Page: 47     Paragraph: 2.

EPA Comment:  “The LD50 values entered into T-REX are adjusted for
animal class (20, 100 and 1000g birds and 15, 35 and 1000g mammals)
using the following equations: . . . “ and

Page: 48     Paragraph: 1     Lines: 3-7

EPA Comment:  “However, research by Mineau et al. (1996) suggests that
the scaling factor for aldicarb should be 1.4, rather than 1.15.
Substituting the aldicarb-specific scaling factor of 1.4 into the above
avian equation results in RQ values as high as 22,000 (20g bird, maximum
cotton application rate).  It is therefore possible that the RQ
calculations present in this risk assessment are underestimated.”

Bayer response:  The body-size extrapolation method should not be used
unless it can be demonstrated that a significant statistical
relationship generally holds between body size and toxicological
sensitivity.  In the case of birds, this was NOT shown by Mineau et al.
in the cited paper (Mineau et al. 1996).  These authors reported the
slope (1.15) of their regression of LD50 and body mass was not
significantly different from 1.0, the slope under the null hypothesis
that sensitivity does not differ with body size.  Therefore, there is
not sufficient justification to reject the null hypothesis of no
difference in toxicological sensitivity for birds of different body
sizes.

In the case of aldicarb, Mineau et al. (1996) reported a slope of 1.40
and this slope was significantly greater than 1. However, in their
analysis, they used an LD50 estimate for the mallard duck of 3.4 mg/kg,
and not the 1.0 mg/kg, the estimate EPA has used in the current
assessment.  If one substitutes a value of 1.0 for the mallard and
repeats the Mineau et al. regression analysis for aldicarb, the slope is
no longer significantly different from 1.

Intuitively, it does not make sense to do this body size adjustment for
birds in the current assessment.  The purpose of this procedure is to
take into account that smaller birds are more sensitive than larger
birds.  But for aldicarb, the largest bird tested (mallard) has been
identified by the Agency as being the most sensitive species, so the
underlying assumption doesn’t hold.  It is especially inappropriate to
apply this extrapolation method, as the Agency has done, to the lowest
of several LD50 values that have been generated for the mallard.  In
this case, the Agency’s procedure of choosing the lowest available
LD50 estimate from among 10+ species that have been tested already
adequately accounts for interspecies variability in sensitivity.  The
mallard value of 1.0 mg/kg should be used in the RQ calculations without
further adjustment.

Contrary to the statement on the bottom of page 48, the Agency’s
extrapolation procedure has likely resulted in an overestimate of the RQ
values, not an underestimate.

EPA response:  As part of the external peer review process for
conducting refined risk assessments for pesticide impacts to non-target
wildlife, the Agency submitted to the Scientific Advisory Panel (March,
2001) a refined risk assessment model that included a process to account
for the potential for body weight scaling as it related to species
sensitivity to pesticides.  The SAP indicated that the Agency is
"…correct pay attention to scaling of the LD50s to account for
differences in bird size following the work of Mineau et al (1996).   In
general, for the majority of pesticides, not scaling for size may
seriously under-protect small species… When there is obvious scatter
in the size-sensitivity relationship, especially where there are
numerous data points, the Agency should explore the various options that
are open in order to best characterize interspecific sensitivity
differences.”  The risk quotients for the aldicarb ecological risk
assessment  were calculated using the aldicarb-specific scaling factor
of 1.4, as shown in the Mineau et al (1996) paper.  The Agency does
recognize potential limitations of the dataset, and discusses potential
uncertainties based on the use of particular scaling factors in the risk
characterization section of the document.  However, it is important to
note that the Agency level of concern for avian species are still
exceeded for all applications and application rates using no scaling
factor (1.0) as well as the default scaling factor of 1.15 to account
for difference in toxicity between different sizes of birds.

Page: 47     Paragraph: 3     Lines: 2-4

EPA Comment:  “As previously stated, the method used in calculating
terrestrial EECs took into account the granular formulation of the
product and its soil incorporation.” and

Pages: 47-50     Tables: 27 and 28

EPA comment:  “Table 27.  Avian Acute Risk Quotients for Aldicarb
(maximum and average use rates)” and “Table 28.  Mammalian Acute
Risk Quotients for Aldicarb (maximum and average use rates).”

Bayer response:  While it is appropriate to consider the formulation and
soil incorporation during an aldicarb application when conducting
exposure modeling, it is also appropriate to use values that reflect how
the product is actually being applied in the field.  A survey of TEMIK®
usage and methods of application conducted in 2001 across the U.S.
(Hall, 2003) showed, for instance, that greater than 99% of cotton
applications are applied in-furrow or shanked.  Also see the report and
DVD, “TEMIK® 15G Brand Aldicarb Product Usage and Methods of
Application” submitted with this response (Hall, 2005).  By following
US EPA (1992), the assumed incorporation efficiency for in-furrow or
shanked applications is 99%.  Values listed below should be incorporated
into Tables 27 and 28 (Pages: 47-50) to reflect a more realistic
assessment of application types by crop.

EPA response:  For the purposes of a screening-level ecological risk
assessment, the Agency must use the application parameters on the
currently approved label that provide the most conservative estimation
of risk.  Therefore, unless it is removed from the label, it is assumed.
 The risk assessment was amended to provide values for both the banded,
soil incorporated application method (99% incorporation efficiency) as
well as the side-dress and broadcast application methods (85%
incorporation efficiency), where appropriate.

Pages: 47-50     Tables 27, 28 and 29

EPA Comment:  the acute avian and mammalian risk quotients presented in
Tables 27, 28 and 29.

Bayer response:  As indicated previously, Bayer disagrees with the
calculations of both the EEC (mg of aldicarb available per square foot)
and toxicity value (the LD50 value should be for the TEMIK® granule
rather than aldicarb, and no body-size scaling adjustment should be used
in the calculation).  Bayer believes the values presented in these
tables are at least 1 to 2 orders of magnitude too high since the
Agency’s methodology produces artificially inflated hazard indices for
band applications in comparison to a broadcast application with the same
soil incorporation efficiency.

EPA response:  The issues concerning body-size scaling are addressed in
the comment for Page 46, Paragraph 3, Lines 2-4, above.  For the
purposes of a screening-level ecological risk assessment, the Agency
must use the application parameters on the currently approved label that
provide the most conservative estimation of risk.  Therefore, unless it
is removed from the label, it is assumed to be a potential application
method.  The risk assessment will be amended to provide values for both
the banded, soil incorporated application method (99% incorporation
efficiency) as well as the side-dress application method (85%
incorporation efficiency), where appropriate.   It is important to note
that calculated acute risk quotients for both birds and mammals exceed
the Agency LOC for all crops, regardless of application method and
incorporation efficiency. Discussion of the LD50 index calculation and
banded application are provided in response to the comment on Page 27,
Paragraph 2, Line 11, above.

Page: 52     Paragraph: 4     Lines: 1-2

EPA Comment:  “This indicates that there is potential risk to
honeybees as well as other beneficial insects.”

Bayer response:  A different conclusion is stated on Page 37,  Paragraph
5, Lines 1-2, states that, “. . . aldicarb due to its granular
formulation, its use is not expected to result in honey bee exposure.”

EPA response:  The document has been revised to discuss potential
honeybee exposure due to the systemic nature of aldicarb.  Because of
its granular formulation, it is unlikely that there is a direct contact
exposure scenario for honeybees.  However, these and other insect
species could be exposed through contact with plants and soil.

B.  Risk Description – Interpretation of Direct Effects

Pages: 53-54     Risks to Aquatic Animals: Summary of Major Conclusions
EPA Comment:  The entire Acute Risk and Chronic Risk summaries

Bayer response:  As presented in an earlier section, Bayer recalculated
RQ values and reached the following conclusions that differ from the
Agency.

EPA response:  RQs will be recalculated in the forthcoming risk
assessment.

C.  Threatened and Endangered Species Concerns

Page: 55     1. Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk

EPA Comment:  Comments refer to the entire section:  “1. Taxonomic
Groups Potentially at Risk”

Bayer response:  The list of taxonomic groups potentially at risk must
be considered a very preliminary starting point since it is based on a
screening assessment in which unrealistic exposure estimates have been
used.  Even simple adjustments to the aquatic EECs, such as those
provided in our recalculated RQ estimates, show that many of the
triggered concerns are unfounded.  A more refined assessment should be
performed to determine which taxonomic groups are really at risk for the
various crops and application scenarios.

EPA response:  The list of taxonomic groups potentially at risk is
considered a preliminary screening of species that could be directly or
indirectly affected by the Federal Action in the action area.   SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1 For listed species assessment purposes, the action area
is considered to be the area affected directly or indirectly by the
Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action.
 At the initial screening-level, the risk assessment considers broadly
described taxonomic groups and so conservatively assumes that listed
species within those broad groups are collocated with the pesticide
treatment area.  This means that terrestrial plants and wildlife are
assumed to be located on or adjacent to the treated site and aquatic
organisms are assumed to be located in a surface water body adjacent to
the treated site.  The assessment also assumes that the listed species
are located within an assumed area, which has the relatively highest
potential exposure to the pesticide, and that exposures are likely to
decrease with distance from the treatment area.  The Use
Characterization of this risk assessment presents the pesticide use
sites that are used to establish initial collocation of species with
treatment areas.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 If the assumptions associated
with the screening-level action area result in RQs that are below the
listed species LOCs, a "no effect" determination conclusion is made with
respect to listed species in that taxa, and no further refinement of the
action area is necessary.  Furthermore, RQs below the listed species
LOCs for a given taxonomic group indicate no concern for indirect
effects upon listed species that depend upon the taxonomic group covered
by the RQ as a resource.  However, in situations where the screening
assumptions lead to RQs in excess of the listed species LOCs for a given
taxonomic group, a potential for a "may affect" conclusion exists and
may be associated with direct effects on listed species belonging to
that taxonomic group or may extend to indirect effects upon listed
species that depend upon that taxonomic group as a resource.  In such
cases, additional information on the biology of listed species, the
locations of these species, and the locations of use sites could be
considered to determine the extent to which screening assumptions
regarding an action area apply to a particular listed organism. These
subsequent refinement steps could consider how this information would
impact the action area for a particular listed organism and may
potentially include areas of exposure that are downwind and downstream
of the pesticide use site.

Page: 58-59     3. Probit Slope Analysis

EPA Comment:  Entire section on “Birds” and entire section on
“Mammals”

Bayer response:  The entire section on “Birds” and the entire
section on “Mammals” should be deleted.  The amount of toxicant per
square foot is an arbitrarily defined number—it is not a valid
estimate of pesticide intake for individual birds or mammals.  It is
scientifically indefensible to calculate percent mortality risk as is
done here.

EPA response:  According to the Overview Document, this is one of the
Agency’s established methodologies of assessing the risk to birds and
mammals. For further questions regarding Agency methodology, the
overview document may be consulted.

Page:61   Paragraph:  7  Lines:  1-4

EPA comment:  “The high acute toxicity of alcidarb to honeybees may
lead to mortality to this and other
insect-pollinators.”…”Additionally, the potential risk to bird
species from aldicarb use could also affect bird pollinated plant
species.”

Bayer response:  These statements are speculative, lack foundation, and
conflict with the statement on Page 37, Paragraph 5, Lines 1-2, which
states, “…aldicarb due to its granular formulation, its use is not
expected to result in honey bee exposure.”  Risks to pollinating
species are minimal for insecticides applied in granular form to the
soil.  There is no evidence that systemic residues will pose a risk to
any pollinating species.

EPA response:  The list of taxonomic groups potentially at risk, i.e.
insect pollinators, is considered a conservative and preliminary
screening of species that could be directly or indirectly affected by
the Federal Action in the action area. A further refinement of this
assessment will determine which species may experience a ‘likely to
adversely’ effect by this Federal Action.

D.  Description of Assumptions, Uncertainties, Strengths, and
Limitations

Page: 62     3.a. The LD50 /sq ft Index     Lines: 1-4

EPA comment:  “The concept was based on field observations of DeWitt
(1966) who suggested that ecological effects are expected to occur when
exposure residues that equal or exceed the LD50 value for a pesticide,
as determined in laboratory studies, are reached in the field."

Bayer response:  DeWitt (1966) proposed a possible relationship between
exposure levels in the field and the quantity that resulted in mortality
in sub-chronic feeding studies, not acute oral toxicity studies.

EPA response:  The DeWitt (1966) paper states that, “Bird LC50 tests
furnish measures of absolute and relative toxicities, but do not provide
the means for relating the LC50 values to the quantities (mg/kg) which
birds might ingest of absorb when exposed to areas which may have been
treated with the toxicants…The data do not establish a basis for
relating dietary concentrations (ppm) causing mortality to quantities
applied for control of pests.  However, they indicate a possible
relationship between the lethal quantity (mg/bird) as determined in
short term feeding tests, and the quantity of toxicant per unit area.”
 The comparison between exposure levels in the field and the LD50 is a
correct comparison.

Page: 63    b. Uncertainties Associated with LD50 /sq ft Index	Lines:
1-6

EPA comment:  “Risk quotients based on the LD50 /sq. ft. hazard index
have been criticized as being too conservative and overestimating
“real world” risk.  It has been argued that the method greatly
oversimplifies the exposure component to hazard assessment by not
specifically addressing the temporal and spatial situations that
non-target wildlife species experience under field conditions.  Although
this is somewhat correct there are still many other exposure related and
toxicological factors that are not accounted for by the index which may
actually underestimate risk from this method.”

Bayer response:  The problem of the LD50/sq. ft method is not that it
“oversimplifies the exposure component to hazard assessment by not
specifically addressing the temporal and spatial situations that
non-target wildlife species experience under field conditions”.  The
problem is that it doesn’t estimate exposure in a biologically
meaningful way.  Exposure is simply assumed to equal the amount of
toxicant in an arbitrarily defined unit area.  This is obviously not
going to be a valid assumption.  Although it might be possible to come
up with reasons for why the LD50/ft2 index may “actually underestimate
risk”, there is no empirical evidence to support such a conclusion and
a mountain of evidence to refute it.  For example, Fischer and Best
(1995) showed that under actual field conditions granule consumption was
a tiny fraction of the number of granules available per square foot even
when the most attractive granule type was applied.  Stafford and Best
(1998) showed that mortality rates were consistently low (10- 15%)
across exposure levels ranging from 50 to 2000 LD50s/ft2.  In the
preliminary risk assessment, the predicted risk level according to the
LD50/ft2 method was 100% in all groups.  It is difficult to understand
how the Agency could envision this index as underestimating risk of
granular products when for most registered products it predicts that
100% bird mortality is expected to occur most of the time!

EPA response:  Although the focus of this comment is on direct granule
ingestion, it should be noted that the LD50 per square method utilized
by the Agency to calculate risk quotients does not assume that this
route of exposure is the only potential exposure mechanism.  The index
is intended to provide an idea of numerous exposure routes, including
plant ingestion, soil ingestion, inhalation, drinking water, soil
invertebrate ingestion, AND direct granule ingestion.  However, a known
limitation in the calculation of the LD50 per square foot RQ is that the
calculation is based solely on the amount of granules present on the
soil surface, and in effect only accounts for potential direct granule
ingestion.  Therefore, it is probable that the LD50 per square foot
calculation used in this screening-level risk assessment may be an
underestimate of exposure, due to the lack of consideration of these
other exposure routes in the actual calculation.  As shown from the
earthworm fugacity model calculation (See section IV.A.3), ingestion of
soil invertebrates by terrestrial birds and mammals is another
significant route of exposure, as is incidental soil ingestion (See
section  IV. E.3.e). Additionally, the systemic nature of aldicarb makes
ingestion of plant food items a significant route of exposure that is
not quantitatively considered in this risk assessment.  Additional
exposure routes, discussed above, include inhalation, dermal, and
drinking water exposure.

Page: 65     Paragraph 2:     Line: 3 and Aldicarb Soil Concentration

EPA comment:  “. . . the following soil concentrations can be
calculated for a depth of 1 cm.” and “aldicarb soil concentration =
112 mg/kg”

Bayer response:  The aldicarb soil concentration here does not agree
with the “aldicarb soil concentration = 7.47 mg/kg” cited on Page
53, Paragraph 2.  The assumption on page 53 is that aldicarb granules
are evenly mixed into the top 15 cm of soil.  Here the Agency assumes
the mixing depth is only 1 cm.  The Agency states that actual
incorporation depths may range from 5 to 20 cm.  If this is so, then of
what possible relevance is a calculation based on the assumption that
the mixing depth is only 1 cm.  This would be an illegal use of the
product!  The calculated value therefore has no relevance to an
assessment of risk of legally applied aldicarb.

EPA response:  The soil calculations and subsequent earthworm fugacity
model equations were changed to account for the label-specified soil
depth for most aldicarb application methods of approximately 3 inches
(7.62 cm).

Page: 67     6. Data Gaps and Limitations of the Risk Assessment,     a:
Ecotoxicity Data Gaps

EPA comment:  “71-4(a) Avian reproduction – Quail, 71-4(b) Avian
Reproduction. – Duck”

Bayer response:  The lack of these data have no bearing on the outcome
of the risk assessment because, as is stated by EFED on Page 47,
Paragraph 3, Lines 6-7,  “Quantitative chronic risk assessments are
not currently performed for granular pesticides on terrestrial
organisms.”  The lack of this information is therefore not a data gap.

Bayer believes avian reproduction studies would provide no useful
information and therefore should not be required because (1) the Agency
has no methods to use the toxicity data produced by these studies in a
risk assessment, (2) TEMIK® granules do not persist in the field (they
rapidly disintegrate with the first rainfall, or upon contact with moist
soil), and so the important route of exposure for birds (ingesting
granules) will not occur over a long period of time, and (3) studies in
other animals (mammals, daphnids, etc.) all point to the conclusion that
aldicarb is an acute toxicant only (due to rapid metabolism and
reversibility of the cholinesterase inhibition, animals can withstand
repeated exposure up to levels that are nearly lethal).  Aldicarb is
only formulated as a granular product (TEMIK® Brand Aldicarb
Pesticide).  The Agency’s policy for assessing avian risks of granular
products is to calculate LD50s per square foot.  The Agency has no
methodology for calculating an EEC for avian diets for granular
products. Thus, if avian reproduction NOAECs were available, they could
not be used in a risk assessment.  As confirmation of this, one only has
to look at the way chronic mammalian test results were used in this risk
assessment.  They weren’t!  The Agency has high quality chronic
toxicity studies of aldicarb with mammals yet the entry in Table 20
(page 38) for the mammalian chronic toxicity endpoint used in the risk
assessment is “N/A” presumably for “not applicable”.  There were
chronic NOAELs from tests with mammalian species but they weren’t used
in any RQ calculations for the reasons indicated above.  What is the
point of requiring two very expensive (>$100,000 each) studies when the
data generated will not affect the outcome of, or even be used in, a
risk assessment?  The requirement of these studies should be waived.

EPA response:  See response for comment, Page 18, 1. Ecotoxicity
Information Gaps, above.

Page: 67     Paragraph: 7:     Line: 1

EPA comment:  data gap for “161-2 Photodegradation in Water
(sulfoxide, sulfone)"

Bayer response:  Field monitoring and laboratory studies under
controlled conditions demonstrate that it is unlikely for any
significant aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone residues to occur in
open bodies of water, or to exist for sufficient duration to allow for
photodegradation to play an important role in the environmental impact
of aldicarb. Non guideline studies has shown that photodegradation in
water is limited for both aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone.
Therefore, further investigation of the photodegradation of the two
carbamates is not warranted.  Refer to discussion section for more
details.

EPA response:  The Agency concurs.

Page: 67     Paragraph: 7     Line: 2

EPA Comment:  “164-1 Terrestrial Field Dissipation (parent aldicarb,
sulfoxide, sulfone)”

Bayer response:  The registrant has identified numerous field
dissipation studies conducted for aldicarb and previously submitted to
the Agency that have not been included in the preliminary EFED risk
assessment.  The degradation of aldicarb carbamate residues in the
United States (summarized in Jones and Estes, 1995) is well understood,
with half lives ranging from 0.5 to 3.5 months.  The discussion section
provides a complete response to this comment.

EPA response:  A Field Dissipation half-life range of 15-105 days has
been assigned.

Page: A-1     Table: A-1     Line 4

EPA comment: "264-417, Temik® Brand 10% Granular Aldicarb Pesticide for
Use on Citrus only.”

Bayer response:  The correct name is, "264-417, TEMIK® Brand 15G CP
Aldicarb Pesticide.”

EPA response:  The agency agrees with Bayer’s comment. Corrections
were made.

Page: A-1     Table: A-1     Line: 5

EPA Comment:  264-426, Temik® Brand 15G Aldicarb Pesticide for Sale and
Use in CA only.”

Bayer response:  The correct name is, "264-426, TEMIK® Brand 15G
Aldicarb Pesticide for Sale and Use in California Only.”

EPA response:  The agency agrees with Bayer’s comment. Corrections
were made.

Page: A-1     Table: A-1     Line: 6

EPA comment:  "264-523, Temik® Brand 15G NW Aldicarb Pesticide for Use
on Potatoes.”

Bayer response:  The correct name is, "264-523, TEMIK® Brand 15G NW
Aldicarb Pesticide.”

EPA response:  The agency agrees with Bayer’s comment. Corrections
were made.

Page: A-2     Table: A-1     Line: 6

EPA comment:  “FL800003”

Bayer response:  The correct registration number is FL880003.

EPA response:  The agency agrees with Bayer’s comment. Corrections
were made.

Page: A-3     Table: A-1     Line: 7

EPA comment:  “PR960001”

Bayer response:  This registration is not on our maintenance list.

EPA response:  This SLN (PR 960001) was issued by the Agency for
distribution and use of TEMIK 15G on yams in Puerto Rico on September
4th, 1996.

Pages: A-2 - A-3     Table: A-1 EPA comment:

Bayer response:  These SLN registrations for TEMIK® 15G Aldicarb
Pesticide are not listed in table A-1: GA790016 soybeans; MT000003
potatoes; NC770012 peanuts; OK780009 peanuts; TX780013 peanuts; VA770003
peanuts.

EPA response:  The agency agrees with Bayer’s comment. All these SLNs
are cancelled and will be included in the table.

EPA comment:  “PR96000100, PR, yams”

Bayer response:  This registration is not on our maintenance list.

EPA response:  The SLN number should read ‘PR 960001’. It was issued
by the Agency for distribution and use of TEMIK 15G on yams in Puerto
Rico.

Pages: A-4 - A-5     Table: A-2 EPA comment:

Bayer response:  These SLN registrations are not listed in table A-2:
GA790016 soybeans; MT000003 potatoes; NC770012 peanuts; OK780009
peanuts;  TX780013 peanuts;  VA770003 peanuts.

EPA response:  The agency agrees with Bayer’s comment. All these SLNs
are cancelled and will not be included in the table.

DISCUSSION

I. DATA REQUIREMENTS – ENVIRONMENTAL FATE

161-2. Photodegradation in Water: The agency has requested additional
data for aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone. However, aerobic and
anaerobic aquatic metabolism studies of aldicarb have shown that
oxidation of aldicarb to aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone did not
occur in biologically active pond water and sediment systems (studies
listed below). Aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone are the major
degradation products of aldicarb in soil. Since aldicarb is incorporated
in the soil, the majority of the two carbamate residues are located

below the soil and thus not exposed to sunlight. The same conclusion
applies to any residues reaching ground water. Surface run-off and
drainage may result in some carbamate residues reaching open bodies of
water. In addition to the dilution, extensive and rapid aerobic and
anaerobic degradation takes place, which minimize the exposure to
sunlight.

Non-guideline studies (Andrawes and Holsing, 1976a and 1976b) showed
that S-methyl 14C-aldicarb sulfoxide and S-methyl 14C-aldicarb sulfone
were very stable to photolysis under UV irradiation (>290nm). Only 2% of
aldicarb sulfoxide was degraded in 14 days of continuous illumination
while aldicarb sulfone was degraded with a half-life of 37.8 and 35.5
days in the nonsensitized and sensitized reactions respectively. The
major degradation product of aldicarb sulfone was aldicarb sulfone
nitrile. Minor amounts of aldicarb sulfone oxime, aldicarb sulfone
aldehyde, aldicarb sulfone amide, and water-soluble components were
reported.

1. Andrawes, N. R. and Holsing, C. G. (1976a) Photostability of Aldicarb
Sulfoxide. Union Carbide Project

Report, File No. 22936, December 13, 1976. (MRID No. 00068246).

2. Andrawes, N. R. and Holsing, C. G. (1976b) Photochemical
transformation of UC 21865 Sulfocarb

Pesticide. Union Carbide Project Report, File No. 22936, December 13,
1976. (MRID Nos. 00053376,

45592105).

3. Skinner, W. (1995) Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism of(Carbon 14)-Aldicarb:
Lab Project Number: 467W-1:

467W:EC-94-274. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL West, Inc. (MRID No.
43805702).

4. Skinner, W. and Jao, N. (1995) Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism of
(Carbon 14)-Aldicarb: Lab Project

Number: 468W-1: 468W:EC-94-275. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL West,
Inc. MRID No.

43805701

5. Jesudason, P.A. (2001a) Aerobic Aquatic metabolism of [S- Methyl-14C]
Aldicarb Under Laboratory

Conditions at 25ºC (OPP. §162-4). Aventis Crop Science, Research
Triangle Park, NC, Study Number

602YT, December 20, 2001, 127 pages. (MRID No. 45592107)

6. Lui, A.C. (2001) Aerobic Aquatic metabolism of [S- Methyl-14C]
Aldicarb Sulfoxide Under Laboratory

Conditions at 25ºC (OPP. §162-4). Aventis Crop Science, Research
Triangle Park, NC, Study Number

604YT, December 13, 2001, 135 pages. (MRID No. 45592108).

7. Jesudason, P.A. (2001b) Aerobic Aquatic metabolism of [S- Methyl-14C]
Aldicarb Sulfone Under

Laboratory Conditions at 25ºC (OPP. §162-4). Aventis Crop Science,
Research Triangle Park, NC, Study

Number 603YT, December 20, 2001, 149 pages. (MRID No. 45592109).

8. Rupprecht, J.K. (2001) Anaerobic Aquatic metabolism of [S-
Methyl-14C] Aldicarb Sulfoxide Under

Laboratory Conditions at 25ºC (OPP. §162-4). Aventis Crop Science,
Research Triangle Park, NC, Study

Number 606YT, December 13, 2001, 107 pages. (MRID No. 45592110).

9. Huang, M.N. (2001) Anaerobic Aquatic metabolism of [S- Methyl-14C]
Aldicarb Sulfone Under

Laboratory Conditions at 25ºC (OPP. §162-4). Aventis Crop Science,
Research Triangle Park, NC, Study

Number 605YT, December 13, 2001, 109 pages. (MRID No. 45592111).

EPA response:  Agency concurs; there is presently no need to provide
additional studies on the rates of photodegradation of aldicarb
sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone in water.

164-1. Terrestrial Field Dissipation: EPA has requested data for parent
aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, and aldicarb sulfone.

On pages 17 and 69 of the preliminary risk assessment EPA states that
the data requirement for 164-1, Terrestrial Field Dissipation, is not
satisfied. Appendix B of the preliminary risk assessment for aldicarb
lists the environmental fate data requirements for aldicarb for each of
the various guidelines. Guideline 164-1, Terrestrial Field Dissipation
(Page B-2), lists thirteen MRID numbers for studies that the Agency
reviewed in coming to the above conclusion that this guideline is not
satisfied. Five of the documents reviewed were considered supplemental
while eight were considered invalid. The 13 studies included in the
Agency review were the following:

1. Gunther, F.A.; Carman, G.E.; Baines, R.C.; et al. (1975) Aldicarb
(Temik) ) Residues in Oranges, Orange

Leaves, and Soil after Soil Application in an Orange Grove. Unpublished
study received Oct 10, 1975

under 6G1689; prepared in cooperation with Univ. of
California--Riverside, Citrus Research Center and

Agricultural Experiment Station, Dept. of Entomology and others,
submitted by Union Carbide Corp.,

Washington, D.C.; CDL: 096440-H. (MRID No. 00036313).

2. Romine, R.R.; Meeker, R.L. (1972) Temik Aldicarb Pesticide: Leaching
of Aldicarb into Sandy Soil with

Irrigation of a Temik Treated Sugar Beet Field: UCC Project Report No.
17079. Unpublished study

received Aug 4, 1977 under 1016-79; submitted by Union Carbide Corp.,
Arlington, Va.; CDL:231503-U.

(MRID No. 00068252).

3. Union Carbide Corporation (1965) Residue Data: UC 21149 .
Compilation; unpublished study received

Jan 25, 1966 under 6G0473; CDL:090525-O. (MRID No. 00080815).

4. Union Carbide Corp. (1973) Residues: Temik 10G and Temik 15G .
Unpublished study received Jun 21,

1974 under 1016-78; CDL: 026641-A. (MRID No. 00101910).

5. Union Carbide Corp. (1971) Magnitude of the Residues: Aldicarb .
Compilation; unpublished study

received May 3, 1972 under 2F1188; CDL:091000-I. (MRID No. 00101923).

6. Kearby, W.; Ercegovich, C.; Bliss, M. (1970) Residue studies on
aldicarb in soil and Scotch pine. Journal

of Economic Entomology 63(4):1317-1318. Also In unpublished submission
received Dec 6, 1977 under

1016-69; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA; CDL:096671-X.
(MRID No. 00102078).

7. Bull, D.L. (1968) Metabolism of UC-21149
(2-Methyl-2-(methythio)propionaldehyde o -

(methylcarbamoyl)oxime) in cotton plants and soil in the field. Journal
of Economic Entomology

61(6):1598-1602. Also In unpublished submission received Jan 18, 1977
under 1016-Ex-37; submitted by

Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:228979-D. (MRID No. 00053364).

8. Andrawes, N.; Bagley, W.; Herrett, R. (1968a) Temik Metabolism: Fate
of C14-Temik in Cultivated Soil:

File No. 9218. Unpublished study received Apr 18, 1969 under 9F0798;
submitted by Union Carbide

Corp., New York, NY; CDL:091372-K. (MRID No. 00101935).

9. Union Carbide Corp. (1969) Soil: Decline of Aldicarb . (Unpublished
study received Aug 20, 1970 under

0F1008; CDL:091748-M). MRID No. 00101968.

10. Woodham, D.; Edwards, R.; Reeves, R.; et al. (1973) Total toxic
aldicarb residues in soil, cottonseed, and

cotton lint following a soil treatment with the insecticide on the Texas
high plains. J. Agr. Food Chem.

21(2):303-307. Also In unpublished submission received Dec 9, 1977 under
1016-69; submitted by Union

Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA; CDL:096670-V. (MRID No. 00102061).

11. Andrawes, N.; Bagley, W.; Herrett, R. (1971) Fate and carryover
properties of Temik aldicarb pesticide 2-

methyl-2-(methylthio)-propionaldehyde O-(methylcarbamoyl)oxime in soil.
Agricultural and Food

Chemistry 19(4):727-730. Also In unpublished submission received Dec 6,
1977 under 1016-69; submitted

by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA; CDL:096671-C. (MRID No.
00102064).

12. Clarkson, V.; Weiden, M. (1968) Temik Insecticide: The Persistence
of Temik in an Agricultural Soil As

Indicated by Field and Laboratory Bioassay: File No. 10490. Unpublished
study received Apr 18, 1969

under 9F0798; Union Carbide Corp., New York, NY; CDL:091372-L. (MRID No.
00101936).

13. Andrawes, N.; Bagley, W.; Herrett, R. (1968b) Temik Metabolism:
Degradation and Carry-over Properties

of ... (Temik) in Soil: File No. 10494. Unpublished study received Apr
18, 1969 under 9F0798; submitted

by Union Carbide Corp., New York, NY; CDL: 091372-M. (MRID No.
00101937).

The Pesticide Assessment Guidelines: Subdivision N, states that the
purpose of the field soil dissipation study is “. . . to determine the
extent of pesticide residue dissipation under actual field use
conditions. . . ” by evaluating the “. . . mobility, degradation,
and dissipation of the residues.” The above reports and publications
that are dated between 1965 and 1975 and other studies conducted in the
1980’s and 1990’s do address the field dissipation of aldicarb and
the sulfoxide and sulfone metabolites. The field studies referenced and
summarized below (see Table 2, Jones and Estes, 1995) have evaluated the
degradation and movement of aldicarb residues in 40 plots in 14 states,
involved eight different crops, and have collected and analyzed
approximately 19,000 soil samples. The following studies were not
reviewed in the preliminary EFED risk assessment:

14. Hornsby, A. G., Rao, P. S. C., and Jones, R. L. (1990) Fate of
Aldicarb in the Unsaturated Zone Beneath a

Citrus Grove, Water Resour. Res., 26, 2287-2302.

15. Jones, R. L.; Kirkland, S. D.; Chancey, E. L.; Proter, K. S.;
Walker, M.; Ferro, D. N. (1991) Measurement

of Aldicarb Degradation and Movement in Upstate New York and
Massachusetts Potato Fields: Rhône-

Poulenc Ag Company, NY State Water Resources Institute and Department of
Entomology, University of

Massachusetts, August 19, 1991. J. Contam. Hydro., 10: 251-271 (1992).
(MRID Nos. 40493302,

40493303).

This study, conducted on plots in potato fields in Massachusetts and New
York, was a cooperative effort of

state agencies, universities and the manufacturer. In Massachusetts the
soil was a very fine sandy loam

while in New York the soil was a loamy fine sand. Aldicarb was applied
to the plots at a rate of 2.24 kg/ha

and 3.45 kg/ha in the Massachusetts and New York plots, respectively.
Soil samples were taken at each

plot just prior to treatment, as well as one, two, four, and six months
post-treatment. Post-treatment

samples were collected from four subplots within the treated area. At
each post-treatment sampling

interval, 16 cores were collected down to a depth of 1.8 to 4.8 meters
in Massachusetts and to a depth of 1.2

meters to 1.8 meters in New York. Samples were analyzed for residues of
aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide and

aldicarb sulfone as individual analytes. Results from both the
Massachusetts and New York potato fields

showed that total carbamate residues (aldicarb + aldicarb sulfoxide +
aldicarb sulfone) degraded at a rate

corresponding to a half-life of about 1.1 months.

16. Hegg, R. O.; Shelley, W. H.; Jones, R. J.; and Romine, R. R. (1988)
Movement and Degradation of

Aldicarb Residues n South Carolina Loamy Sand Soil, Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment, 20

(1988) 303-315. (MRID No. 40493318).

The movement and degradation of aldicarb residues was measured in a
loamy sand soil in Barnwell

County, South Carolina. Aldicarb was applied at a rate of 3.4 kg/ha
(maximum label rate for soybeans)

incorporated as a 0.15-meter band over the center of the seed row. Soil
samples were collected prior to

application as well as 35, 70, and 131 days after treatment. Samples
were taken to a depth of 1.8 meters.

Analysis of soil samples for residues of aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide
and aldicarb sulfone as individual

analytes indicated a half-life of total carbamate residues (aldicarb +
aldicarb sulfoxide + aldicarb sulfone)

of approximately 9 days.

17. Jones, R. L. (1987) Central California Studies on the Degradation
and Movement of Aldicarb Residues., J.

Contam. Hydrol., 1: 287-298.). (MRID No. 40493308).

Studies were conducted to measure the degradation and movement of
aldicarb residues (aldicarb, aldicarb

sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone) in soil at three central California
locations. The test sites, which consisted

of a tomato field near Manteca and vineyards near Livingston and Fresno
are representative of conditions

in central California under which aldicarb residues would be most likely
to reach drinking water. Results

indicate that total carbamate residues (aldicarb + aldicarb sulfoxide +
aldicarb sulfone) degrade in soil with

a half-life of 1.5-2.0 months.

18. Jones, R. L. (1991) Measurement of Aldicarb Degradation and Movement
for Winter Applications to

Grapes: Rhône-Poulenc Ag Company, May 8, 1991. (MRID No. 40493304).

This study, which measured the degradation and movement of aldicarb
residues following winter

application to grapes, was conducted in flood-irrigated vineyards at two
sites in California. One site

contained fine sandy loam while the other site contained a loamy sand.
Aldicarb was applied to each site at

a rate of 4.48 kg/ha. Soil samples were taken at one, two, four and six
months following application. At

one site additional samples were taken at eight months following
application. Soil samples were analyzed

for individual carbamate residues (aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide and
aldicarb sulfone). The results indicated

the degradation rate of total carbamate residues (aldicarb + aldicarb
sulfoxide + aldicarb sulfone) resulting

from winter applications (3.5 months) was significantly longer than
previously measured with spring

applications (1.5-2.0 months). It should be noted that this is not a
typical application scenario since

aldicarb is not registered for winter application.

19. Norris, F. A. (1991) A Terrestrial Soil Dissipation Study with
Aldicarb the Active Ingredient of Temik®

Brand Insecticide, Applied to Cotton at Two Field Sites in California:
Rhône-Poulenc Ag Company, July

24, 1991.

The degradation and movement of aldicarb residues was measured following
application of aldicarb to

cotton in California. The soils in the two sites were a low organic loam
soil and a sandy clay loam soil.

The aldicarb was applied at a rate of 1.18 kg ai/ha in furrow at
planting followed two months later by a

sidedress application at a rate of 2.35 kg ai/ha. Analysis of soil
samples for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide

and aldicarb sulfone (individually) showed that total carbamate residues
had a half-life of 1.5 to 2.0

months.

20. Jones, R. L.; Hornsby, A. G.; and Rao, P. S. C.; Degradation and
Movement of Aldicarb in Florida Citrus

Soils, Pestic. Sci., 1988. 23, 307-325. (MRID No. 40493322).

The movement and degradation of aldicarb residues was monitored in two
Florida citrus groves. Soil core

samples were collected at 0.3 or 0.6 meter depth increments six times
over an eight month period and were

analyzed for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone as
individual analytes. These analyses

showed a relatively rapid degradation of aldicarb followed by an
increase in aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb

sulfone. The levels of the carbamate metabolites peaked after about 50
days and began to decline. The

dissipation rate of aldicarb carbamate residues in surface soils
corresponded to a half-life of 10 to 20 days

at both field sites. The half-life in subsoils appeared to be greater
than 60 days.

21. Wyman, J. A.; Jones, R. L.; Medina, J.; Curwen, D.; and Hansen, J.
L. Environmental Fate Studies of

Aldicarb and Aldoxycarb Applications to Wisconsin Potatoes, Journal of
Contaminant Hydrology, 2 (1987)

61-72. (MRID No. 40493314).

Aldicarb and aldoxycarb (aldicarb sulfone) were applied to potato fields
in Central Wisconsin to study the

degradation and movement of their carbamate residues within the soil
profiles. Aldicarb was applied at

planting at a rate of 3.36 kg/ha and at emergence at a rate of 2.24
kg/ha. Aldoxycarb (aldicarb sulfone) was

applied at planting at a rate of 3.36 kg/ha. Soil samples were analyzed
for total carbamate residues

(aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone). Total carbamate
residues following application of

aldicarb and aldoxycarb residues degraded at similar rates with
half-lives ranging from 0.9 to 1.3 months.

22. Wyman, J. A.; Jensen, J. O.; Curwen, D.; Jones, R. L. and Marquardt,
T. E. (1985) Effects of Application

Procedures and Irrigation on Degradation and Movement of Aldicarb
Residues in Soil. Environ. Toxicol.

Chem., 4: 641-651.

This was an earlier study to Wyman, et.al., above where aldicarb was
applied to potato fields in Wisconsin

at the same rate as above. Sample analysis gave a half-life for total
carbamate residues of 1.2 to 2.0

months, similar to the above results.

23. Jones, R. L., Hansen, J. L., Romine, R. R., and Marquardt, T. E.
(1986) Unsaturated Zone Studies on

Degradation and Movement of Aldicarb and Aldoxycarb Residues. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem., 5: 361-372

Studies were reported in which aldicarb was applied to cotton in Arizona
(at planting and emergence), corn

in Michigan and Indiana, tobacco in North Carolina and Virginia, and
potatoes in Washington. Results of

aldoxycarb (aldicarb sulfone) applications to tomatoes in Florida,
cotton in Arizona and tobacco in North

Carolina and Virginia were also reported. These studies showed the
half-life of total carbamate residues

(aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone) following
application of aldicarb to be from 0.7 to 2.1

months. The half-life of total carbamate residues following application
of aldoxycarb (aldicarb sulfone)

was found to be from 0.6 to 1.3 months.

24. Jones, R. L., Rourke, R. V. and Hansen, J. L. (1986) Effects of
Application Methods on Movement and

Degradation of Aldicarb Residues in Maine Potato Fields. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem., 5: 167-173

The effects of application methods on the movement and degradation of
aldicarb was studied in a Maine

potato field by comparing movement and degradation of aldicarb applied
in furrow at planting with

aldicarb applied as a top dress at emergence. Movement was greater from
the at-planting application with

residues found in the top 0.6 meters of soil while the top-dress
application at emergence showed residues

down to 0.3 meters. The half-life of total carbamate residues in these
cooler Maine soils was

approximately 3 to 3.5 months.

As indicated in Jones and Estes (1995), the movement and degradation of
aldicarb residues in soil is a complex process affected by soil
properties, hydrogeological properties, climate conditions and
agricultural practices. The environmental fate database for aldicarb is
substantial, including field research, monitoring studies, laboratory
experiments, potable well analyses and modeling simulations. The field
dissipation studies, which were conducted in numerous locations
(Arizona, California, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, etc.)
representing varying climates, crops and soil conditions, show that
total aldicarb carbamate residues (aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide and
aldicarb sulfone) degrade in soil with a half-life of approximately one
month (range of 0.5 to 3.5 months). This degradation rate is sufficient
to prevent aldicarb residue movement to the water table under most use
conditions. In the relatively few areas where aldicarb residues reach
ground water, the primarily lateral movement of the ground water and
continuing degradation usually limit the presence of aldicarb residues
to shallow ground water near treated fields.

The above referenced studies conducted from 1983 to 1990 do, in fact,
“. . . determine the extent of pesticide residue dissipation under
actual field use conditions . . .” by evaluating the “. . .
mobility, degradation, and dissipation of the residues . . .” and
therefore, satisfy the requirements for the field soil dissipation
study. This position is supported by the OPP Chemical Review Management
System Guideline Status Report for Aldicarb (Run Date: 7/20/01), which
lists the Guideline Status for Guideline 164-1, Terrestrial Field Soil
Dissipation, as “Acceptable/Satisfied. Risk assessments for aldicarb
residues are based upon dissipation of total carbamate residues
(aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone) and, therefore, do
not actually require individual analysis for the three carbamates.
However, as indicated above, many of the studies do analyze separately
for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone. Therefore, these
studies evaluate the dissipation of not only aldicarb, but the sulfoxide
and sulfone metabolites as well. In addition, studies were conducted
where aldoxycarb (aldicarb sulfone) was applied in the field and the
degradation and movement of aldoxycarb measured with time.

These soil dissipation studies are supported by numerous other soil
dissipation studies as well as ground water monitoring studies and
modeling simulations. Data from all of these studies allow a good
assessment of the mobility, degradation, and dissipation of aldicarb
residues in the environment. Therefore, there is no need to conduct any
additional aldicarb field soil dissipation studies.

EPA response:  Agency concurs; there is currently sufficient data to
determine that the field dissipation half-life for total aldicarb
carbamate residues (parent aldicarb, plus sulfoxide and sulfone forms)
ranges from 15-105 days (0.5-3.5 months).

II. SURFACE WATER CONCENTRATIONS FROM FIELD MONITORING

On Page 26, Paragraph 1, the preliminary EFED risk assessment states
that aldicarb may occasionally pose a contamination hazard in low-order
streams in high use areas. The monitoring general experience of the
registrant indicates that the only agricultural setting where residues
can be present in significant concentrations outside treated fields in
more than an infrequent occurrence is in bedded citrus grown on
flatwoods soils in southern Florida, where irrigation/drainage ditches
run between the rows of trees. In addition to samples collected from
surface water bodies, samples of irrigation runoff water have also been
sampled. For examples in California, state officials (D. A. Gonzalez and
D. J. Weaver, Monitoring Concentrations of Aldicarb and its Breakdown
Products in Irrigation Water Runoff and Soil from Agricultural Fields in
Kern County, 1985, Environmental Hazards Assessment Program, State of
California Department of Food and Agriculture, Environmental Monitoring
and Pest Management, March 1986) collected 11 water samples from eight
fields including water standing in furrows between the crop rows, water
flowing in a drainage ditch, and water from a sump pit. Aldicarb
carbamate residues were not found in any sample. This is similar to the
experience of the registrant in a 1984 study near Livingston, California
(Merced County), in which the irrigation water was sampled as it moved
past an aldicarb treated section in a vineyard (data on file). No
aldicarb residues were detected. Summaries of the aldicarb analyses from
NAWQA program and the California Surface Water Monitoring Database are
also included later in this discussion section.

All of the factors (other than the rainfall events on the day of
application) contributing to the transient aldicarb carbamate residues
of several hundred ppb in the ditch with intermittent flow upstream of
the Beaver Creek sampling station 07030249 in 1991 and 1993 are not
known to the registrant. Much less was found at another nearby sampling
station 07030241 in which samples were collected at the same time during
1991 (analyses of samples from this site were not reported during the
relevant time in 1993) but which drained a smaller watershed also
composed principally of silt loam soils. An explanation of why the
differences between the two sites would be quite helpful. Possible
explanations include differences in incorporation, site characteristics,
or even cleanup practices. It is known that the ditch is recorded on
maps as "intermittent" and physical examination revealed that cotton is
planted (and may have been treated) to the edge of the ditch, making it
a part of the treated field and therefore, any residues should be
considered in-field in nature. The ditch does not contain sufficient
water to support a resident fish population.

The lack of significant findings of aldicarb carbamate residues in
surface water outside of Florida bedded citrus helps demonstrate the
losses in the ditch upstream of the Beaver Creek sampling station
07030249 are rare. As EPA points out, losses of this magnitude might
result in concentrations of around 10 ppb in small reservoirs. If this
were so, even higher concentrations would be found in small creeks and
streams downstream of surface water bodies the size of intermittent
creek that was sampled in the Beaver Creek watershed. If such losses
occurred uniformly in a moderate size watershed, or even somewhat
frequently over a larger area, certainly more instances of aldicarb
carbamate residues would have been present in the NAWQA, California, and
other smaller monitoring programs. The infrequent detection of residues
in these programs and the total absence of residues at the levels
expected based on the Beaver Creek data indicate that these specific
data taken from an intermittent ditch located within (adjacent to) a
cotton field should not be the sole basis of a higher tier aquatic
exposure assessment. The weight of evidence indicates that exposure of
aldicarb to aquatic organisms in surface water is extremely low and is
achieved by the successful mitigation measures utilized during the
application of the product.

EPA response:   Although the relatively infrequent instances of aldicarb
residues detected in streams (as cited above) may qualify as “rare”,
they are nonetheless real and must be addressed.  Indeed, the conditions
that appear to have contributed to the fairly high detections in Beaver
Creek (most notably, the occurrence of rainfall shortly after
application) may be somewhat unusual, yet they should be expected to
happen occasionally.  The detection in a separate sample obtained at the
same time from a nearby station supports the contention that this is not
an example of a false positive detection; although the second detection
exhibited lower concentrations, this could easily be explained by the
smaller drainage area and other characteristics of the site (e.g.,
topography, timing and extent of rainfall, soil physical properties,
sampling location, etc.).  Contaminant ‘spikes’ in stream water are
typically very short-lived and transient – peak concentrations will
usually occur somewhere near the early portion of the hydrograph peak
(representing the beginning of a large-scale influx of surface runoff
water into the channel).  It should be expected that in any standard
stream monitoring regimen that there would seldom be samples taken at
precisely those times when peak concentrations would be expected to
occur (that is, early in a high-intensity rainfall event that follows
soon after chemical application).  Thus, infrequent samples with
relatively high concentrations should more likely be considered
representative of these atypical but not unprecedented circumstances
rather than indicative of false data.  These occurrences must be
considered as part of any high-end estimate of potential risks.

Summary of Surface Water Data from the NAWQA Program

On Page 26, Paragraph 1, the preliminary EFED risk assessment summarized
available surface water monitoring data from the NAWQA program as having
only a few detections (0.1 percent of all sites) with a maximum
concentration of 1.6 ppb. Table 1, Summary of Surface Water Data from
the NAWQA Program, summarizes the aldicarb analyses available from this
program. The source is the USGS data base, which was downloaded by state
from their web site during the second quarter of 2005. The registrant
previously did an analysis of the data through the fourth quarter of
2000. A comparison of the two sets of data show that as expected more
samples were added to the data base; however, a number of samples
present in the data base in 2000 were not present in the data base in
2005.

Of the 6262 samples analyzed, aldicarb residues were detected in 21
samples (0.34 %). However, the analyses of 18 of these samples were
suspect for several reasons (only one carbamate compound present or
little or no aldicarb use in the county), leaving only 3 samples with
credible detections (0.05 %). The concentration of total aldicarb
carbamate residues in these three samples were 1.68, 0.085, and 0.014
ppb. Table 2 provides information on surface water samples with
detectable residues:

The small number of detections of aldicarb residues in the surface water
samples from the NAWQA program supports EPA’s conclusion that aldicarb
residues have not been widely detected in surface waters.

Summary of Surface Water Data from the California Surface Water
Monitoring Database

On Page 26, Paragraph 1, the preliminary EFED risk assessment summarized
surface water monitoring data from various sources. One source not
included in this discussion is the California Surface Water Monitoring
Database. The number of analyses and the detections of aldicarb
carbamate residues are summarized in Table 3.

The California Surface Water Monitoring Database shows three samples
with detectable aldicarb residues, all in Stanislaus County in 1991 to
1992. A sample taken on July 2, 1991 at the San Joaquin River Hills
Ferry sampling station in Stanislaus County showed detectable
concentrations of aldicarb (0.12 ppb) and aldicarb sulfoxide (0.28 ppb).
Follow-up sampling at the same site was conducted with a high frequency
of sampling (4 more samplings in July and 8 samplings in August). All
the samples showed no detectable concentrations of aldicarb or its
metabolites except for the sample collected on August 27, 1991 that
showed 0.05 ppb of aldicarb sulfone, but no detectable aldicarb or
aldicarb sulfoxide. Sampling on February 18, 1992 at the Turlock
Irrigation District Drain #5 sampling site in Stanislaus county showed
detectable concentrations of aldicarb sulfone (0.26 ppb), but aldicarb
and aldicarb sulfoxide were not detectable in that sample. The absence
of aldicarb sulfoxide in this sample makes this analysis

suspect.

EPA response:    The Agency disagrees with the criteria used to
disqualify detections in surface water samples.  There is no
justification for disregarding cases where only one or two of the
aldicarb residues are detected.  All three (parent aldicarb, aldicarb
sulfoxide, aldicarb sulfone) need not co-occur.  In addition, subsequent
sampling that yields no detectable residues where earlier samples had
been positive does not invalidate the previous sample detections; it is
unreasonable to expect that residue concentrations should remain stable
over time, particularly in streams.  On the contrary, it should be
expected that levels will be highly temporally variable within the same
stream.  When detections occur in areas where aldicarb is not currently
in use, a historical background for the region is necessary; if the
chemical had never been used in the larger watershed it can be presumed
that the detection is invalid.  However, if the compound had been used
in the past, its detection in surface water may reflect (baseflow)
groundwater contributions to the stream – residues in groundwater,
which can persist for long periods under certain conditions, may
ultimately be discharged to the surface.  Thus some of these seemingly
suspect samples may reflect past rather than present usage.

III. FORMATION AND TRANSFORMATION OF HYDROXYMETHYL ALDICARB

SULFONE AND THE RESULTS OF ONGOING AEROBIC AND ANAEROBIC

METABOLISM STUDIES FOR ALDICARB SULFONE

Potential for Hydroxymethyl Aldicarb Sulfone to Revert to Aldicarb
Sulfone

As discussed earlier, hydroxymethyl aldicarb sulfone was reported as a
metabolite of aldicarb sulfone in aerobic and anaerobic aquatic
metabolism studies (MRID Nos. 45592109 and 45592111). Repeat studies
with the same system (results presented later in this section)have shown
that hydroxymethyl aldicarb sulfone is likely not a metabolite of
aldicarb sulfoxide and that the misidentification in these studies
occurred as a result of a rapidly degrading standard.

However, in the unlikely event that hydroxymethyl aldicarb sulfone is
formed, it will not revert to the parent sulfone under aerobic
conditions. The registrant agrees with the reviewer’s comment on DER
Report (Aerobic Biotransformation of Aldicarb Sulfone in Water Sediment
System, EPA MRID No. 45592109) pages 3 and 17, that hydroxymethyl
sulfone will undergo oxidation to corresponding carboxylic acid. These
types of amino carboxylic acids are extremely unstable and will
eliminate carbon dioxide instantaneously and upon hydrolysis yield
sulfone

oxime. In addition, as stated in the DER report hydroxymethyl aldicarb
sulfone will undergo hydrolysis to form sulfone oxime, or elimination to
form aldicarb sulfone nitrile. The nitrile upon hydrolysis will yield
sulfone amide and further to aldicarb sulfone acid. Similarly aldicarb
sulfone oxime will undergo hydrolytic/oxidative pathway to yield
aldicarb sulfone acid. Aldicarb sulfone acid and aldicarb sulfone amide
upon hydrolysis yield methane sulfonic acid which will be the ultimate
transformation product.

Therefore under aerobic conditions the hydroxymethyl aldicarb sulfone
will transform into a methane sulfonic acid and it will not revert to
the parent aldicarb sulfone (although transformation back to aldicarb
sulfone might be possible under anaerobic conditions, aldicarb sulfone
degrades rapidly under such conditions).

Results of Ongoing Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Study for [S-Methyl
14C]Aldicarb Sulfone

Aldicarb sulfone is a major metabolite of parent compound aldicarb. The
aerobic biotransformation of radiolabeled S-methyl aldicarb sulfone,
(2-Methyl-2-(methylsulfonyl)propanal-O-methylcarbamoyloxime, was studied
in a pond

water/sediment system (water: pH 7.1, dissolved organic carbon = 4.8
ppm, sediment: texture = loamy sand, pH 6.2, organic carbon = 2.5%) from
Clayton, North Carolina United States for 30 days in the dark at 25 ± 1
ºC. Aldicarb sulfone was applied at a rate of 0.28mg a.i./L, which
closely approximates the single maximum field use rate of 5.6 kg/ha to a
depth of 200 cm. The sediment/water ratio used was 1:4. The average
material balance total material balance in the water sediment system was
96% of applied activity. (Table 4)

The concentration of [S-methyl14C] in water decreased from 98.6% at day
zero to 1% at day 14. The concentration of [S-methyl14C] in sediment
decreased from 3.4% at day zero to 1% at day 7. Aldicarb sulfone
degraded very fast with a half-life of 3.00 days (Figure 1).

The major transformation products were identified as aldicarb sulfone
alcohol (26%), aldicarb sulfone acid (35%), aldicarb sulfone nitrile
(25%), aldicarb sulfone amide (26%), and aldicarb sulfone oxime(9%).
There was no major metabolite detected with an intact carbamate moiety.
There were two other minor polar transient metabolites range 3-5% which
appeared day three and five only and then degraded (Table 2).

Non extractable residues were very low and accounted for 9% of applied
activity at day 30. Excellent mineralization to CO2was observed and
accounted for 39% of the applied activity at day 30.

Metabolic Pathway. Aldicarb sulfone degraded very rapidly in pond water
in the pond water and sediment system with almost complete degradation
in two weeks after application. A proposed metabolic pathway is shown in
Figure 2. The pathway involves hydrolysis and elimination of methyl
carbamoyl group to form aldicarb sulfone oxime, and aldicarb sulfone
nitrile respectively. Aldicarb sulfone nitrile undergoes further
hydrolysis and oxidation to aldicarb sulfone amide and aldicarb alcohol,
which undergoes further oxidization to form aldicarb sulfone acid.

EPA response:  The Agency generally concurs with the statement that
reversion of hydroxymethyl aldicarb sulfone to aldicarb sulfone is
likely not a major concern, and that if such does occur (under anaerobic
conditions) the aldicarb sulfone should degrade fairly rapidly.
However, groundwater discharge zones – usually low-lying areas which
are commonly reducing environments (e.g., riparian zones, wetlands,
etc.) – typically have rapidly changing redox conditions, both
spatially and temporally.  How this might affect these chemical
transformations remains largely unknown.

Results of Ongoing Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Study for [S-Methyl
14C]Aldicarb Sulfone

Aldicarb sulfone is a major metabolite of parent compound aldicarb. The
anaerobic biotransformation of radiolabeled S-methyl aldicarb sulfone,
(2-Methyl-2 (methylsulfonyl)propanal-O-methylcarbamoyloxime, was studied
in a pond water/sediment system (water: pH 7.1, dissolved organic carbon
= 4.8 ppm, sediment: texture = loamy sand, pH 6.2, organic carbon =
2.5%) from Clayton, North Carolina United States for 30 days* in the
dark at 25 ± 1 ºC. Aldicarb sulfone was applied at a rate of 0.28mg
a.i./L, which closely approximates the single maximum field use rate of
5.6 kg/ha to a depth of 200 cm. The sediment/water ratio used was 1:3.
The average total material balance in the water sediment system was 100%
of applied activity (Table 6).

The concentration of [S-methyl14C] in water decreased from 98.6% at day
zero to 1% at day 14. The concentration of [S-methyl14C] in sediment
decreased from 3.4% at day zero to 1% at day 7. Aldicarb sulfone
degraded very fast with a half-life of 2.4 days (Figure 3).

The major transformation products were identified as aldicarb sulfone
alcohol accounting for 50.8%, aldicarb sulfone acid for 16.5%, and
aldicarb sulfone nitrile accounting for 32.3% of the applied activity in
total system. There was no major metabolite detected with intact
carbamate moiety. There were two other minor transient metabolites
ranging from 1-3% of applied, which appeared on day one and three only
and then degraded (Table 7).

Non extractable residues were very low and accounted for less than 2% of
applied activity at day 30.

EPA response:  The Agency is very grateful for the continued research
into the behavior, transformations, and characteristics of the various
degradates of aldicarb.

 PAGE

 PAGE   14


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 91 (Monday, May 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27738-27739]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09998]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC20-9-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-549D); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission
or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection, FERC-549D (Quarterly Transportation and Storage
Report for Intrastate Natural Gas and Hinshaw Pipelines) and submitting
the information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB
and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as
explained below.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due June 10, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on FERC-549D to OMB through
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Desk Officer. Please identify the OMB control number (1902-
0253) in the subject line. Your comments should be sent within 30 days
of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Please submit copies of your comments to the Commission (identified
by Docket No. IC20-10-000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, at Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Hand delivered
submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and
Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Instructions: OMB submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain; Using the search function under the Currently Under Review
field, select Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; click submit and
select comment to the right of the subject collection. FERC submissions
must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines
at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance,
contact FERC Online Support by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-549D, Quarterly Transportation and Storage Report for
Intrastate Natural Gas and Hinshaw Pipelines.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0253.
    Form No.: FERC Form 549D.

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-549D information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: On March 2, 2020, the Commission published a Notice in
the Federal Register in Docket No. IC20-9-000 requesting public
comments (85 FR 12281). The Commission received no public comments and
is indicating that in the related submittal to OMB. The reporting
requirements under FERC-549D are required to carry out the Commission's
policies in accordance with the general authority in Section 1(c) of
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) \1\ and Section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy
Act of 1978 (NGPA).\2\ This collection promotes transparency by
collecting and making available intrastate and Hinshaw pipeline
transactional information. The Commission collects the data upon a
standardized form with all requirements outlined in 18 CFR 284.126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 717(c).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 3211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FERC-549D collects the following information:
     Full legal name and identification number of the shipper
receiving service, including whether the pipeline and the shipper are
affiliated;
     Type of service performed;
     The rate charged under each contract;
     The primary receipt and delivery points for each contract;
     The quantity of natural gas the shipper is entitled to
transport, store, or deliver for each transaction;
     The duration of the contract, specifying the beginning and
(for firm contracts only) ending month and year of current agreement;
     Total volumes transported, stored, injected or withdrawn
for the shipper; and
     Annual revenues received for each shipper, excluding
revenues from storage services.
    Filers submit the Form-549D on a quarterly basis.
    Type of Respondents: Intrastate natural gas under NGPA Section 311
authority and Hinshaw pipelines.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \3\ The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden and cost for the information collection as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal
agency. For further explanation of what is included in the
information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal
Regulations 1320.3.

                         FERC-549D: Quarterly Transportation and Storage Report for Intrastate Natural Gas and Hinshaw Pipelines
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average annual
                                       Average annual     number of    Average annual    Average burden hrs. &     Total annual burden       Cost per
                                          number of     responses per   total number     cost ($) per response     hours & total annual   respondent ($)
                                         respondents     respondent     of  responses                               cost ($) (rounded)
                                                  (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4).....................  (3) * (4) = (5)........       (5) / (1)
                                                                                (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PDF filings..........................             120               4             480  12.5 hrs.; $1,133.......  6,000 hrs.; $543,840...          $4,532
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total............................  ..............  ..............             480  ........................  6,000 hrs.; $543,840...  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: May 5, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-09998 Filed 5-8-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 50948]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21923]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4397-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001]

New York; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of New York (FEMA-4397-DR), dated October 1,
2018, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued October 1, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated October 1, 2018, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of New York resulting from severe storms and flooding during the
period of August 13 to August 15, 2018, is of sufficient severity
and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the State of New York.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Seamus K. Leary, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of New York have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Broome, Chemung, Chenango, Delaware, Schuyler, Seneca, and Tioga
Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of New York are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-21923 Filed 10-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-11-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 82 (Monday, April 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18021-18022]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08578]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0059; FRL-9990-20-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Fund
Program (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Safe Drinking Water Act State
Revolving Fund Program (EPA ICR Number 1803.08, OMB Control Number
2040-0185) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This is
a proposed renewal of the ICR, which is currently approved through
April 30, 2019. Public comments were previously requested via the
Federal Register on August 13, 2018, during a 60-day comment period.
This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A
fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated
burden and cost to the public. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and
a person is not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments must be submitted on or before May 29, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-2002-
0059, to (1) the EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to
[email protected]. Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Rubin, Drinking Water
Protection Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 4606M,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996
(Pub. L. 104-182) authorized the creation of the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF; the Fund) program in each state and Puerto Rico,
to assist public water systems in financing the costs of infrastructure
needed to achieve or maintain compliance with the SDWA requirements and
to protect public health. The SDWA, section 1452, authorizes the
Administrator of the EPA to award capitalization grants to the states
and Puerto Rico which, in turn, provide low-cost loans and other types
of assistance to eligible drinking water systems. States can also
reserve a portion of their grants to conduct various set-aside
activities. The information collection activities will occur primarily
at the program level through the (1) Capitalization Grant Application
and Agreement/State Intended Use Plan; (2) Biennial Report; (3) Annual
Audit; (4) Assistance Application Review; and (5) DWSRF National
Information Management

System and the Projects and Benefits Reporting System.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities affected by this action are
states and local governments.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain or retain a
benefit per the Safe Drinking Water Act Section 1452(g)(1).
    Estimated number of respondents: 379 state and local respondents
(total).
    Frequency of response: Varies by requirement (i.e., quarterly,
semi-annually, and annually).
    Total estimated burden: 88,793 hours (per year) for state and local
respondents. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $3,355,516 (per year) for state and local
respondents.
    Changes in estimates: There is a net decrease in total respondent
burden hours from the previous ICR. This is due to burden calculated
with alternating 25 states and 26 states each year producing biennial
reports. Since ICR's capture 3-year timeframes, some ICRs will have
more years of 26 state reports then other. There is also a correction
to the calculation of EPA burden hours. These have been increased to
more accurately align EPA review of audits with State burden of audits,
with both tables assuming each state will audit every year.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-08578 Filed 4-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 191)]
[Notices]
[Page 57093]
[DOCID:fr01oc08-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1864-083-MI]

Upper Peninsula Power Company; Notice of Availability of
Environmental Assessment

September 25, 2008.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR Part
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed Upper Peninsula Power Company's proposed shoreline management
plan for the Bond Falls Hydroelectric Project, located on the Ontonagon
River in Ontonagon and Gogebic Counties, Michigan, and Vilas County,
Wisconsin, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA).
    A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available
for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number (P-1864) excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-
3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any comments on the EA should be filed by October 27, 2008 and
should be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1-A, Washington, DC 20426.
Please reference the project name and project number (P-1864) on all
comments. Comments may be filed electronically via Internet in lieu of
paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site under the ``eFiling'' link. For further information, contact Jon
Cofrancesco at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-23065 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P