacloprid for the cucumber beetle), should provide for adequate pest control while the use of liquid diazinon is being perfected.

Carbaryl also provides control of some types of soil pests. These points were made in BEAD's benefits assessment for melons. In addition, EPA believes that the 50 percent stand reductions apply to completely uncontrolled infestations of these pests, which growers are unlikely to allow. In the original benefits assessment for this crop group, EPA described the losses it believes are likely to occur in melons in the event of a loss of diazinon. 16 25. Comment: Diazinon use on melons needs to be maintained, especially for late season control. The Japanese market demands blemish free fruit. Alternatives are less effective at providing residual, late season control.

Response: EPA agrees that the Japanese market demands blemished free honeydew melons, but believes that this demand does not extend to other types of melons, such as cantaloupes. Examination of data compiled by USDA indicates that only 2 percent of the cantaloupe harvest is destined for the total export market. Thus, economic impacts to the overall industry, in the unlikely event of total rejection of cantaloupes and watermelons by the Japanese market, can reasonably be characterized as low enough to be survivable. Data for 2001, compiled by USDA's Economic Research Service ( ERS), available at http:// usda. mannlib. cornell. edu/ data sets/ specialty/ 89011/, indicate that in terms of weight of melons exported, 6.4 percent of cantaloupes and 6.2 percent of all watermelons grown in the US were exported. It is unclear how much of this was destined for Japan, but these figures do suggest that the cantaloupe and watermelon industries have significant markets other than Japan. EPA has been unable to find documentation to corroborate the assertion that the Japanese market for these melons, whatever its size, would be significantly affected by blemishes ( whereas honeydews are specifically mentioned in this context  e. g., in the USDA crop profile for California melons, 2000). Therefore, as stated above in comment # 23, EPA will allow continued foliar applications of diazinon to honeydew melons only.

Applications to Blueberries ( Michigan Blueberry Growers Marketing, MANA)

26. Comment: BEAD's assessment states that 100 percent of highbush blueberry acreage is hand harvested. An estimate of 20 percent is more realistic.

Response: The Agency acknowledges that substantially less than 100 percent of highbush blueberry acreage is harvested by hand. In the original assessment, this description was used to characterize crop production of highbush blueberries. However, a much lower value for hand harvesting acreage does not affect the conclusions of the original benefits assessment, because the risks of concern for diazinon are for workers who mix and apply the chemical, and not for those who conduct hand harvesting activities. Thus, mitigation options do not directly address hand harvest.

27. Comment: BEAD's assessment states that impacts to blueberry growers from the loss of diazinon are relatively small. Just because documented usage is small, it does not mean that impact is as well. In addition, the chemical costs used in Table 6 of the IRED are incorrect. MBG provides costs that in its opinion should be used by the Agency in its benefits assessment. 17 Response: The Agency acknowledges that when documented usage is small, it does not necessarily mean that impacts to growers are small. EPA recalculated the impacts of losing diazinon using data provided by MBG. Results, even when the costs submitted by MBG were used, indicated that economic impacts remain small. For instance, replacement of diazinon with azinphos methyl on those acres increases total treatment costs for North Central highbush blueberries by about $ 15,000 ( over the entire region), because of a higher cost per acre of azinphos methyl over diazinon. Similarly, replacement of diazinon with methomyl increases total treatment costs by $ 16,000, while replacement with phosmet, for example, has essentially no impact on costs. Overall impacts are relatively small because diazinon treated acreage is small ( 5% of the total highbush acreage). Replacement of diazinon with azinphos methyl or phosmet on 5,200 acre treatments with diazinon in New Jersey gives impacts of $ 54,000 and $ 27,000, respectively, while replacement with a composite of alternatives gives essentially no impact. Impacts in the North Central region of up to $ 15,000  $ 16,000 are less than 0.1% of the total value in that region, which equals $ 54,000,000, while impacts in New Jersey of up to $ 27,000  $ 54,000 are less 0.2% of the total value in that state, which equals $ 36,000,000. Note that the impacts being discussed here are economic ones. EPA believes the pest management impacts characterized in its original benefits assessments adequately addressed the non economic impacts. Essentially, EPA believes the currently available broad spectrum alternatives  azinphos methyl, phosmet, and carbaryl  along with the newly registered and more selective alternatives  tebufenozide, spinosad, and pyriproxyfen  will give growers adequate options ( in terms of efficacious pest control) to control the pests targeted by diazinon at least for the time frame assessed ( 1 to 5 years).

28. Comment: The blueberry industry has no good long term alternatives to diazinon. Guthion and Imidan are currently under four and five year conditional registrations and may not be available in the future.

Response: The benefit assessments that were conducted by BEAD addressed only the potential short term ( 1 to 5 year) impacts. As long as other alternatives are available, EPA believes that adequate pest control measures are available in the short term. The Agency agrees that the losses of azinphos methyl and phosmet, if they were made permanent, would make it harder for growers to control some pests effectively. However for other pests that diazinon currently targets, the newly registered reduced risk and OPalternative compounds pyriproxyfen, spinosad, and tebufenozide should provide adequate control, even in the absence of these broad spectrum organophosphates.

29. Comment: EPA should allow up to three foliar applications for foliar pests and fire ants for blueberries, as well as the ability to apply aerially. Diazinon is also needed for weevil control, since its primary alternative, azinphos methyl, is registered conditionally only until October 31, 2005. Diazinon is the only effective product registered for fire ant control in southern blueberry growing regions. If left uncontrolled, fire ants can prevent workers from harvesting the crop in a timely manner. Aerial applications are needed because lowbush blueberries are typically not planted in rows. Response: The information provided above does not change the conclusion of the 18 Agency's original benefits assessment for blueberries. The percent crop treated in the US is low ( 16%), and the highbush blueberry industry has effective alternatives to diazinon for all blueberry pests; therefore, the Agency will allow only one foliar application per season. Additionally, the Agency acknowledges that aerial application of diazinon is important to the blueberry industry; however, the risks posed to workers from aerial application are high when compared with the benefits ( see response to # 14). Therefore the Agency will not allow aerial application of diazinon to blueberries.

Applications to Lettuce ( MANA)

30. Comment: EPA should allow continued foliar and soil application uses for lettuce. There are no adequate alternatives to control soil pests, and at least three foliar applications are needed to control aphids. Alternatives are more costly, less effective, or have application restrictions.

Response: In its benefits assessment, BEAD concluded that cancellation of the diazinon use for controlling soil insects on lettuce would have a major impact on both head and leaf lettuce production, since there are no suitable alternatives available. EPA believes that a single soil application should be adequate to address soil pest problems for lettuce. Additionally, EPA has decided to allow one foliar application of diazinon per crop to lettuce. ( See response # 14.)

Applications to Apples ( U. S. Apple Association, MANA, Northwest Horticultural Council)

31. Comment: In addition to one application to control the woolly apple aphid, EPA should also keep one application on the label to control San Jose scale crawlers, and one application to control rosy apple aphids and mealybugs. Although pyriproxyfen is an excellent alternative for control of scale crawlers, it would be the only insecticide left, and a second chemistry is needed for resistance management purposes. Thiamethoxam controls both rosy apple aphid and mealybugs, but in the future its use may be limited to Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New York, leaving North Carolina growers with only diazinon and dimethoate for mealybug control.

Response: EPA acknowledges that resistance management is an important consideration in apple production, and that it is important to allow more than one tool for management of a particular pest on the market. The EPA will therefore allow two foliar applications per season for control of woolly apple aphids and San Jose crawlers. Although thiamethoxam may not be available for use in North Carolina for control of the rosy apple aphids and mealybugs, there is little evidence indicating that diazinon is being used in the State to control these pests. USDA NASS pesticide usage data indicate that diazinon was 19 not used on North Carolina apples in 1999 or 2001. Due to the high occupational risks and the low percent crop treated, EPA stands by its decision to cancel use of diazinon on apples for the control of rosy apple aphids and mealy bugs.

32. Comment: EPA should not require use of closed cab equipment for applicators. Narrow orchard rows and trellis systems do not accommodate closed cab tractors. Incidents reports document no evidence that negative effects to orchard air blast sprayer operators result from applying diazinon. Instead of closed cab equipment, EPA should require use of maximum personal protective equipment.

Response: EPA acknowledges that requiring use of closed cab equipment in apple orchards will make it difficult to fit tractors down narrow orchard rows. Although only four percent of US apples are treated with diazinon, and risks to workers are above the Agency's levels of concern, even with use of closed cabs, the Agency realizes that diazinon is the only tool available for control of woolly apple aphids, which are highly damaging to crop yield. Because of the high benefits of diazinon use on apples to control woolly apple aphids, and the difficulty posed by the requirement of closed cabs, the Agency has decided to waive the requirement of closed cab equipment for application of diazinon to apples, and will instead require use of maximum personal protective equipment.

Applications to Apricots ( MANA)

33. Comment: MANA supports growers requests to allow, in addition to the single proposed application per dormant season, a second application during the growing season for apricots. Alternatives exist, but they are generally more costly. An in season diazinon application is important for resistance management of target pests.

Response: EPA acknowledges receiving this comment, but the information provided above does not change the conclusion of our original benefits assessment. As stated in BEAD's benefits assessment for apricots, during the bloom period, satisfactory twig borer control can be achieved with one or two applications of Bacillus thuringiensis ( Bt). Pheromone mating disruption can also be used during this period. This approach is most effective when used as part of an IPM program, on an area wide basis, and least effective when used in small orchards or when incorrectly timed. During the postbloom stage, available alternatives include spinosad, phosmet, and carbaryl.

In addition, EPA did not receive additional comments regarding apricots from any other group. The Agency believes that a second application during the dormant season is unnecessary, and therefore is not granting such an application. Phase out Period for Mushrooms ( American Mushroom Institute, MANA)

34. Comment: Mushroom growers should be allowed a four year, rather than a two year, phase out period for use on mushrooms. Two years is not enough time to develop 20 effective alternatives. Worker exposure to wet spray is very limited, because applications are made to growing rooms when no crop or workers are present. Response: EPA cancelled all indoor uses of diazinon, except for mushroom houses, in 2002. EPA believes that the additional time mushroom growers have been allowed plus a two year phase out period after the issuance of the IRED amounts to a sufficient time period to develop alternatives.

Trunk Wraps ( Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association, California Regional Water Qulaity Control Board, San Francisco Department of the Environment)

35. Comment: Label language should be amended to clarify the fact that trunk wraps may be used in agricultural settings only.

Response: EPA agrees to require the registrant to change label language to state that trunk wraps may be used in agricultural settings only.

Minor Use Crops 36. Comment: Growers continue to need diazinon for dormant applications for walnuts and liquid soil applications for Chinese broccoli. ( MANA)

Response: These uses are not on the current diazinon labels. EPA is of the opinion that these uses are not necessary, and did not receive comments from grower groups supporting them. Therefore, the Agency is not granting dormant applications for walnuts or liquid soil applications for Chinese broccoli.

37. Comment: MANA argues that cancellation of Chinese cabbage, Chinese mustard, Chinese radishes, and mushrooms is not justified, as diazinon uses will be retained for similar crops, such as broccoli, Brussels sprouts, mustard, cabbage, and radishes, which have similar use conditions and risks.

Response: The current label allows for foliar applications only for Chinese cabbage, Chinese mustard, and Chinese radish, and does not include pre plant soil treatments to control soil insects. This pre plant soil application is the only use retained for cole crops and root vegetables; therefore, the deletion of diazinon use on Chinese cabbage, mustard and radish is consistent with the other crops.

It is unclear why the use on mushrooms was in this list since use in mushroom houses is significantly different than applications to other vegetable crops. The use on mushrooms has been discussed earlier in this document. ( See response to # 34.) While EPA acknowledges that there are limited alternatives to use in mushroom houses, the assessed risks to workers from this indoor use are too great to allow this indoor use to continue 21 indefinitely.


[Federal Register: August 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 50801]
[DOCID:fr28au08-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13170-000]

FFP Ohio River 18, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Applications
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

August 21, 2008.
    On April 15, 2008, FFP Ohio River 18, LLC, filed an application,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study
the feasibility of the Ohio River 18 Project, to be located on the Ohio
River in Jefferson County, Indiana, and Trimble County, Kentucky.
    The proposed Ohio River 18 Project consists of: (1) 1,200 proposed
20-kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total installed
capacity of 24 megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission line, and (3)
appurtenant facilities. The FFP Ohio River 18, LLC, project would have
an average annual generation of 105.1 gigawatt-hours and be sold to a
local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Dan Irvin, FFP Ohio River 18, LLC, 69 Bridge
Street, Manchester, MA 01944, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13170) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-19938 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P