Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service

Department of Interior Comments

State of Maine Draft Regional Haze Rule State Implementation Plan

July 23, 2010

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Park Service (NPS)
would like to thank the State of Maine for their efforts towards an
effective and interactive consultation with the Federal Land Managers on
their Regional Haze Implementation Plan (RHSIP).  Furthermore, we
appreciate the State’s efforts in addressing our comments on the
preliminary draft document that we received back in 2009.  Through
cooperative efforts, the draft RH SIP is one of the best examples of a
comprehensive and well written draft of the MANE-VU States.

We would like to further commend the State for addressing most, if not
all, of the “MANE-VU Ask” (“Ask”) identified by the MANE-VU
Regional Planning Organization (RPO).  On numerous occasions, the FWS
and NPS have expressed concerns with the lack of “Ask”
implementation language in many of MANE-VU State RHSIPs.  These
omissions have led to less than ideal expectations on our part that
controls will be realized overall in the MANE-VU Region. The State of
Maine not only appears to have addressed the “Ask”, but has done an
exemplary job of describing the State’s intent to meet Maine’s share
of emission controls.

Overall Comments

As mentioned above, we have concern over the success of the MANE-VU
Region realizing the overall emission reductions expected by the
“Ask”.  Although Maine is actively implementing controls of the
“Ask”, many States are not.  There is a good possibility that
reasonable progress goals that States’ are setting based on full
implementation of these “Ask” will not be achieved without honestly
discerning which emission reductions will take place and which ones will
not.

It is our recommendation that Maine consider providing discussion and
additional plots of the reasonable progress goals without the “Ask”
that are based on either “on the way (OTW)/on the books (OTB)” or
“better than on the way” scenarios.  An additional presentation,
taking more realistic emission reductions into consideration, would
offer a better representation of the span of control being implemented
in the region.  Although, we recognize that it is not within Maine’s
power to get other States to comply with the “Ask”, none the less,
the State should access whether or not Pennsylvania, Ohio,
Massachusetts, and New York will meet their share of the “Ask”, and
communicate and incorporate these findings.  This is important given
that these States were identified as key contributors to Maine’s Class
I areas.

Specific Comments

Chapter 1, Introduction

Section 1.8:  The State identifies a suite of analysis methods to
produce a weight of evidence approach to basic source apportionment.
Although we commend the weight of evidence approach, the FWS and NPS
does not consider MANE-VU’s application of the CALPUFF model as within
recommended modeling practices.  As such, the use of non-standard models
or configurations, customarily require a performance evaluation that
demonstrates beneficial use, which was not presented in Maine’s SIP.

Chapter 8, Emission Inventory

We commend Maine for being the first MANE-VU State to implement the low
sulfur fuel strategy.

It would be helpful to the reader if an explanation could be given as to
why SO2 emissions for EGUs increase between the 2018 OTB/OTW inventory
and the final modeling inventory.

We recommend that Maine add text to clarify which emission reductions
assumed in the final modeling inventory (Table 8-4) are being
implemented.  Added language would explain questions such as: is the
final modeling inventory for non-EGUs point and area source SO2
emissions accurate for Maine’s actual implemented controls, and are
all the Best Available Retrofit (BART) emissions included in these
inventories?

Chapter 10, Best Available Retrofit Technology

An overarching concern is that it is not clear from the Maine BART
documents (posted 6/29/10) how it applied any of the five factors in the
BART analyses in making its BART determinations. For example, MAINE does
not appear to have given much weight to the visibility benefits that
could be realized from the control strategies evaluated. At least, it is
not clear how Maine applied this factor in developing its BART
conclusions. As we shall discuss later, there appears to be great
inconsistency among the methods used by Maine to assess and evaluate
costs and benefits that would result from the various control strategies
chosen by Maine as representing BART.

The individual company BART determinations were not found in the record.
 Please add an Appendix to the State Implementation Plan for Regional
Haze and include these documents to aid third-party reviewers to deal
with the complete record.

The core purpose of the BART program is to improve visibility in our
Class I areas, and BART is not necessarily the most cost-effective
solution. Instead, BART represents a broad consideration of technical,
economic, energy, and environmental (including visibility improvement)
factors. We believe that it is essential to consider both the degree of
visibility improvement in a given Class I area as well as the cumulative
benefits of improving visibility across all of the Class I areas
affected.

There are at least six Class I areas impacted by Maine’s BART sources.
We believe that it is appropriate to consider both the degree of
visibility improvement in a given Class I area as well as the cumulative
effects of improving visibility across all of the Class I areas
affected. The same metric should not be used to evaluate the effects of
reducing emissions from a BART source that impacts only one Class I area
as for a BART source that impacts multiple Class I areas. Also,
evaluating impacts at one Class I area, while ignoring others that are
similarly significantly impaired should not be done. Emissions savings
from a source are benefits that will be spread well beyond only the
most-impacted Class I area, and should be considered. While Maine
presented data describing improvements to visibility at a specific Class
I area that would result from the various control scenarios it
investigated, the State has not explained how it incorporated this
information on impacts upon all Class I areas into its BART decision.

For example, Wyoming evaluated cumulative visibility improvement for
both its BART and reasonable progress determinations—following are
excerpts from those Wyoming determinations (with emphasis added):

 for enhanced ESP (Post-Control Scenario A) was 1.070 Δdv from Unit 1,
0.199 Δdv from Unit 2, 1.068 Δdv from Unit 3, and 0.892 Δdv from Unit
4.

-Control Scenario A for each unit, was 3.558 Δdv from Unit 3 and 1.963
Δdv from Unit 4.

Visibility impacts were addressed in a comprehensive visibility analysis
covering three visibility impairing pollutants and the associated
control options. The cumulative visibility improvement as compared to
the baseline across Wind Cave NP and Badlands NP achieved with new LNB
with OFA at the 30-day limit of 0.23 lb/MMBtu (based on the 98th
percentile modeled results) was 0.14 Δdv from each of the three units.
The expected visibility improvement over the course of a full annual
period would be even greater due to the annual BART limit that is based
on 0.19 lb/MMBtu.

Visibility impacts were addressed in a comprehensive visibility analysis
covering all three visibility impairing pollutants and associated
control options. The cumulative 3-year averaged 98th percentile
visibility improvement from the baseline summed across both Class I
areas achieved with LNB with advanced OFA, wet FGD, and existing ESP
with FGC (Post-Control Scenario A) was 1.716 Δdv from Unit 1 and 1.934
Δdv from Unit 2.

Visibility impacts were addressed in a comprehensive visibility analysis
covering all three visibility impairing pollutants and associated
control options. The cumulative 3-year averaged 98th percentile
visibility improvement from the baseline summed across both Class I
areas achieved with LNB with advanced OFA, upgrading the existing dry
FGD, and a new full-scale fabric filter, Post-Control Scenario A for
Unit 1, was 0.996 Δdv.

Oregon considered cumulative benefits for the Boardman Power Plant SCR
addition for reasonable progress:

Table 22: Visibility Modeling Results (percent improvement) Total
visibility impacts (sum of 98th percentile for all Class I areas)

The BART guidelines recommend analyzing visibility improvement for the
highest impacted Class I area with the assumption that any improvement
in the worse impacted area would result in improvement in the lesser
impacted areas. However, since the Boardman Plant significantly impacts
14 Class I Areas within 300 kilometers, the Department tried to include
other parameters that would assess the significance of the improvements
for all Class I areas impacted. Therefore, the Department added the
number of Class I areas with impacts greater than 1.0 delta deciview,
the total delta deciviews for all Class I areas (98th percentile), and
the average delta deciview for all Class I areas (98th percentile). As
can be seen in Table 21, any one of the parameters is fairly
representative of the other parameters perhaps with the exception of
WFGD. Given these results, the Department does not believe that adding
additional parameters, such as total deciview days, would result in any
other conclusions and would probably just add confusion to the analysis
(e.g., more days of impacts than are in a year). Using the results of
the visibility modeling, the cost effectiveness of the control
technologies is recalculated by relating the costs to deciview
improvement (Mt. Hood and all Class I areas) as shown in the following 2
tables.

Maine has ignored the other Class I areas where a given BART source is
also causing or contributing to visibility impairment. The dollar cost
per increment of visibility improvement would be substantially lower if
full consideration is given to all affected Class I areas that would
benefit from emission reductions. While we recognize that EPA has
provided no guidance on this issue of assessing visibility benefits that
would result in multiple Class I areas when emissions are reduced from a
given BART source, we commend Wyoming and Oregon for their initiative in
addressing the issue. We also recognize that there is no “perfect”
method for addressing cumulative benefits, but we firmly believe that
Maine must show how it considered the cumulative impact of the BART
sources the affected Class I areas. We have suggested an approach to
Maine that is consistent with available information and with the
approach used by Wyoming and Oregon, and again request that MEDEP show
how it has considered the cumulative benefits of potential BART
reductions.

Based upon our reviews of BART analyses across the U.S., we believe that
cost-per-deciview ($/dv) of visibility improvement is the most-common
and most-useful parameter for assessing the cost-effectiveness of
strategies to improve visibility in Class I areas. Our compilation of
BART analyses across the U.S. reveals that the average cost/dv proposed
by either a state or a BART source is $13 - $20 million, with a maximum
of almost $50 million/dv proposed by Colorado at the Martin Drake power
plant in Colorado Springs.

Section 10.7.2:  In the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
determination section for FPL Energy Wyman, LLC, three unlabeled tables
identify visibility benefits based on 1st and 8th high values (page
110).  Our understanding is that the quality and quantity of meteorology
used during the BART determinations fall within the recommended modeling
practices.  Maine voluntarily agreed to limit evaluations to 1st high
values in lieu of generating 3 years of quality meteorological input.
Please communicate that the State did not use the 8th high to base their
BART conclusion.

Comments on the BART determinations for individual facilities that are
subject to BART follow.  We are focusing our comments on the BART
determinations for the Verso Androscoggin and FPL Wyman facilities
because they have larger impacts than the other BART sources. We are
also providing comments on the other BART sources.

Verso Androscoggin Paper Mill

The Power Boiler #1 and #2, and the Waste Fuel Incinerator (WFI) units
at Verso Androscoggin Paper Mill are BART eligible.  Both SCR and SNCR
are evaluated for each of these units as BART options for controlling
NOx emissions.  In each case, we have concerns with the cost estimation
methodologies used:  annual reagent and catalyst costs are significantly
above what should be expected, capital recovery factor calculations use
annual interest rates nearly double the standard of EPA’s OAQPS Air
Pollution Cost Control Manual, and recovery periods only half as long,
and there are unexplained differences between the company’s proposal
and the Maine cost estimates.  In summary, our data indicates that both
SCR and SNCR should be considered as viable NOx BART conclusions for
these units, and that lower sulfur residual oils should be more fully
evaluated as an SO2 BART option for the Power Boilers. We also have
several questions regarding the SO2 BART conclusion for the WFI.  Please
see the detailed comments contained in Attachment 1 for specifics.

FPL Energy Wyman Station

Power Boilers #3 and #4 at the FPL Energy Wyman Station are
BART-eligible units.  The State’s SO2 BART analysis appears to be the
only BART analysis conducted by Maine in which cost-effectiveness was
not evaluated in terms of annual cost/ton of pollutant removed. Instead,
Maine appears to have relied solely upon annual cost/deciviews (dv) of
visibility improvement. While we encourage the use of the $/dv metric,
it was not properly calculated nor applied in this case. Using the data
available in the BART analyses, we assessed the cost per ton of SO2
reduced by the BART options, as well as corrected $/dv calculations.
Based upon the results, we believe that it is reasonable to conclude
that 0.5% - 0.3% sulfur fuels are BART for the FPL boilers.  See the
discussion in Attachment 2 to these comments for further details.

SAPPI SD Warren Paper Mill

We are confused as to the BART status for Power Boiler #1 at the SAPPI
SD Warren Paper Mill. While the company-prepared BART analysis
(September 2009) did not mention this unit, the January 21, 2010, Maine
BART analysis does identify and analyze BART controls for Power Boiler
#2.  The final Maine BART analysis for the facility, posted on June 29,
2010, is again silent on this unit.  Please explain the BART eligibility
status for the SAPPI SD Warren Paper Mill Power Boiler #1, and include
any appropriate BART determination in the final SIP.  Supporting
information for this comment is included in Attachment 3 to these
comments.

Domtar Industries, Inc. – Woodland Mill

The State did a good job of reflecting the five-factor BART protocol in
the Departmental Findings of Fact and Order for Domtar Industries, Inc.
– Woodland Mill.  Section II makes reference from the company BART
determination to a Dry Electrostatic Precipitator BART alternative
estimated to cost $4,640 per ton of particulate matter removed.  It also
makes reference to the Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) BART
alternative estimated by the company to cost $7,360 per ton of NOx
removed.  If the detailed information correctly supports the values
shown above, then it may be reasonable to conclude that the cost per ton
of removal was excessive.  Maine seemed to rely solely upon the MANE-VU
visibility data to evaluate in a general way the visibility impact of a
given unit on nearby Class I areas, but individual modeling of each BART
alternative was not performed.  In the case of the Woodland Mill it
seemed that by concluding that an alternative was not cost-effective on
a cost per ton basis, Maine believes that the specific cost of
visibility improvement was not necessary.  Normally, the visibility cost
step is performed, even if cost per ton is deemed to be excessive.
Existing SO2 controls on Power Boiler #9 and the Lime Kiln seemed to be
considered ‘top controls’, so further cost analysis was not
necessary.

Lincoln Paper

As we understand Maine proposes that Lincoln be allowed to burn 2% S
fuel oil.  Additionally, SO2 emissions from the recovery boiler shall be
controlled to 141 ppmv (dry basis) @ 8% O2 on a 24-hour block average
basis when firing only black liquor or when firing a combination of
black liquor and oil. The recovery boiler fires #6-fuel oil.  Oil fired
in the recovery boiler alone shall not exceed 0.7% sulfur by weight or
2.0% sulfur by weight when firing a combination of black liquor and oil.
The recovery boiler is fired with fuel oil for startup purposes (in
order to initiate Black Liquor Solids (BLS) firing) in addition to
shutdowns and other events which require the addition of oil firing.

Maine should explain why use of lower sulfur (0.7% S) fuel (that is
already used when the recovery furnaces fires 100% #6 oil) would incur a
capital cost that made use of that fuel all the time too expensive. The
Lincoln Paper BART determination is deficient because it does not
evaluate the use of 0.7% fuel oil at all times.

Dragon Cement

Based upon the 6/29/10 BART analysis, Maine has determined that for NOx,
Dragon shall operate an SNCR (Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction) system
to reduce NOx emissions from the calciner to achieve a 45% control
efficiency. NOx emissions from the kiln system shall be limited to 350.0
lb/hr on a 90 day rolling average and 1533.0 tons/year on a 12 month
rolling total basis.

We concur.

Katahdin Paper

Maine is limiting emissions from Katahdin paper's only BART source to <
250 tpy to exempt it from BART.

We concur.

Red Shield Old Town Fuel & Fiber

Maine is limiting emissions from Red Shield's Old Town Fuel & Fiber's
only BART sources to

< 250 tons/year to exempt it from BART.

We concur.

Rumford Paper

Maine is limiting emissions from Rumford Paper to less than 250 tons per
year so as to exempt it from BART.

Please assure that Departmental Findings of Fact and Order or other
federally enforceable documents are promulgated to define the emission
limitations and place them in the official BART record.

Verso Bucksport paper mill

MEDEP is capping the Verso Bucksport paper mill out of BART, but did not
post the actual permit that does so.

Please post the pertinent permit.

Chapter 11, Reasonable Progress Goals

By setting reasonable progress goals based on the “Ask”, rather than
the OTW/OTB inventory, the MANE-VU States have made it more difficult to
demonstrate that they have implemented the controls necessary to meet
the reasonable progress goals.  It would be helpful for Maine to discuss
whether or not the OTW/OTB controls were sufficient to meet the uniform
rate of progress at the Maine Class I areas.

Section 11.3, Additional Reasonable Controls:  On page 133, the
statement is made that MANE-VU States have up to 10 years to implement
reasonable controls.  We believe this to be incorrect statement.  It is
our understanding that the regional haze rule requires the controls to
be in progress (e.g., BART determination or rule requirement) when the
RHSIP is submitted as final.

Table 11-5 summarizes SO2 emissions in 2002 and 2018 modeling inventory
for 12 sources that were assumed to be required to install BART
controls.  A similar table which summarizes actual BART reductions for
Maine sources would be extremely helpful.

MANE-VU indicated that emissions were backfilled in the final inventory
calculations in order to fully meet the Clean Air Act Interstate Rule
(CAIR) cap.  When this backfill method was applied to sources outside of
MANE-VU emission rates for some sources were overestimated, ignoring
State rules and consent decrees.  Please explain in more detail how
Maine consulted with these non-MANE-VU States and how the results from
this consultation were reconciled in making these emission control
decisions.

Chapter 12, Long Term Strategy

Section 12.7.2:  Please identify whether the State implements a smoke
management plan.  If so, identify whether the program is voluntary or
mandatory and whether the impacts to the Class I areas are considered
during the process.

Table 12-1 lists non-CAIR BART facilities that were modeled.  Please
confirm the modeled emissions are consistent with the actual BART
determinations.

It should be stated earlier in the document that Maine will be fully
meeting the “Ask” by 2018.  Providing a statement to this effect at
the beginning of the document will address reader questions earlier in
the review of RHSIP.

"

&

.

¦

¯

Æ

÷

ù

.

/

0

/

0

A

B

0

?

@

A

B

›

¿

Å

È

Ï

h‡`

ᤀ.  This section links reasonable progress for visibility to the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements.

 For example, MEDEP calculates cost/ton for the Androscoggin paper mill
but does not calculate cost/dv. However, for the Wyman power plant,
MEDEP calculates cost/dv but does not calculate cost/ton.

 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY  AIR QUALITY DIVISION  BART
Application Analysis  AP-6040  May 28, 2009  NAME OF FIRM: PacifiCorp
NAME OF FACILITY: Jim Bridger Power Plant

 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AIR QUALITY DIVISION BART
Application Analysis AP-6041 May 28, 2009 NAME OF FIRM: PacifiCorp NAME
OF FACILITY: Dave Johnston Plant

 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AIR QUALITY DIVISION BART
Application Analysis AP-6047 May 28, 2009 NAME OF FIRM: Basin Electric
Power Cooperative NAME OF FACILITY: Laramie River Station

 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY  AIR QUALITY DIVISION  BART
Application Analysis  AP-6042  May 28, 2009  NAME OF FIRM: PacifiCorp
NAME OF FACILITY: Naughton Power Plant

 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AIR QUALITY DIVISION  BART
Application Analysis  AP-6043  May 28, 2009  NAME OF FIRM: PacifiCorp
NAME OF FACILITY: Wyodak Plant

 DEQ BART Report for the Boardman Power Plant Updated December 19, 2008

 See  HYPERLINK "http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/bart.html"
http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/bart.html

 For example, PacifiCorp has stated in its BART analysis for its Bridger
Unit #2 that “The incremental cost effectiveness for Scenario 1
compared with the baseline for the Bridger WA, for example, is
reasonable at $580,000 per day and $18.5 million per deciview.”

 PAGE

 PAGE   7


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49627-49628]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21437]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2018-0024; Notice No. 2018-11]

Hazardous Materials: Public Meeting Notice for International
Standards on the Transport of Dangerous Goods

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

ACTION: Notice of public meetings.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that on Tuesday, November 13, 2018,
PHMSA will host two public meetings. The first meeting--led by PHMSA--
will solicit public input on current proposals and discuss potential
new work items for inclusion in the agenda of the 54th session of the
United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous
Goods (UNSCOE TDG). The second meeting--led by the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA)--will discuss proposals in preparation
for the 36th session of the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on
the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of
Chemicals (UNSCEGHS).
    Time and Location: Both public meetings will be held at DOT
Headquarters, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Conference
Center, Washington, DC 20590-0001 on Tuesday, November 13, 2018.
    PHMSA Public Meeting: 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
    OSHA Public Meeting: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
    Registration: DOT requests that attendees pre-register for these
meetings by completing the form at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XGN8J7X. Attendees may use the same form to

pre-register for both meetings. Failure to pre-register may delay
access into the DOT Headquarters building. Additionally, if attending
in person, please arrive early to allow time for clearing required
building security checks.
    Conference call-in and ``Skype meeting'' capability will be
provided for both meetings. Specific information about remote meeting
access information will be posted when available at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/international-program/international-program-overview
under ``Upcoming Events''.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Steven Webb or Mr. Aaron Wiener,
Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email: [email protected] or
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

PHMSA Public Meeting

    The primary purpose of PHMSA's meeting is to prepare for the 54th
session of the UNSCOE TDG. This session represents the final meeting
scheduled for the 2017-2018 biennium. UNSCOE will consider proposals
for the 21st Revised Edition of the United Nations Recommendations on
the Transport of Dangerous Goods (Model Regulations), which may be
incorporated into relevant domestic, regional, and international
regulations from January 1, 2021. Copies of working documents, informal
documents, and the meeting agenda may be obtained from the United
Nations (UN) Transport Division's website at; https://www.unece.org/trans/main/dgdb/dgsubc3/c32018.html.
    General topics on the agenda for the UNSCOE TDG meeting include:

 Explosives and related matters;
 Listing, classification, and packing;
 Electric storage systems;
 Transport of gases;
 Global harmonization of regulations on the Transport of
Dangerous Goods with the Model Regulations;
 Guiding principles for the Model Regulations;
 Cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency;
 New proposals for amendments to the Model Regulations;
 Issues relating to the Globally Harmonized System of
Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS); and
 Miscellaneous pending issues.

    Following the 54th session of the UNSCOE TDG, a copy of the Sub-
Committee's report will be available at the UN Transport Division's
website at http://www.unece.org/trans/main/dgdb/dgsubc3/c3rep.html.
Additional information regarding the UNSCOE TDG and related matters can
be found on PHMSA's website at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/international-program/international-program-overview.

OSHA Public Meeting

    The Federal Register notice and additional detailed information
relating to OSHA's public meeting will be available upon publication at
www.federalregister.gov. (Docket No. OSHA-2016-0005). OSHA is hosting
the meeting in preparation for the 36th session of the UNSCEGHS. It
will provide interested groups and individuals with an update on GHS-
related issues, as well as solicit input on the development of U.S.
Government positions on proposals submitted to the UNSCEGHS.

    Signed on September 27, 2018 at Washington, DC.
William S. Schoonover,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018-21437 Filed 10-1-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 245 (Friday, December 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77119-77120]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30428]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0133; FRL-9904-55-OAR]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: 2011 Renewable Fuel Standards--
Petition for International Aggregate Compliance Approach

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``Regulation of Fuels and Fuel
Additives: 2011 Renewable Fuel Standards--Petition for International
Aggregate Compliance Approach'' (EPA ICR No. 2398.03, OMB Control No.
2060-0655 to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on
specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described
below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently
approved through February 28, 2014. 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: Comments must be submitted on or before February 18, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0133, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or
by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    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: Geanetta Heard, Fuels Compliance
Center, 6406J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
202-565-2085; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: With this ICR renewal, EPA is seeking permission to
continue recordkeeping and reporting requirements to authorize
renewable fuel producers using certain foreign-grown feedstocks to use
an aggregate approach to comply with the renewable

biomass verification provisions, akin to that applicable to producers
using crops and crop residue grown in the United States. For this
authorization, foreign based entities may petition EPA for approval of
the aggregate compliance approach for specified renewable fuel
feedstocks either in a foreign country as a whole or in a specified
geographical area. This petition request for the aggregate compliance
approach for foreign-grown crops and crop residue is voluntary, though,
if approved by EPA, will offer the benefit that certain renewable
biomass produced in a foreign country or geographical area can be
counted as feedstock to make renewable fuel for credit under the
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) program in 40 CFR Part 80.
    Form numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: 15.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 15 (total).
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 200 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $22,794 (per year), includes no annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no increase of hours in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB. The respondent universe and responses also remained the same in
this collection. There was in increase in cost to the industry of
$8,598 per year due to better numbers used to calculate the industry
burden and to account for inflation.

    Dated: December 4, 2013.
Byron Bunker,
Director, Compliance Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-30428 Filed 12-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 164 (Friday, August 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52535-52536]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20615]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0002]

Withdrawal of Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Quali-
Tech Products, Inc.; Bambermycins; Pyrantel; Tylosin; Virginiamycin

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval
of four new animal drug applications (NADAs) held by Quali-Tech
Products, Inc., at the sponsor's request because the products are no
longer manufactured or marketed.

DATES: Withdrawal of approval is effective September 3, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Alterman, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-212), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855;<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Quali-Tech Products, Inc., has requested
that FDA withdraw approval of the following four NADAs because the
products, used to manufacture Type C medicated feeds, are no longer
manufactured or marketed: NADA 097-980 for Quali-Tech TYLAN-10 (tylosin
phosphate) Premix, NADA 118-815 for Q.T. BAN-TECH (pyrantel tartrate),
NADA 132-705 for FLAVOMYCIN (bambermycins), and NADA 133-335 for STAFAC
(virginiamycin) Swine Pak 10.
    Therefore, under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and in
accordance with Sec.  514.116 Notice of withdrawal of approval of
application (21 CFR 514.116), notice is given that approval of NADAs
097-980, 118-815, 132-705, and 133-335, and all supplements and

amendments thereto, is hereby withdrawn.
    Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is amending
the animal drug regulations to reflect the voluntary withdrawal of
approval of these applications.

    Dated: August 20, 2013.
Bernadette Dunham,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 2013-20615 Filed 8-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

   OFFICE OF

                                    PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

            TOXIC SUBSTANCES

September 30, 2007

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:		Revised Preliminary Ecological Hazard and Environmental Risk
Assessment Science Chapter for the Busan 77 Reregistration Eligibility
Decision (RED) Document

	DP Barcode:  none		Reregistration Case No.:  3034

FROM:		Genevieve Angle, Biologist

Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch (RASSB)

Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

TO:			Mark Hartman, Branch Chief

Diane Isbell, Team Leader

Regulatory Management Branch II

Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

Talia Lindheimer, Risk Assessor

THRU:		Nader Elkassabany, Team Leader, Team Two

Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch (RASSB)

Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

Norman Cook, Branch Chief

Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch (RASSB)

Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

Chemical Name	PC Code	CAS#		Common Names

Poly(oxyethylene	069183	31512-74-0	Busan 77

(dimethylminino)ethylene(dimethyliminio)ethylenedichloride)

Attached is the Ecological Hazards and Environmental Risk Assessment
Science Chapter for the Busan 77 RED Document.

ECOLOGICAL HAZARD AND ENVIRONMENTAL

RISK ASSESSMENT CHAPTER

Busan 77

PC Code: 069183

CASE No.: 3034

07/27/07

Genevieve Angle - Biologist

Antimicrobials Division

Office of Pesticide Programs

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Table of Contents

												    Page

Executive Summary
………………………………………………………………
……………… 1

I.  Ecological Toxicity Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

A.  Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

1.  Birds, Acute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.  Birds, Subacute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3.  Mammals, Acute and Chronic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

B.  Toxicity to Aquatic Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

1.  Freshwater Fish, Acute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

2.  Freshwater Invertebrates, Acute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

3.  Estuarine and Marine Organisms, Acute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

4.  Aquatic Organisms, Chronic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Toxicity to Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..8

II.  Risk Assessment and Risk Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ..11

A.  Environmental Fate Assessment Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ..12

B.  Environmental Exposure and Risk Assessment… . ..
…………………………. . . . . ..12

C.  Endangered Species Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .  . .  . . . . ..19

III.  Confirmatory Data Required. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ..20

IV.  Label Hazard Statements for Terrestrial and Aquatic Organisms. . .
. . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . .. 20

V.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . 22

LIST OF TABLES

																			  Page

Table 1 – Acute Oral Toxicity of Busan 77 to Birds. …. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Table 2 – Subacute Oral Toxicity of Busan 77 to Birds. . . . . . ….
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table 3 – Acute Toxicity of Busan 77 to Freshwater Fish. . . . . . . .
. . . . …. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 4 – Acute Toxicity of Busan 77 to Freshwater Invertebrates. . .
. . . …. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table 5 – Acute Toxicity of Busan 77 to Estuarine and Marine
Organisms……………………6

Table 6 – Chronic Toxicity of Busan 77 to Freshwater Organisms. . . .
…. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8

Tables 7-9 – Toxicity of Busan 77 to Terrestrial
Plants……………………………...…………9

Table 10 – Toxicity of Busan 77 to Aquatic Plants. . . . . . . .. . .
. …. . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . ...10

Table 11 - Busan 77 Dosage Information for Once-through Cooling Water
Systems…………13

Table 12 - Concentrations of Concern Selected for the Environmental
Exposure

Assessment of Busan
77……………………………………………………………
…………..14

Table 13 - Effluent Discharge and Stream Flow Data for Modeled
Facilities…………………16

Table 14 - Number and Percent of Days with Downstream Busan 77

Concentrations Exceeding
COCs…………………………………………………………
…....17

Table 15 - Percent of Facilities with Downstream Busan 77 Concentrations

Exceeding COCs on at Least One
Day………………………………………………………....18

Ecological Hazard and Environment Risk Assessment

For Busan 77

Executive Summary:

	Busan 77 is currently registered by the EPA as a bacteriostat,
fungicide, algaecide, microbicide/microbiostat and molluscicide for
swimming pools, aquatic areas, materials preservation, industrial
process and water systems and residential and public access premises.
Its swimming pool uses include pools, spas, whirlpools and hot tubs.
Its aquatic areas uses include ornamental ponds and aquariums.  Its
materials preservation uses include metal working fluid and fire water
protection systems.  Its industrial process and water system uses
include cooling towers (both once-through and recirculating), petroleum
secondary recovery systems, paper mill process water and air water
washer systems.  The residential and public access premises uses include
water bed mattresses.

	An ecological risk assessment is not typically conducted for the types
of uses registered for Busan 77 except for the once-through cooling
water use.  A risk assessment for once-through cooling water uses using
maximum application rates and the toxicity values for various organisms
from section I below has been conducted in this document.  All other
uses are considered indoor and have minimal to no environmental exposure
potential following use.

	The results of the assessment of once-though cooling water uses
indicate that there may be risk to freshwater fish, freshwater
invertebrates and estuarine/marine invertebrates from the use of Busan
77.

Data Gaps:

1)  850.1300: Aquatic invertebrate life-cycle study (using TGAI and most
sensitive species -                        freshwater or
estuarine/marine)

2)  850.1400: Fish early-life stage study (using TGAI and most sensitive
species - freshwater     or estuarine/marine)

3)  850.4225: Seedling emergence study - dose response using rice (Oryza
sativa)

4)  850.4400: Freshwater floating macrophyte duckweed study

5)  850.5400: Aquatic plant growth (algal toxicity) – 2 studies
outstanding (marine diatom -                         Skeletonema
costatum and green algae - Selenastrum capricornutum); Tier II
                (using TGAI or TEP)

6)  850.1735: Whole sediment, acute invertebrates (freshwater) (using
TGAI)

7)  850.1740: Whole sediment, acute invertebrates (estuarine/marine)
(using TGAI)

	8)  Depending on the results of the whole sediment, acute invertebrate
studies, the following data may be required: Whole sediment - chronic
invertebrates (freshwater and/or estuarine/marine) (using TGAI or TEP)

Label Hazard Statements/Use Recommendations:

Busan 77 labels must state:

“This pesticide is toxic to fish, aquatic invertebrates and clams.”

"Do not discharge effluent containing this product into lakes, streams,
ponds, estuaries, oceans, or other waters unless in accordance with the
requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit and the permitting authorities are notified in writing
prior to discharge.  Do not discharge effluent containing this product
to sewer systems without previously notifying the local sewage treatment
plant authority.  For guidance contact your State Water Board or
Regional Office of the EPA."

I.	Ecological Toxicity Data

	The toxicity endpoints presented below are based on the results of
ecotoxicity studies submitted to EPA to meet the Agency’s data
requirements for the uses of Busan 77.

	A.	Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals

(1)	Birds, Acute

	In order to establish the toxicity of Busan 77 to avian species, the
Agency requires an acute oral toxicity study using the technical grade
active ingredient (TGAI).  The preferred-test species is either mallard
duck (a waterfowl) or bobwhite quail (an upland game bird).  The results
of two acute oral toxicity studies, submitted for Busan 77, are provided
in the following table (Table 1).

Table 1.  Acute Oral Toxicity of Busan 77 to Birds

Species

Chemical,

% Active Ingredient

(a.i.)

Tested

Endpoint

(mg/kg a.i.)

Toxicity Category

Satisfies Guidelines/

Comments

Reference

(MRID No.)

Mallard duck

(Anas platyrhynchos)	Busan 77 61.7%	LD50 = 497

NOAEL = 51

	Moderately toxic	Yes (core)

- 14-day test duration

- 36 weeks of age	416548-01

Bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus)	Busan 77

% purity unknown	LD50 = 690

NOAEL = <172

(based on the assumption of 60% a.i.)	Slightly toxic	No (supplemental)

- 21-day test duration

- young adult

- study conducted before adoption of GLP principles	ID 0522-010-20

	These two acceptable acute oral toxicity studies indicate that Busan 77
is moderately toxic to slightly toxic to birds on an acute oral basis.
The guideline requirement OPPTS 850.2100/(71-1) is satisfied by the
mallard duck study.

(2)	Birds, Subacute

	A subacute dietary study using the TGAI may be required on a
case-by-case basis depending on the results of lower-tier ecological
studies and pertinent environmental fate characteristics in order to
establish the toxicity of a chemical to avian species.  This testing was
required for Busan 77.  The preferred-test species is either the mallard
duck or bobwhite quail.  The results of two subacute dietary toxicity
studies, submitted for Busan 77, are provided in the following table
(Table 2).

Table 2.  Subacute Oral Toxicity of Busan 77 to Birds

Species

Chemical,

% Active Ingredient

(a.i.)

Tested

Endpoint

(ppm a.i.)

Toxicity Category

Satisfies Guidelines/

Comments

Reference

(MRID No.)

Mallard duck

(Anas platyrhynchos)	Busan 77 60.3%	LC50 (diet) = >12,000

NOAEC = 3,000	Relatively nontoxic	No (supplemental)

-	8-day test duration

-	10 days of age

- study conducted before adoption of GLP principles	414115-01

Bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus)	Busan 77

61.6%	LC50 (diet) = >3,462

NOAEC = 3,462	Slightly toxic	Yes (core)

- 8-day test duration

- 11 days of age 	001593-07

	The results of these two acceptable studies indicate that Busan 77 is
slightly toxic to relatively nontoxic to avian species through subacute
dietary exposure. The bobwhite quail study fulfills guideline
requirement OPPTS 850.2100/ (71-2a – Bobwhite quail/71-2b – Mallard
duck).

 (3)	Mammals, Acute and Chronic Toxicity

Wild mammal testing is not required by the Agency.  In most cases, rat
toxicity values obtained from studies conducted to support data
requirements for human health risk assessments substitute for wild
mammal testing.  Refer to the human toxicology chapter of this RED for
mammalian toxicity data.

B.	Toxicity to Aquatic Animals

	The Agency requested that aquatic toxicity studies be conducted with
Busan 77 since, under typical use conditions, it may be introduced into
the aquatic environment.

(1)	Freshwater Fish, Acute

	In order to establish the acute toxicity of Busan 77 to freshwater
fish, the Agency requires freshwater fish toxicity studies using the
TGAI.  The preferred test species are rainbow trout (a coldwater fish)
and bluegill sunfish (a warmwater fish).  The results of 3 freshwater
fish acute studies submitted for Busan are presented in Table 3.

 Table 3.  Acute Toxicity of Busan 77 to Freshwater Fish

Species

Chemical,

% Active Ingredient

(a.i.)

Tested

Endpoint

(mg a.i./L)

Toxicity Category

Satisfies Guidelines/

Comments

Reference

(MRID No.)

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)	Busan 77

61.9%	LC50 = 0.047

NOAEC = 0.037	Very highly toxic	Yes (core)

-	96-hr test duration

-	static test system	413520-01

Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus)	Busan 77

61.9%	LC50 = 0.21

NOAEC = 0.13	Highly toxic	Yes (core)

-  96-hr test duration

-  static test system	413520-02

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)	Busan 77

60%	LC50 = 0.26

NOAEC = 0.11	Highly toxic	No (supplemental)

-	96-hr test duration

-	static test system

- study lacks important information

- study conducted before adoption of GLP principles	001072-07

	Freshwater acute toxicity tests indicate that Busan 77 is very highly
toxic to highly toxic to fish on an acute basis.  These studies fulfill
guideline requirement OPPTS 850.1075 (72-1a&b).  Because acute toxicity
to fish is <1.0 mg/L, the environmental hazard section of Busan 77
labels must state: “This pesticide is toxic to fish.”

	(2)	Freshwater Invertebrates, Acute

	The Agency requires a freshwater aquatic invertebrate study using the
TGAI to establish the acute toxicity to freshwater invertebrates.  The
preferred test species is Daphnia magna.  The results of one study
submitted for Busan 77 is provided in the following table (Table 4).

	Table 4.  Acute Toxicity of Busan 77 to Freshwater Invertebrates

Species

Chemical,

% Active Ingredient

(a.i.)

Tested

Endpoint

(mg a.i./L)

Toxicity Category

Satisfies Guidelines/

Comments

Reference

(MRID No.)

Waterflea (Daphnia magna)	Busan 77

61.9%	EC50 = 0.280

NOAEC = 0.130	Highly toxic	Yes (core)

-	48-hr test duration

-	static test system	413520-03

	The results of this study indicate that Busan 77 is highly toxic to
freshwater invertebrates on an acute basis.  This study fulfills
guideline requirement OPPTS 850.1010 (72.2a).  Because the acute aquatic
invertebrate toxicity value is < 1.0 mg/L, the environmental hazard
section of Busan 77 labels must state:  “This pesticide is toxic to
aquatic invertebrates.”

(3)	Estuarine and Marine Organisms, Acute

	Acute toxicity testing with estuarine and marine organisms using the
TGAI is required when the end-use product is intended for direct
application to the marine/estuarine environment or effluent containing
the active ingredient is expected to reach this environment.  The
preferred fish test species is the sheepshead minnow.  The preferred
invertebrate test species are mysid shrimp and eastern oysters.  This
testing is required for Busan 77 based on the chemical’s potential to
reach estuarine and marine environments.  The results of three toxicity
studies submitted for Busan 77 are presented in Table 5.

Species

Chemical,

% Active Ingredient

(a.i.)

Tested

Endpoint

(mg a.i./L)

Toxicity Category

Satisfies Guidelines/

Comments

Reference

(MRID No.)

Sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon varigates)	Busan 77

60.0%	LC50  > 360

NOAEC = 360	Relatively nontoxic	Yes (core)

-	96-hr test duration

- static test system	401392-02

Mysid shrimp (Mysidopsis bahia)	Busan 77

60.0%	LC50  = 7.8

NOAEC <7.8	Moderately toxic	Yes (core)

-	96-hr test duration

- static test system	401392-03

Quahog clam (Mercenaria mercenaria)	Busan 77

60.0%	EC50 = 0.21

NOAEC = 0.14	Highly toxic	Yes (core)

-	48-hr test duration

-	static test system

- embryo/larval stage	403342-01

Table 5.  Acute Toxicity of Busan 77 to Estuarine and Marine Organism
The results of these three acceptable studies indicate that Busan 77 is
highly toxic to moderately toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates on an
acute basis and relatively nontoxic to estuarine/marine fish on an acute
basis.  The Quahog clam study (403342-01) fulfills the guideline
requirement OPPTS 850.1055/(72-3b) for an acute estuarine/marine mollusk
study. Study MRID 401392-03 for mysid shrimp fulfills the guideline
requirement OPPTS 850.1035/(72-3c) for an estuarine/marine shrimp study.
 Study MRID 401392-02 for the sheepshead minnow fulfills the guideline
requirement OPPTS 850.1075/(72-3a) for an acute estuarine/marine fish
study.  Because the estuarine/marine acute toxicity values are < 1.0
mg/L in the clam study, the environmental hazard section of Busan 77
labels must state:  “This pesticide is toxic to clams.”

(4)	Aquatic Organisms, Chronic

	Chronic toxicity testing (fish early life stage and aquatic
invertebrate life cycle) is required for pesticides when certain
conditions of use and environmental fate apply.  The preferred
freshwater fish test species is the fathead minnow.  The preferred
freshwater invertebrate is Daphnia magna.  This testing is required for
the Busan 77 once-through cooling water uses.  The results of one
toxicity study submitted for Busan 77 is presented in Table 6.

Table 6.  Chronic Toxicity of Busan 77 to Freshwater Organisms

Species

Chemical,

% Active Ingredient

(a.i.)

Tested

Endpoint

(mg a.i./L)

Satisfies Guidelines/

Comments

Reference

(MRID No.)

Waterflea

(Daphnia magna)	Busan 77

60.3%	LOEC = 0.020

NOAEC = 0.012

	No (supplemental)

-  21-day test             duration

-  static renewal test     system

-  organisms not distributed or fed properly

-  excess mortality	424796-01

No fathead minnow study has been submitted. The study on the waterflea
does not fulfill the guideline requirement for a chronic aquatic
invertebrate study.  Neither guideline requirement OPPTS 850.1300 nor
guideline requirement OPPTS 850.1400 is fulfilled.

Toxicity to Plants

	Non-target plant phytotoxicity testing is required for pesticides when
certain conditions of use and environmental fate apply.  This testing is
required for the once-through cooling water uses of Busan 77.  Testing
has been conducted with Busan 77 on several aquatic and terrestrial
plant species.  Testing is normally conducted with one species of
aquatic vascular plant (Lemna gibba) and four species of algae:  (1)
freshwater green alga, Selenastrum capricornutum, (2) marine diatom,
Skeletonema costatum, (3) freshwater diatom, Navicula pelliculosa, and
(4) bluegreen cyanobacteria, Anabaena flos-aquae.  The rooted aquatic
macrophyte rice (Oryza sativa) is also tested in seedling emergence and
vegetative vigor tests.

	One study that evaluates the toxicity of Busan 77 to several species of
terrestrial plants (seedling emergence-tier I and vegetative vigor-tier
I and tier II) and five studies that evaluate the toxicity of Busan 77
to freshwater aquatic plants have been submitted. Results of the
terrestrial plant study are presented in Tables 7-9 and results of the
aquatic plant studies are presented in Table 10.  Although the tier I
study in Tables 7 and 8 has been previously designated as fulfilling the
guideline requirement, since the study does not include the rice species
(Oryza sativa), a seedling emergence study with this species (OPPTS
850.4225) will still need to be submitted.

Table 7.  Seedling Emergence (Tier I) Toxicity of Busan 77 to
Terrestrial Plants*

Species

Chemical,

% Active Ingredient

(a.i.)

Tested

Endpoint

(ppm a.i.)*

Satisfies Guidelines/

Comments

Reference

(MRID No.)

Monocot

  Oat (Avena sativa)	Busan 77 60.3%	EC25 = >73

NOAEC = 73	Yes (core)

-	14-day test duration

-	most sensitive parameter: shoot length (14% reduction)	420381-01

Dicot

  Lettuce (Lactuca sativa)	Busan 77

60.3%	EC25 = >73

NOAEC = 73	Yes (core)

- 14-day test duration

- most sensitive   parameter: shoot length (17% reduction)	420381-01

*Data are listed for most sensitive species and most sensitive
parameter.  Species tested were cabbage, carrot, cucumber, lettuce,
soybean, tomato, corn, oats, onion and ryegrass.

Table 8.  Vegetative Vigor (Tier I) Toxicity of Busan 77 to Terrestrial
Plants*

Species

Chemical,

% Active Ingredient

(a.i.)

Tested

Endpoint**

(ppm a.i.)

Satisfies Guidelines/

Comments

Reference

(MRID No.)

Monocot

  Corn (Zea mays)	Busan 77 60.3%	EC25 = >74

NOAEC = 74	Yes (core)

-	14-day test duration

-	most sensitive parameter: shoot weight (39% reduction)	420381-01

Dicot

  Cucumber (Cucumis sativus)	Busan 77

60.3%	EC25 = >74

NOAEC = 74	Yes (core)

- 14-day test duration

- most sensitive   parameter: root weight (31% reduction)	420381-01

*Data are listed for most sensitive species and most sensitive
parameter.  Species tested were cabbage, carrot, cucumber, lettuce,
soybean, tomato, corn, oats, onion and ryegrass.

**EC25 value for corn based on shoot length and root weight.  EC25 for
cucumber based on shoot length and shoot weight.

Table 9.  Vegetative Vigor (Tier II) Toxicity of Busan 77 to Terrestrial
Plants*

Species

Chemical,

% Active Ingredient

(a.i.)

Tested

Endpoint*

(ppm a.i.)

Satisfies Guidelines/

Comments

Reference

(MRID No.)

Monocot

  Ryegrass (Lolium perenne)	Busan 77 60.3%	EC25 = >74

NOAEC = 74	No (supplemental)

-	14-day test duration

-	most sensitive parameter: root weight (0% reduction)	420381-01

Dicot

  Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum)	Busan 77

60.3%	EC25 = >74

NOAEC = 74	No (supplemental)

- 14-day test duration

- most sensitive   parameter: shoot weight (15% reduction)	420381-01

*Data are listed for most sensitive species and most sensitive
parameter.

Table 10.  Toxicity of Busan 77 to Aquatic Plants

Species

Chemical,

% Active Ingredient

(a.i.)

Tested

Endpoint

(mg a.i./L)

Satisfies Guidelines/

Comments

Reference

(MRID No.)

Marine diatom (Skeletonema costatum)	Busan 77

60.3%	EC50 = 0.090

NOEC < 0.024	No (supplemental)

-  120-hour test duration

-  static test system	420133-02

Freshwater diatom (Navicula pelliculosa)	Busan 77

60.3%	EC50 = 0.083

NOEC = 0.044	Yes (core)

-  96-hour test duration

-  static test system	420133-03

Bluegreen cyanobacteria (Anabaena flos-aquae)	Busan 77

60.3%	EC50 = 0.11

NOEC = 0.05	Yes (core)

-  120-hour test duration

-  static test system	420133-04

Green alga (Selenastrum capricornutum)	Busan 77

60.3%	EC50 = 0.0088

NOEC < 0.001	No (supplemental)

-  120-hour test duration

-  static test system	420133-05

Duckweed (Lemna gibba)	Busan 77

60.3%	EC50 > 0.65

NOEC = 0.043	No (supplemental)

-	14-day test duration

-	static renewal test system

-  maximum concentration tested produced only 30% growth inhibition
420133-01

	The guideline requirement for an algal toxicity test (850.5400, 123-2)
is partially fulfilled.  Two additional algal toxicity tests under
850.5400 are outstanding because they do not meet guideline
requirements: a test with the freshwater green alga, Selenastrum
capricornutum, and a test with the marine diatom, Skeletonema costatum.
The other non-target aquatic plant toxicity requirement, floating
freshwater aquatic macrophyte duckweed (Lemna gibba) – guideline
850.4400 - is not satisfied because the submitted study does not meet
the guideline requirements.  A study on the rooted freshwater macrophyte
rice (Oryza sativa) – 850.4225 (seedling emergence test) -- has not
been submitted.

II.	Risk Assessment and Characterization

	An ecological risk assessment is not typically conducted for the types
of uses registered for Busan 77 except for the once-through cooling
water use.  A risk assessment for once-through cooling water uses using
maximum application rates and the toxicity values for various organisms
from section I below has been conducted in this document.  All other
uses are considered indoor and have minimal to no environmental exposure
potential following use.

	 A.        Environmental Fate Assessment Summary

	Busan 77  is a pale yellow liquid that has been demonstrated to be both
hydrolytically and photolytically stable.  When aqueous solutions of
Busan 77 were tested for hydrolysis at pHs 5, 7 and 9, no degradation
was observed at any tested pH over a 30-day period at 25( C in the dark.
 Busan 77 also showed no appreciable degradation at any of the pH levels
tested over a 30-day period in a photolysis study.  Studies have also
shown that Busan 77 rapidly becomes sediment-bound in both aerobic and
anaerobic aquatic systems.  (See the Environmental Fate Chapter of this
document for further details.)

B.	Environmental Exposure and Risk Assessment

	This section presents an environmental exposure and risk assessment for
releases of
Poly[oxyethylene)(dimethylimino)ethylene(dimethylimino)ethylenedichlorid
e] (Busan 77) used for control of mollusks in once-through cooling water
systems.  The Probabilistic Distribution Model (version 4) was used to
estimate the number and percentage of days per year that Busan 77
concentrations exceed ecotoxicity concentrations of concern (COCs).  If
the number of days a COC is exceeded is greater than the number of days
used to determine the endpoint in toxicity testing, risk is assumed.
Analyses were performed for Busan 77 treatment scenarios derived from
product label information.  The approach used for this assessment is
based on the methodology developed in support of the environmental
exposure assessment for bromonitrostyrene.

1. 	Methodology

	Components of the methodology described in this section include the
probabilistic distribution model (PDM), Busan 77 application rates,
environmental exposure concentrations of concern (COCs), model
facilities and flow data, and modeling scenarios.

1.1 	PDM Model

PDM is a screening-level exposure assessment tool developed by EPA to
model chemical releases from point sources to flowing surface waters.
For this analysis, the PDM component within EPA’s Exposure and Fate
Assessment Screening Tool Version 2.0 (E-FAST2) was used.

PDM uses detailed U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream flow data and
facility-specific data from National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits to model chemical releases from actual
facilities.  For a modeling period of a given number of days, PDM
calculates the probability distribution of the chemical concentration in
the receiving stream, and then estimates the number of days during which
the in-stream chemical concentration is expected to exceed a COC.  PDM
counts a day as having an exceedence of a COC if the COC is exceeded for
any part of a 24-hour day.  As a screening-level model, PDM outputs do
not include the duration, location, or aerial extent of exceedences.

Inputs to PDM include facility NPDES number, pretreatment release (i.e.,
loading rate), post-treatment release, number of release days, and COCs.
 Input values and assumptions used for this analysis are discussed
below.

1.2 	Busan 77 Application Rates

Product labels were reviewed to identify application rates for the
analysis.  Application instructions were identified specifically for
mollusk control in once-through industrial cooling water systems.
Treatment instructions from the product labels are summarized in Table
11.  Control of mollusks may be achieved by either an intermittent or a
continuous application.  A single application scenario based on the
highest dosage provided on the product labels was developed.  The
application scenario consisted of continuous treatment using the highest
product dosage.  For all products listed in Table 11, the maximum
application rate of active ingredient (a.i.) is 12 ppm.

The number of release days assumed for this analysis was 250.  This
approach assumes that Busan 77 is not applied on weekends and holidays.

Table 11

Busan 77 Dosage Information for Once-through Cooling Water Systems

Product	Percent Active Ingredient	Label Directions	Application Rate for
Analysis

Busan 77

Bioguard Algae All 60

	60 percent

	Add product at dosage rates of 2 to 20 ppm.  Additions should be made
continuously or intermittently to the intake water.  Continuous addition
is required for noticeably fouled systems.  Intermittent feeding is used
to maintain control.	Continuous application at 12 ppm a.i. (i.e., 20 ppm
product * 60%)

Bio/Tec 112	20 percent

	Add Bio/Tec 112 at dosage rates of 6 to 60 ppm.  Additions should be
made continuously or intermittently to the intake water.  Continuous
addition is required for noticeably fouled systems.  Intermittent
feeding is used to maintain control.	Continuous application at 12 ppm
a.i. (i.e., 60 ppm product * 20%)

1.3 	COCs

COCs for this analysis were identified from ecological effects
information for Busan 77 provided to EPA by registrants (see Section I).
 At least one COC was chosen for each of the following study types:
acute toxicity to freshwater fish, acute toxicity to freshwater
invertebrates, life-cycle (chronic) toxicity to freshwater
invertebrates, and acute toxicity to estuarine and marine organisms.
The chosen COCs are shown in Table 12 along with species, endpoint type,
study type and references.  Note that the studies for life-cycle
toxicity to freshwater invertebrates and toxicity to freshwater fish did
not meet guideline requirements. (Another study on freshwater fish did
meet guideline requirements with a NOEC of 37 µg/L.  So the risk to
freshwater fish can be most closely estimated using the COC of 12 µg/L
for the Daphnia life-cycle test NOT the COC for freshwater fish that is
listed in the Table 12.)

Table 12

Concentrations of Concern Selected for the Environmental Exposure
Assessment of Busan 77

COC	Test Species	Endpoint Type	Study Type	Reference (MRID)

12 µg/La	Waterflea (Daphnia magna)	NOEC	Life-cycle toxicity to
freshwater invertebrates

42479601

130 µg/L	Waterflea (Daphnia magna)	NOEC	Acute toxicity to freshwater
invertebrates

41352003

140 µg/L	Quahog clam (Mercenaria mercenaria)	NOEC	Acute toxicity to
estuarine and marine organisms

40334201

260 µg/La	Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)	LC50	Acute toxicity to
freshwater fish

00107207

7,800 µg/L	Mysid shrimp (Mysidopsis bahia)	NOEC	Acute toxicity to
estuarine and marine organisms

40139203

360,000 µg/L	Sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon varigates)	NOEC	Acute
toxicity to estuarine and marine organisms

40139202

a COC is based on a study that does not fulfill the guideline
requirements.

1.4 	Modeled Facilities and Flow Data

	The modeled facilities consist of Busan 77 releases for 30 steam
electric power plants (SIC 4911) that were identified by EPA during
development of the exposure assessment methodology for Alkyl Dimethyl
Benzyl Ammonium Chloride (ADBAC).  Although this sample of facilities
was chosen to include a range of receiving stream flow rates and
includes facilities located throughout the U.S., it is not necessarily
statistically representative of all facilities with once-through cooling
water systems.

Table 13 lists the stream flow data and modeled effluent discharge rates
for the 30 facilities used in the analysis.  The mean and 7Q10 flows of
receiving stream reaches are available in the PDM model and were used
for the analysis.  Facility-specific effluent discharge rates also are
available in PDM.  For the analysis, the modeled effluent discharge
rates were based on either facility-specific effluent discharges or the
7Q10 flows of the receiving streams.  Specifically, the modeled effluent
discharge rate for each facility was the lower of these two values.  The
7Q10 flow rate represents the rate that could be maintained continuously
by an electric steam generating plant to ensure a steady supply of
cooling water.

2. 	Results

PDM was run once for each facility.  The number of days exceeding each
COC was copied electronically from the PDM output files into a Microsoft
® Excel workbook where averages and standard deviations were
calculated.  In addition, the percent of days per year above the COCs
was calculated.  Because the number of release days per year was 250,
the highest possible percent of days per year above COCs was 68 percent.
 The percent of days during the release period above COCs (maximum 100
percent) was also calculated.  Standard deviations were calculated for
all averages.

The results are presented in Table 14.  The table shows the average
numbers of days when downstream concentrations of Busan 77 are predicted
to exceed each of the COCs.  The average numbers of days were calculated
from the modeling results for the 30 individual facilities.  Because the
numbers of days with exceedences varied among the facilities, standard
deviations are presented with each of the averages.  Table 14 also
presents the averages and standard deviations of the percentage of days
per year as well as the percentage of the 250 release days with
exceedences of the COCs.

For a one year period that includes continuous releases during 250 days,
the lowest COC (12 µg/L) was exceeded on 57 percent of the days (or 83
percent of the 250 release days).  The highest COC (360 mg/L) was
exceeded on less than one percent of the days on average.  Table 15
shows the percentage of facilities that had exceedences at least once
(i.e., on at least one day) for each COC.  For example, the highest COC
(360 mg/L) was exceeded only at three (10 percent) of the 30 facilities.
 All other COCs were exceeded at least once in at least 57 percent of
the facilities.  The lowest COC was exceeded at least once at 29 (97
percent) of the 30 facilities.

If the number of days an COC is exceeded is greater than the number of
days used to determine the endpoint in toxicity testing, risk is
assumed.  This assumes that the number of days exceeded are consecutive,
a conservative but not impossible assumption.  Based on this assumption,
Table 14 shows there will be risk at the average number of days exceeded
to freshwater fish, freshwater invertebrates (both acute and chronic),
and estuarine/marine invertebrates.

Table 13

Effluent Discharge and Stream Flow Data for Modeled Facilities

Facility NPDES Number	Mean Stream Flow (MGD)	7Q10 Stream Flow (MGD)
Modeled Effluent Discharge (MGD)a

FL0025526	401.26	263.63	117.20

GA0004341	1047.42	221.25	0.14

IA0000108	521.26	16.19	0.46

IA0033235	47.81	1.94	0.03

IL0002186	960.51	308.89	308.89

IL0036919	635.87	635.88	635.879

IL0048321	88.85	25.64	12.259

IN0032948	146.03	36.18	0.019

IN0038806	170.59	35.54	0.089

IN0041246	279.79	115.66	23.78

KS0079057	277.85	18.74	18.74

LA0003042	101.33	11.77	0.68

LA0036145	0.78	0.06	0.06

MA0004367	417.42	91.11	5.62

MI0038172	21.322	6.46	6.46

MN0000906	462.212	7.64	0.98

NC0005088	975.75	214.63	43.67

NH0001431	296.59	73.02	7.99

NM0000108	520.519	1.56	1.15

OH0010421	486.089	15.80	9.21

OK0002682	95.91	1.23	1.23

PA0002054	473.50	30.37	30.37

PA0002062	103.30	13.73	13.73

PA0008443	88.90	7.64	7.64

SC0001104	964.98	13.27	0.97

TX0001163	86.58	10.34	10.34

TX0054500	5.88	1.55	1.55

UT0000116	126.00	82.71	0.16

WA0003280	704.31	213.23	34.20

WV0005525	33.60	5.94	5.94

a If the effluent discharge value from PDM was less then the receiving
stream 7Q10, the 7Q10 was used as the modeled effluent discharge.

Table 14

Number and Percent of Days with Downstream

Busan 77 Concentrations Exceeding COCs

COC

(µg/L)	Number of Days With Exceedences	Percent of Days with Exceedences
per Year	Percent of Release Days with Exceedences

	Average Days COC Exceeded	Standard Deviation	Average Days COC Exceeded
Standard Deviation	Average Days COC Exceeded	Standard Deviation

12 µg/La	207	72	57%	20%	83%	29%

130 µg/L	152	94	42%	26%	61%	37%

140 µg/L	149	94	41%	26%	60%	37%

260 µg/La	129	92	35%	25%	51%	37%

7,800 µg/L	12	18	3%	5%	5%	7%

360,000 µg/L	1	5	<1%	2%	<1%	2%

a COC is based on a study that does not fulfill the guideline
requirements.

Table 15

Percent of Facilities with Downstream Busan 77

Concentrations Exceeding COCs on at Least One Day (n = 30)

COC

(µg/L)	Percent of Facilities with at Least One Day with an Exceedence

12 µg/La	97%

130 µg/L	87%

140 µg/L	87%

260 µg/La	87%

7,800 µg/L	57%

360,000 µg/L	10%

                                  a COC is based on a study that does
not fulfill the guideline requirements.

3. 	Uncertainties and Limitations

	This analysis is a screening level evaluation of the potential for
discharges from once-through cooling water systems to exceed Busan 77
ecotoxicity COCs in receiving streams.  The methodology involves the
following potential limitations:

Because exceedences predicted by the PDM do not necessarily occur on
consecutive days, the analysis may overestimate the actual potential for
ecological toxicity impacts.

Downstream concentrations of Busan 77 are considered to exceed a COC on
any given day if the COC is exceeded for any portion of the day.  PDM
does not identify the duration of the exceedences, so results may
overestimate the actual potential for Busan 77 releases to result in
ecological risks.

The estimated numbers of days with downstream concentrations of Busan 77
above COCs are averages calculated from the results for individual
facilities.  Facility level results varied considerably, as shown by the
standard deviations presented with the averages.  Thus, this analysis
may under or overestimate the potential for exceedences at specific
facilities.

The analysis used an assumed release period of 250 days.  This
assumption is likely to overestimate the number of release days for
Busan 77 treatment, especially for initial control.  Thus, the results
of the analysis may overestimate the number of days with downstream
Busan 77 concentrations above COCs.

The scenario used for this analysis was based on the maximum application
rate (i.e., 12 ppm a.i.) identified on product labels.  It may be
possible to control target organisms with application rates below the
maximum.  In addition, continuous dosing was assumed throughout the
release period.  This assumption may overestimate the daily treatment
duration that would be required for effective mollusk control.

For this analysis, effluent discharge rates were assumed to equal the
lower of either the facility-specific effluent flow rates or the 7Q10
flows of the receiving streams.  This approach may over or underestimate
average actual effluent discharges.

The analysis used flow and discharge data for a sample of 30 steam
electric generating facilities.  This sample is not necessarily
statistically representative of the national population of facilities
with once-through cooling water systems where Busan 77 may be used.

Two of the COCs evaluated were based on ecotoxicity endpoints from
studies that did not fulfill the applicable guideline requirements.

      Endangered Species Considerations

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 1536(a)(2),
requires all federal agencies to consult with the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) for marine and anadromous listed species, or
the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) for listed wildlife
and freshwater organisms, if they are proposing an "action" that may
affect listed species or their designated habitat.  Each federal agency
is required under the Act to insure that any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification
of designated critical habitat.  To jeopardize the continued existence
of a listed species means "to engage in an action that reasonably would
be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the
likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the
wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the
species.  "50 C.F.R. 402.02”.

To facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Endangered Species
Act subsection (a)(2) the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pesticide Programs has established procedures to evaluate whether a
proposed registration action may directly or indirectly reduce
appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed
species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or
distribution of any listed species (U.S. EPA 2004).  After the
Agency’s screening-level risk assessment is performed, if any of the
Agency’s Listed Species LOC Criteria are exceeded for either direct or
indirect effects, a determination is made to identify if any listed or
candidate species may co-occur in the area of the proposed pesticide
use.  If determined that listed or candidate species may be present in
the proposed use areas, further biological assessment is undertaken.
The extent to which listed species may be at risk then determines the
need for the development of a more comprehensive consultation package as
required by the Endangered Species Act.

For certain use categories, the Agency assumes there will be minimal
environmental exposure, and only a minimal toxicity data set is required
(Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of
Pesticide Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Endangered and
Threatened Species Effects Determinations, 1/23/04, Appendix A, Section
IIB, pg.81).  Chemicals in these categories therefore do not undergo a
full screening-level risk assessment.

	For the once-through cooling water uses of Busan 77 this preliminary
analysis indicates that there is a potential for Busan 77 use to overlap
with listed species and that a more refined assessment is warranted, to
include direct, indirect and habitat effects.  The more refined
assessment should involve clear delineation of the action area
associated with proposed once-through use of Busan 77 and best available
information on the temporal and spatial co-location of listed species
with respect to the action area.  This analysis has not been conducted
for this assessment.  An endangered species effect determination will
not be made at this time.

Confirmatory Data Required:

1)  850.1300: Aquatic invertebrate life-cycle study (using TGAI and most
sensitive species -                        freshwater or
estuarine/marine)

2)  850.1400: Fish early-life stage study (using TGAI and most sensitive
species - freshwater     or estuarine/marine)

3)  850.4225: Seedling emergence study - dose response using rice (Oryza
sativa)

4)  850.4400: Freshwater floating macrophyte duckweed study

5)  850.5400: Aquatic plant growth (algal toxicity) – 2 studies
outstanding (marine diatom -                         Skeletonema
costatum and green algae - Selenastrum capricornutum); Tier II
                (using TGAI or TEP)

6)  850.1735: Whole sediment, acute invertebrates (freshwater) (using
TGAI)

7)  850.1740: Whole sediment, acute invertebrates (estuarine/marine)
(using TGAI)

	8)  Depending on the results of the whole sediment, acute invertebrate
studies, the following data may be required: Whole sediment - chronic
invertebrates (freshwater and/or estuarine/marine) (using TGAI or TEP)

IV.	 Label Hazard Statements for Terrestrial and Aquatic Organisms:

Busan 77 labels must state:

“This pesticide is toxic to fish, aquatic invertebrates and clams.”

"Do not discharge effluent containing this product into lakes, streams,
ponds, estuaries, oceans, or other waters unless in accordance with the
requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit and the permitting authorities are notified in writing
prior to discharge.  Do not discharge effluent containing this product
to sewer systems without previously notifying the local sewage treatment
plant authority.  For guidance contact your State Water Board or
Regional Office of the EPA."

V.  REFERENCES

00107207	Knott, W.B. 1970.  Busan 77 (WSCP) - Evaluation of Acute LC50
for Rainbow Trout.  Study performed by Woodward Research Corporation for
Buckman Laboratories, Inc., Memphis, TN.

00159307	Beaver, J.B.  1985.  Busan 77 - A Dietary LC50 Study with the
Bobwhite.  Project No. 210-104. Study performed by Wildlife
International, Ltd. for Buckman Laboratories, Inc., Memphis, TN.

052201020	WARF Institute, Inc.  1971.  Report on Acute Oral LD50 in
Bobwhite Quail.  Prepared for Buckman Laboratories, Inc., Memphis, TN.

40139202	Surprenant, D.C. 1987a.  Acute Toxicity of Busan 77 to
Sheepshead Minnow (Cyprinodon varigatus).  Report No. BW-87-2-2294.
Study performed by Springborn Bionomics, Inc. for Buckman Laboratories,
Inc., Memphis, TN.

40139203	Surprenant, D.C. 1987b.  Acute Toxicity of Busan 77 to Mysid
Shrimp (Mysidopsis bahia).  Report No. BW-87-3-2346.  Study performed by
Springborn Bionomics, Inc. for Buckman Laboratories, Inc., Memphis, TN.

40334201	Surprenant, D.C. 1987c.  Acute Toxicity of Busan 77 to
Embryos-Larvae of the Quahog Clam (Mercenaria mercenaria).  Report No.
BW-87-8-2459.  Study performed by Springborn Bionomics, Inc. for Buckman
Laboratories, Inc., Memphis, TN.

41352001	LeLievre, M.K. et al. 1990c.  (Busan 77) - Acute Toxicity to
Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Under Static Conditions.  Report No.
89-12-3182.  Study performed by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. for
Buckman Laboratories, Inc., Memphis, TN.

41352002	LeLievre, M.K. et al. 1990a. (Busan 77) - Acute Toxicity to
Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) Under Static Conditions.  Report No.
89-12-3176.  Study performed by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. for
Buckman Laboratories, Inc., Memphis, TN.

41352003	LeLievre, M.K. et al.  1990b.  (Busan 77) - Acute Toxicity to
Daphnids (Daphnia magna) Under Static Conditions.  Report No.
89-11-3181.  Study performed by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. for
Buckman Laboratories, Inc., Memphis, TN.

41411501	Bodden, R.M.  1974.  Busan 77 - Acute Avian Dietary Toxicity
Study in Mallard Ducks.  Report No. 4043621.  Study performed by the
WARF Institute, Inc. for Buckman Laboratories, Inc., Memphis, TN.

41654801	Campbell, S. et al.  1990.  Busan 77: An Acute Oral Toxicity
Study with the Mallard. Project No. 210-114A.  Study performed by
Wildlife International, Ltd. for Buckman Laboratories, Inc., Memphis,
TN.

42013301	Hoberg, J.R.  1991a.  Busan 77 - Toxicity to the Duckweed Lemna
gibba G3.  Report No. 91-5-3749.  Study performed by Springborn
Laboratories, Inc. for Buckman Laboratories, Inc., Memphis, TN.

42013302	Hoberg, J.R.  1991b.  Busan 77 - Toxicity to the Marine Diatom
Skeletonema costatum. Report No. 91-9-3864.  Study performed by
Springborn Laboratories, Inc. for Buckman Laboratories, Inc., Memphis,
TN.

42013303	Hoberg, J.R. 1991c.  Busan 77 - Toxicity to the Freshwater
Diatom Navicula pelliculosa.  Report No. 91-4-3728.  Study performed by
Springborn Laboratories, Inc. for Buckman Laboratories, Inc., Memphis,
TN.

42013304	Hoberg, J.R. et al.  1991d.  Busan 77 - Toxicity to the
Freshwater Bluegreen Algae Anabaena flos-aquae.  Report No. 91-4-3726.
Study performed by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. for Buckman
Laboratories, Inc., Memphis, TN.

42013305	Hoberg, J.R. 1991e.  Busan 77 - Toxicity to the Freshwater
Green Algae Selenastrum capricornutum.  Report No. 91-4-3732.  Study
performed by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. for Buckman Laboratories,
Inc., Memphis, TN.

42038101	Hoberg, J.R.  1991f.  Busan 77 - Determination of Effects on
Seed Germination, Seedling Emergence, and Vegetative Vigor of Ten Plant
Species.  Report No. 91-3-3695.  Study performed by Springborn
Laboratories, Inc. for Buckman Laboratories, Inc., Memphis, TN.

42479601	Putt, A.E. et al. 1992.  Busan 77 – Chronic Toxicity to
Daphnids (Daphnia magna) Under Static Renewal Conditions.  Report No.
92-7-4343.  Study performed by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. for Buckman
Laboratories, Inc., Memphis, TN.

 “Environmental Exposure Assessment for Releases of Bromonitrostyrene
from Once-through Cooling Water Systems,” memorandum to David Bays,
EPA OPP/AD, from Joshua Cleland and Keith Drewes, ICF International,
April 26, 2007.   Also, see “Environmental Exposure Assessment for
Releases of Busan 77 From Once-through Cooling Water Systems,”
memorandum to Norm Cook, EPA OPP/AD, from Siroos Mostaghimi, EPA OPP/AD,
July 27, 2007.

 The E-FAST2 model is available from EPA at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/pubs/efastdl.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/pubs/efastdl.htm  and documentation
is available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/pubs/efast2man.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/pubs/efast2man.pdf .

 Petrie, R. and K. Montague.  2006.  “Ecological Hazard And
Environmental Risk Assessment Chapter, Alkyl Dimethyl Benzyl Ammonium
Chloride (ADBAC).”  PC Code 069105, CASE No.: 0350, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Antimicrobials
Division.  August, 2, 2006.

 A 7Q10 stream flow is the lowest seven-day average stream flow over a
ten year period.

 PAGE   iv

 PAGE   22