APPENDIX D-1

PENNSYLVANIA NONROAD SOURCE EMISSIONS ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

Bureau of Air Quality

Department of Environmental Protection

Division of Air Information

  Methodology for estimating nonroad emissions

I.	INTRODUCTION

This following methodology provides a description of the procedures used
to generate 2002, 2004, 2009, and 2018 county-level pollutant emission
estimates for nonroad mobile engines included in the United States
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) NONROAD2005 model, as well
as locomotive engines, commercial marine vessel engines, aircraft
operations.  For the NONROAD2005 model engines, emission estimates were
calculated for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of nitrogen
(NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO).  Revised geographic allocation files
for NONROAD model option files and revised housing unit data used for
the model runs are also included.

II.	2002 NONROAD MODEL SOURCE CATEGORY EMISSIONS

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The Department used EPA’s Final NONROAD2005
Model to generate 2002, 2004, 2009, and 2018 summer work weekday
emissions for Greene County in Pennsylvania.  The Department prepared
NONROAD2005 model option files that account for temperatures and
gasoline Reid vapor pressure (RVP) values representative of Greene
County for summer weekdays.  Pennsylvania was separated into four
climate zones for the Maintenance Plans:  East North, East South, West
North, and West South for the inventories for all maintenance plans.
Greene County is located in the East South region.  The summertime RVP
value used for each region was 9.0.  Minimum, maximum, and average
temperatures for July for each region were obtained from the
Pennsylvania State Climatologist website, Pennsylvania State
Climatologist, Penn State University, 2002 Temperature Data by Weather
Station which is available at   HYPERLINK
"http://pasc.met.psu.edu/PA_Climatologist/cityform.html"
http://pasc.met.psu.edu/PA_Climatologist/cityform.html .  The RVP and
temperature inputs were applied to all equipment categories to obtain
both summer and annual emissions.

Table 1 lists the counties included in each of the four regions and the
weather station where the temperature data were obtained for each of the
regions.  Table 2a and 2b presents the RVP and temperature data used in
the model runs for each region of Pennsylvania.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table 1.  Regions of Pennsylvania and Associated
Maintenance Areas

Region	Weather Station	Counties in Region	FIPSST	FIPSCNTY

East North	Scranton	Lackawanna County	42	069

Luzerne County	42	079

Tioga County	42	117

Wyoming County	42	131

East South	Harrisburg	Adams County	42	001

Berks County	42	011

Cumberland County	42	041

Dauphin County	42	043

Franklin County	42	055

Lancaster County	42	071

Lebanon County	42	075

Monroe County	42	089

Perry County	42	099

York County	42	133

West North	Erie	Erie County 	42	049

West South	Altoona	Blair County	42	013

Cambria County	42	021

Centre County	42	027

Clearfield Count	42	033

Greene County	42	059

Indiana County	42	063

Mercer County	42	085

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table 2a.  Summer Day NONROAD Model Temperature
and RVP Inputs

Temperature*

	Region	Season	Maximum 	Minimum 	Average 	RVP**

  East North	Summer	83	60	72	9.0

East South	Summer	86	66	76	9.0

West North	Summer	80	63	71	9.0

West South	Summer	82	60	71	9.0

*  Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit

** RVP in pounds per square inch (psi)

Table 2b.   Annual Average Day NONROAD Model Temperature and RVP Inputs

	Temperature*

	Region	Maximum 	Minimum 	Average 	RVP**

  East North	61	42	51	9.0

  East South	64	45	55	9.0

  West North	59	43	51	9.0

  West South	60	42	51	9.0

*  Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit

                                ** RVP in pounds per square inch (psi)

EPA-recommended diesel fuel sulfur levels for marine and land equipment
for all years were used as inputs to the model, as outlined in Diesel
Fuel Sulfur Inputs for the Draft NONROAD2004 Model used in the 2004
Nonroad Diesel Engine Fuel Rule, April 27, 2004.

In past versions of the NONROAD model, state recreational marine vessels
populations were underestimated when compared to boat registrations
tracked by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC).  EPA’s
population of recreational marine vessels in the model now seem more
representative of the number of boat registrations that the Pennsylvania
Fish and Boat Commission tracks.  We used EPA’s default values in the
model runs.  We also examined geographic allocation factors for
residential lawn and garden equipment.  These improvements are discussed
further in the next section.  All other categories rely on default data
included in the model for population and activity estimates.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Residential Lawn and Garden Equipment

The EPA’s NONROAD2005 model uses 2003 U.S. Census data of all housing
units in Pennsylvania to allocate residential lawn and garden equipment,
even though EPA guidance states that emissions should be based only on
the number of single detached, single attached, and double housing
units.  EPA’s method in the NONROAD2005 model alters the allocation of
lawn and garden emissions in some Pennsylvania counties significantly.
The Department will use data obtained by E.H. Pechan from the 2000
Census, updated to 2002, and used in the state’s 2002 inventory on the
number of single detached, single attached, and double housing units for
both the State and all counties in the state.  Table 3 presents the
Census data (Bureau of the Census, 2003), which can be found in 2000
County and State Housing Units by Unit Type, Census 2000,
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/.  The total number of housing
units was incorporated into the NONROAD2005 model geographic allocation
factor file, PA HOUSE.ALO, for use in allocating state-level lawn and
garden equipment populations to all Pennsylvania counties for 2002.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table 3.  Number of Single and Double-Family
Housing Units from 2002 Census

County	# 1-Unit Detached

Housing Units	# 1-Unit Attached

Housing Units	# 2-Unit

Housing Units	Total # of

Housing Units

Adams	24,549	2,206	1,490	28,245

Allegheny	345,479	46,899	29,002	421,380

Armstrong	22,268	824	1,014	24,106

Beaver	54,418	2,312	2,863	59,593

Bedford	14,684	248	501	15,433

Berks	78,946	32,377	5,803	117,126

Blair	36,919	1,844	2,668	41,431

Bradford	16,861	232	1,224	18,317

Bucks	141,951	30,506	5,425	177,882

Butler	46,271	2,523	2,215	51,009

Cambria	44,453	3,795	2,882	51,130

Cameron	1,749	35	176	1,960

Carbon	14,431	5,104	990	20,525

Centre	27,786	2,691	1,749	32,226

Chester	99,549	25,911	3,155	128,615

Clarion	11,635	118	471	12,224

Clearfield	24,829	412	1,064	26,305

Clinton	10,141	662	711	11,514

Columbia	16,856	1,328	1,388	19,572

Crawford	24,430	397	1,933	26,760

Cumberland	51,934	10,450	2,792	65,176

Dauphin	52,961	20,195	3,848	77,004

Delaware	93,642	64,529	9,361	167,532

Elk	11,355	79	807	12,241

Erie	70,504	2,955	9,504	82,963

Fayette	41,679	3,094	2,473	47,246

Forest	1,660	8	18	1,686

Franklin	34,720	4,292	2,073	41,085

Fulton	4,084	56	133	4,273

Greene	10,387	481	416	11,284

Huntingdon	12,463	331	686	13,480

Indiana	23,215	825	1,232	25,272

Jefferson	14,276	237	729	15,242

Juniata	6,455	355	166	6,976

Lackawanna	53,357	3,328	12,626	69,311

Lancaster	98,364	32,122	7,370	137,856

Lawrence	28,316	799	1,489	30,604

Lebanon	27,272	8,647	2,225	38,144

Lehigh	59,753	29,474	5,118	94,345

Luzerne	82,363	15,404	9,435	107,202

Lycoming	31,568	2,812	2,998	37,378

McKean	13,794	158	972	14,924

Mercer	34,859	735	1,817	37,411

Mifflin	12,327	1,788	966	15,081

Monroe	40,696	1,726	1,457	43,879

Montgomery	163,211	53,370	9,599	226,180

Montour	4,769	645	346	5,760

Northampton	60,344	19,729	4,755	84,828

Northumberland	21,955	9,280	1,657	32,892

Perry	12,209	733	398	13,340

Philadelphia	48,724	359,877	46,425	455,026

Pike	15,501	395	299	16,195

Potter	5,263	62	281	5,606

Schuylkill	32,695	17,989	2,092	52,776

Snyder	10,263	644	526	11,433

Somerset	22,159	1,236	1,312	24,707

Sullivan	2,165	18	84	2,267

Susquehanna	12,139	180	711	13,030

Tioga	11,076	150	753	11,979

Union	9,341	652	527	10,520

Venango	17,197	227	1,080	18,504

Warren	13,031	239	930	14,200

Washington	60,711	3,891	3,187	67,789

Wayne	14,311	249	750	15,310

Westmoreland	113,694	4,839	5,997	124,530

Wyoming	7,858	159	412	8,429

York	95,921	20,218	6,102	122,241

Total	2,724,746	860,086	235,658	3,820,490

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 After the model runs, model outputs were processed
to develop summer work weekday emissions inventories for NOx, VOC, and
CO.  Nonroad equipment refueling, either by portable container or at the
gasoline pump, is being accounted for under Pennsylvania’s area source
inventory.  As such, spillage and vapor displacement VOC emission
estimates were subtracted from the total VOC emission estimates for all
NONROAD model emissions.  Therefore, only exhaust, crankcase, and
evaporative diurnal components are included in these VOC estimates.

Emissions from nonroad equipment were tabulated in both source
classification code and category format.  Immaterial rounding errors may
exist when comparing the two formats due to different arithmetic
operations performed inside and outside the NONROAD model for the two
formats.

III.	2002 LOCOMOTIVE EMISSIONS

Much of the locomotive emissions were captured from a 1999 survey
conducted by the Department included hydrocarbon (HC) and NOx for the
following locomotive source categories:

2285002006 :	Railroad Equipment, Diesel, Line Haul Locomotives: Class I
Operations

2285002007:	Railroad Equipment, Diesel, Line Haul Locomotives: Class
II/III Operations

2285002008:   Railroad Equipment, Diesel, Line Haul Locomotives:
Passenger Trains (Amtrak)

2285002010:  Railroad Equipment, Diesel, Yard Locomotives

All line haul locomotive emissions were grouped into one SCC category in
the appendix,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Norfolk Southern and CSX Corporations purchased Conrail.  The takeover
of Conrail’s assets occurred in June 1999.  For that reason, it was a
very bad time to develop a representative emission inventory for these
railroads.  Both Conrail and Norfolk Southern suffered major gridlock in
Pennsylvania and beyond during 1999.  Consequently, fuel consumption and
air emissions for these two railroads were greatly reduced in 1999.  The
Department requested and received 2002 fuel usage from these railroad
companies and developed a 2002 emissions inventory for them.  Fuel
consumption increased 60 percent from 1999 to 2002.  Clearly, this was
not due to normal economic growth.  All other emissions from railroad
companies operating in Pennsylvania in 1999 were grown with a growth
factor to obtain 2002 emissions.

Estimating Emissions Growth

To estimate 2004, 2009, and 2018 locomotive emissions, the Department
projected the 2002 inventory to 2004 and beyond using national fuel
consumption information supplied to the Department by the Association of
American Railroads in combination with emissions factors developed by
EPA and presented on the EPA website in the Emissions Factors for
Locomotives, EPA420-F-97-051, December 1997, Table 9, Fleet Average
Emission Factors For All Locomotives.  According to the Association of
American Railroads, national railroad annual fuel consumption has grown
consistently at about 1.6 percent over the last 15 years.  We used the
following normalized emission growth factors for locomotive emissions.
These numbers compare well with EGAS 5.0 in the near-term.  The only
differences are that EGAS 5.0 forecasts a slightly larger reduction of
NOx emissions in 2018 and a much larger VOC reduction in some future
years.  VOC emissions from locomotives are typically very small.  EGAS
5.0 may be downloaded from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/egas5.htm.

Table 4.  Normalized Growth Factors for Locomotives

Year	Fuel Use Growth	NOx Emission Factors	NOx Emission Growth (Fuel use
growth * emission factor)	HC/VOC Emission Factors	HC/VOC Emission Growth
(Fuel use growth * emission factor)

2002	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000

2004	1.0323	0.8766	0.9049	1.0000	1.0323

2009	1.1175	0.6765	0.7560	0.8785	0.9817

2018	1.2891	0.5804	0.6553	0.7664	0.9880

In the Regulatory Support Document (RSD) for locomotive emission
standards, national emissions account for future, phased-in controls
that will primarily reduce NOx and HC emissions as well (EPA, 1997).
Emission reductions, which include rule effectiveness and rule
penetration, are estimated based on the percent change in emissions from
the base year to a given projection year.  The Department reduces the
2002 locomotive emissions for NOx and VOC by the percentages shown in
Table 4.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 To estimate VOC emissions from HC, the Department
applied a VOC/HC conversion factor of 1.005 to the HC emissions.  This
conversion factor was obtained from EPA’s Documentation for Aircraft,
Commercial Marine Vessel, Locomotive, and Other Nonroad Components of
the National Emission Inventory, Volume I: Methodology (EPA, 2002).

Estimated annual emissions were divided by 365 to obtain a daily
emission estimate which was assumed to be a good estimate for emissions
during an average summer day.

IV.	Aircraft Emissions

Emissions from commercial aircraft for 2002 are estimated using the
Emissions & Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) 4.20.  Commercial aircraft
operations were insignificant in Greene County and were not modeled by
the EDMS model directly.  General aviation aircraft produced most
aircraft operations in the county.  A description of EDMS calculation
methods is included because some information from the model is used in
estimating emissions from the smaller airports in the county.

Commercial airport operations data.  Airport specific data on operations
were found at   HYPERLINK "http://www.transtats.bts.gov"
www.transtats.bts.gov  and also the FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast found
at http://www.apo.data.faa.gov. Operations data on all significantly
large regional airports in Pennsylvania could be found at this website,
although some of the airports modeled supported very few commercial
flights.  We used default values in the EDMS model for aircraft engines
and service equipment for each aircraft type.

Mixing height in EDMS.  It was determined that a better mixing height
than the model’s default value could be used in EDMS.  Upper air
meteorological data available from Sterling Virginia in combination with
surface data measurements taken at the Philadelphia International
Airport generated 1-hr mixing heights in the meteorological preprocessor
model PCRAMMET, EPA, PCRAMMET (software), Research Triangle Park, NC,
June 1999.  All mixing heights between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. were not
considered when generating these averages because an extremely small
percentage of flight operations occur between those hours.  The average
summer mixing height was 4,428 feet for airports in the Eastern
Pennsylvania.  The default value of 3000 feet was used for all other
airports.

Small airport emission estimation methodology. Small aircraft emissions
were calculated by using small airport operation statistics, which can
be found at   HYPERLINK "http://www.airnav.com"  www.airnav.com .  An
emissions factor for a typical air general aviation single engine,
multi-engine, and jet engine aircraft were derived by averaging the
emissions factors from a basket of emission factors for common aircraft
of each of the three types of aircraft.  Emission factors and
operational characteristics contained in EDMS were used.  The proportion
of operations between the three groups of aircraft was determined by
examining the number of each aircraft type based at each airport.  For
military operations at small airports, the type of aircraft and its
emission factors are sometimes identifiable.  If not, emission factors
calculated to represent an “average” military aircraft are used.
Growth was estimated using estimates of small airport activity from
Federal Aviation Administration’s APO Terminal Area Forecast Detailed
Report.  In Greene County, airport operations are projected decline
slightly until 2018.

V. Commercial Marine Vessel Emissions

Greene County contains waterways that are considered part of the Port of
Pittsburgh.  Commercial Marine Vessels (CMV) navigate these waterways in
Greene County and the extended region and produce significant air
emissions.

All air emissions from commercial vessel traffic in the seven county
area of the Port of Pittsburgh, including Greene County, were estimated
using the methodology outlined in EPA’s publication Commercial Marine
Activity for Great Lakes and Inland River Ports in the United States,
Final Report1.  A comprehensive understanding of the methodology can be
achieved by reviewing this document.  Additional information was
obtained from conversations with tug operators in the port.

The best available EPA methodology for estimating emissions from the
Port of Pittsburgh requires that a typical port be chosen to compare to
the port to be modeled.  A typical port is a port where EPA examined the
emissions and operations in detail.  A typical port contains all the
major elements that can be found in an inland river port to be modeled.
The modeler can then more easily compare the port being modeled with
known operating characteristics in the typical port to derive trip
durations and movements in the modeled port.  The typical port that was
chosen to compare to Pittsburgh was the Port of St. Louis.  The Port of
St. Louis was chosen because of the presence of locks and the barge to
tug ratio in this port is comparable to the Port of Pittsburgh.

	The next step summarized trip data for the modeled port.  Trip data is
obtained directly from the website of the Waterborne Commerce Statistics
Center of the United States Army Corps of Engineers2.  Trip data under
the heading Port of Pittsburgh in that report totals trips for the
Monongahela River, Allegheny River, and the Ohio River to the state
border with Ohio, along with other trips that occur on the smaller
tributaries in the port.  The total number of trips used for modeling
emissions for the Port of Pittsburgh was obtained here.

Determining Number of Trips for the Modeled Port Ship Types

	Next, we separated the number of trips into components of upbound and
downbound trips both passing and calling.  The number of trips were
separated into horsepower bins of various groups of tugboats.  The Port
of St. Louis was not used in determining the number of trips for three
reasons: 1) Pittsburgh has no upbound, passing traffic, 2) tugs in St.
Louis generally have more horsepower than tugs in Pittsburgh, and 3)
horsepower data is available for all tugs operating in Pittsburgh.
Therefore, more accurate and appropriate data was used.

To complete this step, tugs operating in the Port of Pittsburgh were
separated in five horsepower bins to allow for easier calculation of
fuel usage.  Horsepower information was obtained from the Waterborne
Commerce Statistics Center website3.  All upbound traffic is calling
(i.e. the boat makes a stop somewhere in the Port of Pittsburgh) since
the port is an endpoint for river traffic.  Downbound traffic is
primarily comprised of tugs and coal barges making calls at the
steel-producing facilities and power plants.  Some downbound traffic
passes on to other ports.  No method exists to easily predict the amount
of passing downbound traffic.  By looking at lock data, one lock being
west of the Ohio border and the other one being east, an estimate was
made about the number of tugs that pass over the border.

Determining Trip Durations

	By using formulas supplied in the Commercial Marine Activity for Great
Lakes and Inland River Ports in the United States4, trip times were
calculated for tugboats of different horsepower.  The time of trips
included maneuvering on the river and maneuvering into locks.  A total
time was obtained for all trips by multiplying the time per trip per
horsepower bin by number of trips per horsepower bin.  Similarly, the
total maneuvering time was estimated by using the formulas supplied
below.  Commercial Marine Activity for Great Lakes and Inland River
Ports in the United States5 states that 1.0 hours is needed for
maneuvering into each lock and 0.5 hours for each lock area.  There are
many more locks in Pittsburgh that are distributed in a more complicated
pattern in the port than in the typical port.  A method to determine the
average number of locks traversed for each horsepower bin was developed.
 When trips were averaged for both directions for each horsepower bin,
it offers a reasonable estimate of trip durations based on power rating.
 More powerful tugboats traverse more locks than smaller tugboats, which
is consistent with the results of the EPA methodology, since larger tugs
travel longer distances.  The EPA methodology states that the average
speed of larger tugs is greater.

	Tugboats operators informed us that their boats are pushing freight
essentially non-stop - except for shift changes and maintenance.
Operators in the port strive to achieve an average speed of five miles
per hour for 20 hours per operating day or about 100 miles a day
including maneuvering time.  Using the methodology in Commercial Marine
Activity for Great Lakes and Inland River Ports in the United States6
generated a speed greater than five miles per hour, but less than the 20
hours per day average that the tug operators strive to achieve, which
reasonably approximates what operators described.

	A series of sample calculations are given below for estimating trip
times:

Allocation of Cruise Time-in-mode to the Modeled Port7

MPCT  = LP * MPRD/LPRD * LPCS/(LPCS +/- LPRC +/-  MPRC)

Where:

		MPCT  = Modeled Port cruise time-in-mode (hr/trip)

LPCT   = Like Port cruise time-in-mode.

		MPRD  = Modeled Port distance along the river

		LPRD   = Like Port distance along the river

LPCS   = Like Port cruise speed.  Depends on direction.

LPRC   = Like Port river current (added for upbound vessels or
subtracted for downbound)

MPRC  = Modeled Port river current (subtracted for upbound vessels or
added for downbound)

River current in the Port of Pittsburgh ranges from rapid flowing to
pooling.  An average current of 3.5 miles per hour was chosen after
talking with tugboat operators in the port.

Sample Calculation of Downbound Trip

	MPCT = 2.7 hours * 120 miles/70 miles  * 6.6 mph/(6.6 mph – 2 mph +
3.5 mph)

           = 3.77 hours

Average Number of Locks Traversed

	LTHP BIN = MPCT for HP BIN * (LPCS +/- LPRC +/- MPRC)/13

	Where:

		LTHP BIN = Locks traversed for each horsepower bin

		MPCT for HP BIN = Modeled port cruise time for each type of horsepower

		LPCS , LPRC , MPRC = As explained above

		13 = Number of locks along typical total length of Pittsburgh waterway

Sample Calculation

	LTHP BIN = 3.77 hours * (6.6 mph - 2 mph + 3.5 mph) = 30.54 miles/13

		    = 2.35 locks

Total Maneuver Time8

	TMT = (LTHP BIN * 1.0) + 0.5

	Where:

		TMT = total maneuver time

		1.0 hours = time required to maneuver through a lock

		0.5 hours = time required to maneuver to and from a lock

Sample Calculation

	TMT = 2.35 locks * (1.0 hours + 0.5 hours)

	          = 3.52 hours

Estimating Emissions

Determining fuel usage and multiplying by an emission factor determined
total emissions.  Fuel usage was estimated for each horsepower bin by
using information from the study Shipboard Marine Engines Emission
Testing for the United States Coast Guard-Final Report9.  Although fuel
usage for every horsepower bin was not available in this report,
examining the available horsepower data could make a reasonable
estimation of the rate of fuel usage.  The names of tugs operating in
the Port of Pittsburgh area and their horsepower ratings are available
from the website of the Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center of the
United States Army Corps of Engineers10.  Barges in the Port of
Pittsburgh are mostly loaded in the downbound direction and unloaded in
the upbound direction.  Tugboats were estimated to run at close to
maximum power, 75 percent load, for calculating fuel usage, since they
push cargo downstream and empty barges upstream against a strong
current.  The following fuel usage was used for the various horsepower
bins:

Table 5.  Tugboat Fleet Characterization in the Port of Pittsburgh Based
on Horsepower Rating

Horsepower Bin	Number of Tugs in the Port	Percentage of Total Tugs and
Trips	Fuel Usage (gal/hr)

0-500	32	33	25

750-1500	51	52	44

1500-3000	9	9	105

3000-5000	4	4	200

5000-8000	2	2	250

Total Tugs	98	100

 Emission factors from tugboats and pushboats are nearly nonexistent.
Commercial Marine Vessels Contributions to Emission Inventories11
suggested that 550 lb of NOx are produced per 1000 gallons of fuel used.
 CMV engines also known as type II marine engines are engineered and
perform similarly to locomotive engines.  Since some locomotive engines
are the same size and operate under similar circumstances as tugboat
engines, emission factors of locomotive engines were used at the
suggestion of Greg Janssen of EPA12.  Emission factors of locomotives
from the U.S. EPA website,   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov"  www.epa.gov
13 show NOx emissions at 609 lb per 1000 gallons of fuel.  Since these
tugs are under load like locomotives, the emission factors of
locomotives seem more appropriate than other emission factors available.
 Other emission factors for hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and
particulate matter were 23.6 lb, 60.4 lb, and 15.0 lb, respectively, for
1000 gallons of fuel consumed.

Distributing Emissions to the County Level

We used total emissions for the Port of Pittsburgh and apportioned the
total to the county level by counting the number of piers, wharves, and
docks (PWDs) in each county and calculating the percentage PWDs in the
county relative to the port total of PWDs,14 as shown in Table 6.  The
total emissions from the port for all pollutants were multiplied by the
percentage of PWDs in the county to obtain countywide emissions.

Table 6.  Geographic Distribution Piers, Wharves, and Docks in the Port
of Pittsburgh by County.

County	Number of Piers, Wharves, and Docks in County 	Percentage of
Piers, Wharves, and Docks by County

Allegheny	102	53.7

Armstrong	5	2.6

Beaver	34	17.9

Fayette	7	3.7

Green	11	5.8

Washington	24	12.6

Westmoreland	7	3.7

Total	190	100.0

Example Emission Calculation of Downbound Calling Trips for 0-750
Horsepower Tugboats in Greene County:

Total tug trips in the Port of Pittsburgh in 1999 = 28,584

Downbound calling trips in 1999 = 13,850

Number of tugs in the 0-750 horsepower ranges = 32

Total number of tugs in operation in the port = 98

Percentage of tugs and trips (assumed) in the 0-750 horsepower bin = 33

Downbound calling trips in this horsepower bin= (13,850 * 0.33) = 4,571

Like port cruise times for these tugs on downbound calling trips = 2.7
hours

Modeled port cruise time for these tugs on downbound calling trips =
3.77 hours

Average number of locks traversed for these tugs on these trips in
modeled ports = 2.35

Modeled port maneuver time = 2.35 * (1.0 hours + 0.5 hours) = 3.52 hours

Total time per trip = 3.77 hours + 3.52 hours = 7.29 hours

Total NOx emissions = 4,571 trips * 7.29 hours/trip * 25 gal/hour * 609
lb NOx/1000 gal of fuel used *1 ton/2000 lb = 253.67 tons/year

NOx Emissions in Allegheny County from 0-750 horsepower bin in downbound
direction = 253.67 tons/year * 5.8% = 14.71 tons/year.

Emissions from all horsepower bins and trip types were summed to get an
annual emissions estimate for each county in the Port of Pittsburgh.
The number of operations and shipping activity are believed to be
relatively constant throughout the year.  An exception may occur when
there is a severe drought.  Therefore, annual emissions were divided by
365 days to determine the average emissions per summer day.

Estimating Emissions CMV Growth

Emissions growth is based on two factors: future fuel consumption and
future emissions standards.  Emissions standards or programs that take
place in the future will greatly lower emissions produced by CMV
engines.  Fuel use growth and future emission reductions used to
calculate total future emissions were based upon information contained
in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from
Marine Diesel Engines.15

Fuel use growth for CMV was obtained from Table 5.8 in the regulatory
impact analysis, “Baseline Emissions from Category 2 CI Marine Engines
Operated in U.S. Waters.”16 An average annual fuel use growth of 0.9
percent was estimated in the table, which led to corresponding baseline
emission increases (absent controls) in carbon monoxide (CO), NOx, and
VOC.  Growth was based upon the number of extra CMV expected to enter
service in future years.

In Table 5-14, which is entitled, “Projected NOx Emission Reductions
from Category 2 CI Marine Engines Operated in U.S. Waters,”17 the
emission reductions for hydrocarbons were obtained for future years.
The hydrocarbon reduction was applied directly to VOC emissions.
Emission reductions in NOx were obtained from Table 5-9, “Projected
NOx Emission Reductions from Category 2 CI Marine Engines Operated in
U.S. Waters.” 18 Table 5-9 was used for NOx because it shows emission
reductions of Category 2 CI Marine Engines exclusively.  Percentage
reductions were derived from these two tables for VOC and NOx for use in
the future years contained in our inventory.  The tables gave reductions
for 2010, 2020, and 2030.  We interpolated linearly between years to
obtain reductions for our inventory’s years of 2002, 2004, 2009, and
2018.  Table 7 below shows the growth rates in emissions used to
estimate emissions in the Greene County inventory.

Table 7. Normalized Growth in Emissions for CMV in the U.S.

Normalized Future Emission Factors	Normalized Growth in Emissions (CMV
Growth * Normalized Future Emission Factors)

Year	CMV Fuel Use Growth	CO	NOx	VOC	CO	NOx	VOC

2002	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000

2004	1.0181	1.0000	0.9800	0.9900	1.0181	0.9977	1.0079

2009	1.0647	1.0000	0.9600	0.9800	1.0647	1.0221	1.0434

2018	1.1541	1.0000	0.8700	0.9200	1.1541	1.0041	1.0618

 PAGE

 PAGE   14

1 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile
Sources, Assessment and Modeling Division, Commercial Marine Activity
for Great Lake and Inland River Ports in the United States, Final
Report, Ann Arbor, Michigan, September 1999.

2  United States Army Corps of Engineers, Navigation Data Center,
Waterborne Statistics Center, Waterborne Commerce of the United States,
Waterways and Harbors on the: Gulf Cost, Mississippi River System and
Antilles, New Orleans, Louisiana, available February, 2004, at
HYPERLINK "http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc/wcsc.htm"
http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc/wcsc.htm .

3 Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center of the United States, United
States Army Corps of Engineers, Vessel Characteristics, available at the
website http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/veslchar/veslcharsearch.htm,
July 19, 2001.

4  United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile
Sources, Assessment and Modeling Division, Commercial Marine Activity
for Great Lake and Inland River Ports in the United States, Final
Report, Ann Arbor, Michigan, September 1999, Section 4.

5  Ibid.,  p. 4-9.

6  Ibid., Section 4

7  Ibid.,  p. 4-24.

8  Ibid.,  p. 4-9.

9 Volpe National Transportation Systems Center and United States Coast
Guard Headquarters Naval Engineering Division, prepared by Environmental
Transportation Consultants, Shipboard Marine Engines Emission Testing
for the United states Coast Guard Final Report, 1995.

10 Website of the Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center of the United
States, United States Army Corps of Engineers,   HYPERLINK
"http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc/wcsc.htm"
http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc/wcsc.htm , July 19, 2001.

11 Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc, Transportation Consulting Division, 523
West Sixth Street, Suite 616, Los Angeles, CA 90014, Commercial Marine
Vessel Contributions to Emission Inventories, September 12, 1991.

12  Email exchange with Greg Janssen of U.S. EPA, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, Ann
Arbor Michigan, January 24, 2001.

13  U. S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, website at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/locomotv.htm, July 19, 2001.

14 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile
Sources, Assessment and Modeling Division, Commercial Marine Activity
for Great Lake and Inland River Ports in the United States, Final
Report, Ann Arbor, Michigan, September 1999, p. 4-9.

15  United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of mobile
Sources, Engines and Compliance Division, Final Regulatory Analysis:
Control of Emissions from Marine Diesel Engines, November 1999.

16  Ibid. , p. 109.

17 Ibid. , p. 115.

18 Ibid. , p. 110.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 163 (Monday, August 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 51277]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20833]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0229]

Use of Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher; Approval
of a Drug Product

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
recent approval of a drug product under an application for which the
sponsor redeemed a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher. The
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the
Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA),
authorizes FDA to redeem priority review vouchers submitted by sponsors
of product applications that might otherwise not qualify for priority
review. These vouchers entitle the holder of such a voucher to priority
review of a single human drug application submitted under the FD&C Act
or the Public Health Service Act. FDA has approved PRALUENT
(alirocumab), manufactured by Sanofi-Aventis U.S. Inc., under a
priority review.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Bauer, Rare Diseases Program,
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is announcing the recent approval of a
drug product under an application for which the sponsor redeemed a rare
pediatric disease priority review voucher. Under section 529 of the
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff), added by FDASIA, FDA will grant a priority
review for a new drug or biological product application that redeems a
priority review voucher, even if that product might not otherwise
qualify for a priority review. FDA has recently approved PRALUENT
(alirocumab), manufactured by Sanofi-Aventis U.S. Inc., under a
priority review. PRALUENT (alirocumab) is indicated as an adjunct to
diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy for the treatment of adults
with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or clinical
atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, who require additional lowering
of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.
    For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority
Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529
of the FD&C Act, go to http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DevelopingProductsforRareDiseasesConditions/RarePediatricDiseasePriorityVoucherProgram/default.htm.
    For further information about PRALUENT (alirocumab), go to the
Drugs@FDA Web site at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/index.cfm.

    Dated: August 19, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-20833 Filed 8-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 2, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31300-31303]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13401]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0024]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Rotary Club of Fort Lauderdale New River Raft Race,
New River; Fort Lauderdale, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on

the waters of the New River in Fort Lauderdale, Florida during the
Rotary Club of Fort Lauderdale New River Raft Race, on Saturday, June
13, 2015. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the New River
between Esplanade Park and the west side of the Florida East Coast
Railroad Bridge. Approximately 100 participants will attend the race.
The safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of participants,
participant vessels, and the general public during the event. Persons
and vessels, except those participating in the event, are prohibited
from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within
the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami
or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule will be effective on June 13, 2015 and enforced from 3
p.m. until 6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2015-0024]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email John K. Jennings, Sector Miami Prevention Department,
U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On March 4, 2015, a Notice of proposed rulemaking entitled Safety
Zone; Rotary Club of Fort Lauderdale New River Raft Race, New River;
Fort Lauderdale, FL was published in the Federal Register (80 FR
11607). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting
was requested, and none was held. The Coast Guard recently received
notice that the date for this event had been changed from the posted
date of April 18, 2015 to June 13, 2015 and the posted location had
been changed from the waters between Esplanade Park to just east of the
Southeast 3rd Avenue Bridge to the new location of the waters between
Esplanade Park and the west side of the Florida East Coast Railroad
Bridge.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a NPRM with respect to this rule
because publishing a NPRM would be impracticable. The Coast Guard
received updated information about the time of this event on March 10,
2015. Additional details required to implement this rule were not
obtained in sufficient time to provide notice and opportunity for
comment.
    For the same reason discussed above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the
Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective
less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33
U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    The purpose of the rule is to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waters of the United States during the Rotary Club of Fort
Lauderdale New River Raft Race.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    On June 13, 2015, Fort Lauderdale Rotary Club is hosting the Rotary
Club of Fort Lauderdale New River Raft Race. The race will be held on
the waters of the New River in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Approximately
100 participants will attend the race. Minimal spectator vessels are
expected.
    This rule will establish a safety zone that encompasses certain
navigable waters of the New River in Fort Lauderdale, Florida from
Esplanade Park to the west side of the Florida East Coast Railroad
Bridge. The safety zone will be enforced from 3 p.m. until 6 p.m. on
June 13, 2015.
    Non-participant persons and vessels may request authorization to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the event area by
contacting the Captain of the Port Miami by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If
authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the event area is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami or a
designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port Miami or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide
notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice
to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The economic impact of
this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety
zone will be enforced for 3 hours; (2) although persons and vessels
will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port
Miami or a designated representative, they may operate in the
surrounding areas during the enforcement period; (3) persons and
vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the safety zone during the enforcement period if authorized by the
Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative; and (4) the
Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the
local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast
Notice to Mariners.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of
which may be small entities: The owners or operators of non-participant
vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain
within the safety zone described in this regulation during the
respective enforcement period. For the reasons discussed in the
Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the creation of a safety zone. This
rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental
analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical
Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS.

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T07-0024 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0024  Safety Zone; Rotary Club of Fort Lauderdale New
River Raft Race, New River, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

    (a) Regulated area. The following regulated area is a safety zone.
All waters of the New River between Esplanade Park to the west side of
the Florida East Coast Railroad Bridge, contained within the following
points: Starting at Point 1 in position 26[deg]07'10'' N.,
80[deg]08'54'' W.; thence southeast to Point 2 in position
26[deg]07'08'' N., 80[deg]08'44'' W.; thence south to Point 3 in
position 26[deg]07'06'' N., 80[deg]08'45'' W. thence northwest to Point
4 in position 26[deg]07'09'' N., 80[deg]08'54'' W.; thence north back
to origin. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Miami in the enforcement of the regulated area.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Non-participant persons and vessels are
prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or
remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by Captain of the
Port Miami or a designated representative. Non-participant persons and
vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in,
or remain within the regulated area by contacting the Captain of the
Port Miami by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated representative
via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization is granted by the Captain
of the Port Miami or a designated representative, all persons and
vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions
of the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.
    (2) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local
Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners and on-scene
designated representatives.
    (d) Effective date. This rule will be enforced from 3 p.m. until 6
p.m. on June 13, 2015.

    Dated: May 22, 2015.
A.J. Gould,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Miami.
[FR Doc. 2015-13401 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


From:
David W Fanning<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Monday, February 22, 2016 3:09 PM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: February 17 Facilities Communication - coking status?

It is on the same extended coking time as my follow up information when I communicated the Shenango would be shutting down. If you need me to submit it again I can.

Dave

From: "Jones, DonnaLee"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To: David W Fanning<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Date: 02/22/2016 02:06 PM
Subject: RE: February 17 Facilities Communication - coking status?

Great. Good to know. Can I assume that this facility will be under normal operation for the testing (and not extended coking)?

_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

From: David W Fanning<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 2:01 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Todd A Richards<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: February 17 Facilities Communication

Steve Zervas at that address would still be the appropriate destination for the letter. Environmental Affairs is one of the services provided to EES Coke Battery by contract.

Thanks

Dave

Manager Business Development
734 302-8919
734 604-9213 Cell

"Jones, DonnaLee" ---02/22/2016 01:45:53 PM---Thanks. What is the corporate address to send the letter? What I have for DTE is: Steve Zervas, Supe

From: "Jones, DonnaLee"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To: David W Fanning<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Todd A Richards<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Date: 02/22/2016 01:45 PM
Subject: RE: February 17 Facilities Communication

Thanks. What is the corporate address to send the letter?
What I have for DTE is: Steve Zervas, Supervisor - Environmental Affairs, 414 S Main St, Ste 600, Ann Arbor, MI 48104

_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER> Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated." - anon.

From: David W Fanning<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 9:25 AM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Todd A Richards<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Februrary 17 Facilities Communication
As the testing plan evolves the latest facilities list (attached) should have the following changes made as it pertains to the EES Coke site.

(See attached file: Coke-114-facilities-02-17-16.pdf)
 Under the letter heading the 5th entry should be EES Coke Battery, L.L.C.

 Under the Enclosure 1 heading the 6th entry should be EES Coke Battery, L.L.C. (River Rouge, MI)

 Under the Enclosure 2 heading the 3rd entry should be EES Coke Battery, L.L.C. (River Rouge, MI)

Thank you for making these corrections. If you have any questiong let me know.

Dave

Manager Business Development
734 302-8919
734 604-9213 Cell


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 71 (Monday, April 13, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 20466]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07624]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 273

[Docket No. FRA-2019-0069, Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130-AC85

Metrics and Minimum Standards for Intercity Passenger Rail
Service

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Proposed rule; announcement of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: On March 31, 2020, FRA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed metrics and minimum standards for
measuring the performance and service quality of intercity passenger
train operations. FRA is announcing a public hearing to provide members
of the public an opportunity to provide oral comments on the proposal.
The public hearing will be held telephonically, instead of in-person.

DATES: The public hearing will be held on April 30, 2020, from 1:00
p.m. (EDT) to 4:00 p.m. (EDT). The comment period for the NPRM
published on March 31, 2020, (85 FR 17835) is open through June 1,
2020. Written comments in response to views or information provided at
the public hearing must be received by that date.

ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be held telephonically. If you are
interested in participating in the public hearing please visit https://railroads.dot.gov/legislation-regulations/regulations-rulemaking/metrics-and-minimum-standards-intercity-passenger. For assistance
registering for the public hearing, contact Katie List at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Written comments in response to views or information provided at
the public hearing may be submitted by any of the methods listed in the
NPRM. See 85 FR 17835.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Ferriter, Office of Railroad
Policy and Development, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Members of the public are invited to present
oral statements, and to offer information and views about the NPRM at
the public hearing. The hearing will be informal and will be conducted
by a representative FRA designates under FRA's Rules of Practice (49
CFR 211.25). The hearing will be a non-adversarial proceeding;
therefore, there will be no cross examination of persons presenting
statements or offering evidence. An FRA representative will make an
opening statement outlining the scope of the hearing. After all initial
statements are completed those persons wishing to make a brief rebuttal
will be given the opportunity to do so in the same order the initial
statements were made. FRA will announce additional procedures necessary
to conduct the hearing, at the beginning of the hearing. The purpose of
this hearing is to receive oral comments in response to an NPRM for
metrics and minimum standards for intercity passenger rail service. FRA
will add a transcript of the discussions to the public docket in this
proceeding.
    Public Participation Procedures. Any person wishing to make a
statement at the hearing should notify Katie List by telephone or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 493-0530) at least 5 working days before the
date of the hearing and should submit a copy of the oral statement they
intend to make at the proceeding (late filers will be accommodated to
the extent possible). The notification should identify the party the
person represents, the particular subject(s) the person plans to
address, and the time requested. The notification should also provide
the participant's mailing address and other contact information. FRA
reserves the right to limit participation in the hearing of persons who
fail to provide such notification. FRA also reserves the right to limit
the duration of presentations if necessary to afford as many people as
possible the opportunity to speak.
    For information on services for persons with disabilities, or to
request special assistance in connection with the hearing, contact
Kristin Ferriter, by telephone or email, at least 5 working days before
the date of the hearing by one of the means listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of www.regulations.gov. Interested parties may also review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 7, 2020.
Brett A. Jortland,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2020-07624 Filed 4-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4646-4648]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1993]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0037; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-003-AD;
Amendment 39-16935; AD 2012-02-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes. This AD
requires an inspection of a certain alternating current (AC) power wire
bundle for damage, and repair if necessary. Additionally, this AD
requires segregating the wire bundle into two wire bundles and
installing Teflon tubing. This AD was prompted by multiple reports of
the loss of certain AC systems caused by a burnt AC power wire bundle.
We are issuing this AD to prevent the loss of ice protection systems
for the angle of attack vanes, pitot probes, engine inlets, and
windshields, and consequent loss of or misleading airspeed indication
and increased workload for the flight crew, which could lead to loss of
control of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective February 15, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of February 15,
2012.
    We must receive comments on this AD by March 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer,
Avionics and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2011-46, dated December 20, 2011 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    There have been several reports of the loss of certain
Alternating Current (AC) systems along with the tripping of
associated circuit breakers. During maintenance troubleshooting, the
same AC power wire bundle was found burnt. All AC systems and AC
Generators could be affected by damage to this AC power wire bundle
resulting in the loss of ice protection systems for the angle of
attack vanes, pitot probes, engine inlets or windshields. In icing
conditions, the loss of the ice protection systems could affect
continued safe flight.
    This [TCCA] Airworthiness Directive (AD) mandates the detailed
inspection [for damage] of the AC power wire bundle [and repair if
necessary] and segregation of the wires within the affected AC power
wire bundle to prevent a dual system loss [and installing Teflon
tubing].

The detailed inspection for damage includes inspecting for any foreign
object damage (FOD), damage due to sharp bends and kinking or
deterioration, insulation cracking, evidence of heat damage to the
insulation, and chafing. The unsafe condition is the loss of ice
protection systems for the angle of attack vanes, pitot probes, engine
inlets, and windshields, and consequent loss of or misleading airspeed
indication and increased workload for the flight crew, which could lead
to loss of control of the airplane. You may obtain further information
by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-24-52, dated November 22,
2011. The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

Differences Between the AD and the MCAI

    Although the MCAI recommends accomplishing the actions within 600
flight hours or 90 days, whichever occurs first, after the effective
date of the MCAI, this AD requires accomplishment within 400 flight
hours or 60 days, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of
this AD. We find that a compliance time of 600 flight hours or 90 days,
whichever occurs first, would not address the unsafe condition soon
enough to maintain an adequate level of safety for the affected fleet.
In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, we considered
the degree of urgency associated with addressing the unsafe condition,
the upcoming inclement weather conditions, and the maximum interval of
time allowable for all affected airplanes to continue to operate
without compromising safety. We find that 400 flight hours or 60 days,
whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, to be an
appropriate compliance time to complete these actions. This difference
has been coordinated with TCCA.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because there
have been several reports of the loss of certain AC systems along with
the tripping of associated circuit breakers. During maintenance
troubleshooting, the same AC power wire bundle was found burnt. All AC
systems and AC Generators could be affected by damage to this AC power
wire bundle resulting in the loss of ice protection systems for the
angle of attack vanes, pitot probes, engine inlets or windshields. In
icing conditions, the loss of the ice protection systems could affect
continued safe flight. Therefore, we determined that notice and
opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable
and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer
than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0037; Directorate
Identifier 2012-NM-003-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for

safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2012-02-12 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-16935. Docket No. FAA-
2012-0037; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-003-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective February 15,
2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -
402 airplanes; certificated in any category; serial numbers 4095
through 4391 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24: Electrical
Power.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by multiple reports of the loss of certain
alternating current (AC) systems caused by a burnt AC power wire
bundle. We are issuing this AD to prevent the loss of ice protection
systems for the angle of attack vanes, pitot probes, engine inlets,
and windshields, and consequent loss of or misleading airspeed
indication and increased workload for the flight crew, which could
lead to loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Inspection and Corrective Actions

    Within 400 flight hours or 60 days, whichever occurs first,
after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Do a detailed inspection of the affected AC power wire
bundle for damage (any foreign object damage (FOD), damage due to
sharp bends and kinking or deterioration, insulation cracking,
evidence of heat damage to the insulation, and chafing) and do all
applicable repairs, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-52, dated November
22, 2011. Do all applicable repairs before further flight.
    (2) Segregate the AC power wire bundle into two bundles and
install Teflon tubing, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-52, dated November
22, 2011.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the ACO, send it to Attn: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (516)
794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically
reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

 (i) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2011-46, dated
December 20, 2011; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-52, dated
November 22, 2011; for related information.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference (IBR) of the following service information under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51:
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-52, dated November 22,
2011.
    (2) For Bombardier, Inc. service information identified in this
AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123
Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone (416)
375-4000; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 23, 2012.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-1993 Filed 1-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for the Section 3 IR-4 Proposed New
Uses of

S-Dimethenamid on Squash, Pumpkin, Rutabaga, Turnip, Radish and Hops

S-Dimethenamid

(2-chloro-N-(1-methyl-2-methoxy)ethyl)-N-(2,4-dimethyl-thien-3-yl)
acetamide

PC Code 120051, CAS No. 163515-14-8

Prepared by:

	Paul Mastradone, Chemist

Registration Division Registration Support Branch

	U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pesticide Programs

Registration Division

Registration Support Branch

And

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

Environmental Risk Branch IV

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Mail Code 7507C

Washington, DC 20460

Reviewed by:

Keara Moore, Chemist

Stephanie Syslo, RAPL

Environmental Risk Branch III

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

I.	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IR-4 has submitted several new use requests for S-Dimethenamid and  a
request for an updated drinking water assessment was submitted to the
ARIA team.  The new uses included separate labels for ground application
for weed control in Winter Squash and pumpkin (both restricted to OR and
WA) , labels for turnip and rutabaga , radish (entire US) and for hops (
restricted to ID , OR ,and WA).  All uses appear to propose a single
application of S-Dimethenamid at 0.98lbs/acre.

This document reports the Tier 2 drinking water exposure assessment for
                      S-Dimethenamid conducted to support the human
health risk assessment for the proposed new IR-4 uses. For the purposes
of this assessment these uses were broken into three groups.  The first
group included the uses for squash and pumpkin in OR and WA.  The second
group is made up of the uses for turnip, rutabaga and radish. The final
group is solely made up of hops.  The previous EFED drinking water
assessment for                     S-Dimethenamid was conducted for
addition of uses on green onion, grass grown for seed ( at
0.98lbs.a.i./A) and ornamentals ( at 1.5 lbs. a.i./A).  This assessment
also included a complete quantitative environmental risk assessment as
well as a complete qualitative environmental fate assessment.

Table 1.  EDWAC’s (ppb) for proposed new IR-4 uses of S-Dimetheneamid

USE	Modeled Scenario)	PCA	Surface Water Acutea	Surface Water Chronica
Surface Water Cancer

Chronica

Squash and Pumpkin	CAonion	0.56	2.11	0.71	0.52

Radish, Rutabaga,  Turnip	FL Carrot	0.87	59.02	6.45	3.87

Hops	OR hops	0.62	7.93	2.61	1.22

Generated using Tier2 linked simulation modelsPRZM (3.12beta)/Exams
2.98.04)

II.	PROBLEM FORMULATION

This drinking water assessment uses modeling to estimate surface water
concentrations of pesticides in drinking water source water
(pre-treatment) resulting from pesticide use on sites that are highly
vunerable.  Surface water exposure is estimated using Tier 2 linked
models PRZM and EXAMS.  Teir 1 modeling is intended to screen out
chemicals with low potential risk and provides estimated exposure
concentrations for human health dietary risk assessment.  Tier 2
exposure values, although more refined than Tier 1, are still screening
values.

Monitoring data are not considered in this assessment.  Additionally,
this assessment only considers exposure from the proposed new uses of
S-Dimethenamid and does not account for exposure from previously
registered uses.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table 2.  Summary use information for
S-Dimethenamid based submitted new IR-4 uses.

USE	SINGLE  APP. RATE             (lbs. a.i./A)	NUMBER OF APPS.	SEASONAL
APP. RATE (lbs. a.i./A)	APP. METHOD	INCORPORATION DEPTH (inches)

Squash and Pumpkin	0.98	1	0.98a	Ground spray	0

Radish  Rutabaga  Turnip	0.98	1	0.98	Ground spray	0

Hops	0.98	1	0.98	Ground Spray	0

a Rates calculated from presented labels do not fully agree with rates
presented in section B of the application.  Calculated maximum rate from
label was 0.84 lbs. a.i./A . Section B of the application states that
the maximum application rate is 0.98 lbs. a.i./A.  All calculations made
in this review were made using the higher rate

A.	Use Characterization

The active ingredient s-dimethenamid is the herbicidally active isomer
of r/s-dimethenamid.  It is a chloroacetamide herbicide (protein
synthesis inhibitor), used for control of certain annual grasses and
annual broadleaf weeds and sedges. A root and shoot growth inhibitor, it
is effective on susceptible germinating seedlings before or soon after
they emerge from the soil.  The racemic mixture of r/s-dimethenamid is
currently registered in other end use products (PC Code 129051).

Proposed new uses of s-dimethenamid are for control of weeds in Winter
Squash and pumpkins in OR and WA only, Turnip rudabega and radish
(entire US) and hops in ID< OR and WA..  The proposed end use products
is Outlook 97969-156).  It is a  liquid formulation consisting of 63.9%
active ingredient (6 lb a.i./gall).

All uses allow for only a single application.  Maximum rate proposed is
0.98 lbs.A.I./ A.  However for two of the proposed uses a rate of 0.84
lbs. A.I./A  is the maximum calculated based on the proposed lavbel
instructions.  For all modeling the higher rate was used.

B.	Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization

	1.	Fate and Transport Summary

General physical, chemical, and environmental fate properties of
dimethenamid are presented in Table 3.  This discussion of the
environmental fate of dimethenamid is based on laboratory studies of the
s-isomer when available.  Bridging studies show, however, that fate
properties of the racemic mixture are similar to those of the s-isomer
alone, and so data from studies of r,s-dimethenamid are included in this
discussion as well.

Based on environmental fate properties measured in laboratory studies,
dimethenamid is moderately persistent in soil.  It has a high aqueous
solubility and limited partitioning to soil mineral or organic
fractions, leading to high mobility.  It therefore meets the criteria
for potential to leach to groundwater and it also may reach surface
water through runoff.  If the compound were to reach surface water, it
may persist for a significant period of time due to the fact that it is
stable to hydrolysis at pH 5, 7, and 9 and has limited photolysis.  The
major route of dissipation is through soil metabolism with an aerobic
soil half-life of 31 days (s-isomer) and an anaerobic soil half-life of
54 days (racemic mixture).  Terrestrial field studies found that
dimethenamid dissipated with half-lives of 4 to 43 days with no leaching
detected below 30 cm depth.

Volatilization from soil or water are not expected to be major
dissipation routes for dimethenamid.  Dimethenamid has low potential to
bioaccumulate.

Table 3.  Physical, chemical, and environmental fate properties of
s-dimethenamid.

PARAMETER	VALUE	SOURCE	COMMENT

Chemical Name	s-dimethenamid
(2-chloro-N-(1-methyl-2-methoxy)ethyl)-N-(2,4-dimethy-thien-3-yl)
acetamide

Molecular Weight	275	–	–

Aqueous Solubility (25 oC)	1,449 + 17 µg/mL	MRID:

 44332214	–

Vapor Pressure (25 oC)	1.88 x 10-5 mm Hg	MRID:

 44332215	–

Henry’s Law constant	8.52 x 10-8 atm-m3/mole	DP Barcode: D285445.
Measured on the R/S isomer mixture.

pKa (25 oC)	No dissociation between pH 1 and pH 11	MRID:

41596510.	Measured on the R/S isomer mixture.

Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient

(KOW,  at 25 oC)	141 + 6	MRID:

41596511.	Measured on the R/S isomer mixture.

Hydrolysis Half-life

(pH 5, 7, 9; 25 oC)	Stable	MRID:

44332258.	Stable at all pHs.

Aqueous Photolysis Half-life

(pH 7)	50.4 days	MRID: 44332259.	Corrected to represent natural sunlight
in a 12 hour light/12 hour dark cycle.

Soil Photolysis Half-life	89.4 days	MRID: 44332260.	Corrected to
represent natural sunlight in a 12 hour light/12 hour dark cycle.

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life	31 days (s-isomer)

30 days (r/s mixture)

38 days (r/s mixture)	MRIDs:

44332261

41596532

	Anaerobic Soil

Metabolism Half-life	54 days	MRID: 41706801.	Measured on the R/S isomer
mixture.

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life	36 days	MRID: 42367210.	Measured
on the R/S isomer mixture.

Soil Partition Coefficient (Kd)	1.4 to 13.5 mL/g	MRID: 44332263.	Tested
on 5 American soils and 5 foreign soils.

Soil Partition Coefficient (Koc)	90 to 474 mL/goc	MRID: 44332263.	Tested
on 5 American soils and 5 foreign soils

Terrestrial Field Dissipation		8 days 	(Missouri)

	8 days 	(North Carolina)

	4 days 	(Indiana)

	43 days 	(Minnesota)	MRIDs: 42266202

42266203

42266204

42266205	Measured on the R/S isomer mixture.  Studies acceptable but not
representative of worst-case conditions.

Transformation Products

In laboratory studies, one major degradate, oxalamide (M23), was formed
through aerobic soil metabolism at up to 14.8% of the applied parent
compound.  The major degradates M3 (dechlorinated parent), M10 (methyl
sulfone derivative of M3), and M13 (methyl sulfoxide derivative of M3)
were formed through anaerobic aquatic metabolism at levels up to 20.6%,
9.8%, and 12.4% of the applied, respectively.  The structures and
complete chemical names of these compounds are provided in Appendix A.

Multiple minor degradates (<10% of applied) are seen in laboratory
studies.  These include PL3688 (methylthio derivative of the
decholorinated parent); M9
[N-(2,4-dimethyl-3-thienyl)-5-methyl-3-morpholine]; M11
[N-(2,4-dimethyl-3-thienyl)-2-hydroxy-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)-acetam
ide]; M30 (STLA); M31 [STGA; thioglycolic acid sulfoxide]; M32 [TGA;
thioglycolic acid conjugate;
N-(2,4-dimethyl-3-thienyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)-carboxymethylene
thionyl-acetamide]; and Fr4 (sulfoxide of the thioglycolic acid of
dimethenamid).  Structures and names of some of these minor degradation
products are shown in Appendix A.  It should be noted that although no
transformation products were included in the modeling scenarios used for
this assessment, based on the environmental fate profile it is unlikely
that even if the degradates were considered as parent, it is unlikely
there would significant effect on the EDWAC’s produced by this
modeling.

C.	Drinking Water Exposure Modeling

	1.	Models

Estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of s-dimethenamid from
the proposed new uses were generated using the Tier 1 model SCIGROW for
groundwater exposure and the Tier 2 linked screening simulation models
PRZM and EXAMS for surface water exposure.  Models and additional
information are available at the EPA’s water modeling website,
http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/.

The Tier 2 models Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM v3.12beta, May 24,
2001) and Exposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS v2.98.04, Aug. 18,
2002) were coupled with the input shell pe4v01.pl (Aug.8, 2003) to
generate EDWCs of dimethenamid that may occur in surface water.  The
PRZM model simulates pesticide movement and transformation from crop
application through soil residue processes.  It has two major
components, hydrology and chemical transport, and considers factors such
as rainfall and plant transpiration of water, as well as how and when
the pesticide is applied.  The EXAMS model simulates the fate of
pesticides that reach an adjacent water body through runoff, erosion,
and spray drift.  It accounts for volatilization, sorption, hydrolysis,
biodegradation, and photolysis of the pesticide.  EXAMS is a
steady-state model and so the water bodies are modeled as having
constant volume.  The simulated watershed is based on an Index Reservoir
(IR) scenario, and a percent cropped area (PCA) adjustment factor is
used to adjust for the area within the watershed that is planted to the
modeled crop (OPP, 2000).  Crop-specific scenarios are generally
developed to represent environmental conditions at sites at roughly the
upper 90th percentile of runoff-vulnerability for pesticide transport to
surface waters from a particular crop.  Using appropriate scenarios
linked with local meteorological data, the models are run for 30 years
with the reported EDWCs representing the values that are expected once
every ten years, based on the thirty years of daily values generated
during the simulation.

	2.	Modeling Approach and Input Parameters

For all modeling, input parameters were selected based on EFED input
guidance (EFED, 2002).  Maximum application rates were taken from the
proposed supplemental labels for the end-use product Outlook™ and the
proposed label.  Physical, chemical, and environmental fate properties
represent the parent compound only.  Modeled EDWCs do not directly
account for potential exposure to transformation products of
s-dimethenamid. However,  based on  the environmental fate profile of
the compound it is unlikely that the inclusion of these products, even
if modeled as parent, would have any significant impact on the EDWAC”s
proiduced.

		b.	Surface Water

Surface water EDWCs were estimated using Tier 2 linked models
PRZM/EXAMS.  Tier 2 modeling accounts for crop type, use locations, and
application date through the use of crop-specific scenarios linked to
local meteorological data.  The scenarios and application dates modeled
for the proposed new uses are presented in Table 5.  The proposed label
for Rutabaga, radish and turnip is a national label . Therefore  these
uses of dimethenamid includes a broad range of plant types and
geographic areas. Although other areas were modeled, the Florida carrots
scenario was selected to represent the most vulnerable sites nationally.
 The Winter Squash and pumpkin uses are proposed for CA and OR only,
therefore only these areas were considered when selecting a scenario for
modeling. The California onion scenario was considered to represent the
most vulnerable site and use for this type of application  For the
highly specialized hops uses in OR, WA and ID are represented by the
hops scenario.  there is a modeled to capture this range  The hops
modeling was highly affected by the timing of the application, where a
change of the application timing by one week made as nuch as a 3 fold
diffence in the EDWAC. For the purposes of this evaluation the timing
that producedMore detail about these scenarios can be found in the
scenario metadata available on the modeling website

Application dates are not scenario specific.  An application window was
determined based on label recommendations and crop emergence dates.
From within this window, the application date when the scenario had the
highest precipitation was chosen to provide a conservative estimate of
potential runoff.

TABLE 5. Summary of Crop Scenarios Used in Estimating Surface Water
EDWCs

USE	CROP SCENARIO

(Location)	PRIMARY SOIL TYPE	MET FILE	APPLICATION DATE

Rutabaga, Turnips and Radish 	FL carrots (Palm Beach County)	Riviera
sand	W12842.dvf	February 15

	GA onion

(Toombs County)	Tifton loamy sand	W03822.dvf	June 15

Squash and Pumpkin	CA onion

(San Joaquin County)	Ciervo clay 	W23155.dvf	March 15

Hops	Oregon hops (Marion County)	Woodburn silt loam	W24232.dvf	February
1

Modeling input parameters for PRZM/EXAMS are presented in Table 6.
Ground spray only modeled for a single application at 0.98 lbs. A.I. /A.

Table 6. PRZM (3.12beta) / EXAMS (2.98.04) modeling inputs for proposed
new uses.

PARAMETER	VALUE	COMMENT	SOURCE

Application Rate per Event

lb a.i./A (kg a.i./ha)	Squash, Pumpkin, rutabaga, turnip, radish and
hops  0.98  (1.1)

Reg. No. 7969-156

No. of Applications

 (Interval)

		Squash, Pumpkin, rutabaga, turnip, radish and hops :	1

Reg. No. 7969-156

CAM

(Chemical App. Method)	1	Pre-emergence spray without crop canopy.

	Depth of Incorporation	0 cm

Aerobic Soil Metabolism t1/(	37 days	Estimated upper 90th percentile
based on 3 studiesa (2 with R/S mixture as the test substanceb)	MRID
44332216

MRID 41596532

Spray Drift Fraction / Application Efficiency	Ground spray:	0.064 / 0.99

Aerial spray:	0.16 / 0.95

EFED Input Guidancea

Aerobic Aquatic Degradation  t1/(  	74 days	No data available; used
one-half aerobic soil metabolism rate	EFED Input Guidancea

Anaerobic Aquatic Degradation  t1/(	108 days	3 x single reported valuea

(R/S mixture as the test substance  b)	MRID 42367201

Aqueous Photolysis t1/(	50 days	Dark corrected;

12 hour light/12 hour dark cycle	MRID 44332259

Hydrolysis t1/(	Stable	pH 5, 7, 9	MRID 44332258

Soil Partition Coefficient (Kd)	1.4  mL/g	Lowest non-sand Kd	MRID
44332263

Molecular Weight	275 g/mole

Product Chemistry

Water Solubility @ 25°C	1,449 mg/L

MRID 44332214

Vapor Pressure	1.88 x 10-5 torr

MRID 44332215

Percent Cropped Area	Green onions &

Grass for seed:	0.87

Ornamentals:	1.0

The default PCA of 0.87 is only appropriate for agricultural crops.

(OPP, 2000)

a   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_guidance2_28_02.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_guidance2_28_02.htm

b These data were measured on the R/S isomer mixture.  No data are
available for the S isomer alone.

Modeling Results

PRZM/EXAMS results, presented in Table 8, represent untreated surface
water concentrations. The one-in-10-year peak day concentration is used
for acute endpoints and the one-in-10-year annual average concentration
is used for chronic endpoints.  When available, multiple scenarios are
used to characterize potential regional variation, the most conservative
values (in bold) are most appropriate for estimating effects at a
national level.  The model output files are attached in Appendix C.

Table 8.  Tier 2 EDWCs in SURFACE WATER from proposed new uses of

s-dimethenamid.

APPLICATION METHOD	USE	MODELED SCENARIO	MAXIMUM EDWC  ( ppb)

	Acute

(Peak)	Chronic

(Annual Avg.)

Ground Spray	Squash and Pumpkin	CA onion	2.11	0.71

	Rutabaga, Turnip and Radish	Fl Carrot	59.02	6.45

	Hops	OR hops	7.93	2.61

D.	Monitoring Data

Monitoring data were not considered in this assessment of proposed new
uses.  A search for available monitoring data was not conducted.

E.	Drinking Water Treatment

There is no available information on the drinking water treatment
effects on dimethenamid.

IV.	CONCLUSIONS

The estimated concentrations provided in this assessment are were
generated from Tier I (groundwater) and Tier 2 (surface water) models
and are conservative estimates of s-dimethenamid concentrations in
untreated drinking water.  They represent the maximum use patterns on
squash, pumpkin, turnip, rutabaga, radish, and hops

Tier 1 modeling is based on sites that are highly vulnerable to runoff
or leaching and includes protective assumptions about environmental
conditions and fate properties.  The presented Tier 2 modeling uses
crop-specific scenarios to represent vulnerable sites in areas where the
treated crops are grown, but otherwise uses the same protective
assumptions about fate properties.  Tier 2 modeling is more refined than
Tier 1 modeling, but Tier 2 estimated exposure values are still screens,
although finer screens than Tier 1 models.  A standard set of
recommended crop PCA’s were used in these analyses. Due to the limited
labeling for squash and pumpkin (restricted to OR and WA) and hops
(restricted to OR, WA and ID) regional PCA were used in the calculations
of the EDWAC’s.  These were 0.56 for squash and pumpkin and 0.62 for
hops.  Because Rutabaga, turnips and radish were more broadly labeled
(national label) a generalized PCA of 0.87 was used.

V.	REFERENCES

Environmental Fate and Effects Division.  2002a.  Guidance for Selecting
Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of
Pesticides, Version II. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C.    HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_guidance2_28_02.htm/"
http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_guidance2_28_02.htm/

Office of Pesticide Programs. 2000.  Drinking Water Screening Level
Assessments.     HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science/reservoir.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science/reservoir.pdf


Petroleum Refining PACs TWF Pollutant CASNU 12/ 04 TWF 08/ 04 TWF Chemical Percentage1 12/ 04 08/ 04 Benzo( a) anthracene 56553 36.26 180.9752 17.47% 6.334622 31.61636744 Benzo( a) phenanthrene ( Chrysene) 218019 31.01 2.103752 46.29% 14.354529 0.973826801 Benzo( a) pyrene 50328 100.66 4283.56 4.17% 4.197522 178.624452 Benzo( b) fluoranthene 205992 30.66 421.356 2.74% 0.840084 11.5451544 Benzo( j) fluoranthene 205823 0.36%

Benzo( k) fluoranthene 207089 30.66 42.1356 0.70% 0.21462 0.2949492 Benzo( j, k) fluorene ( Fluoranthene) 206440 0.828982394 0.8036824 24.32% 0.201608518 0.195455558 Benzo( r, s, t) pentaphene 0 0 Dibenz( a, h) acridine 226368 0.00%

Dibenz( a, j) acridine 224420 Dibenzo( a, h) anthracene 53703 30.66 1693.016 0.43% 0.131838 7.2799688 Dibenzo( a, e) fluoranthene 0 0 Dibenzo( a, e) pyrene 192654 0.00%

Dibenzo( a, h) pyrene 189640 0.00%

Dibenzo( a, l) pyrene 191300 7H Dibenzo( c, g) carbazole 194592 7,12 Dimethylbenz( a) anthracene 57976 Indeno( 1,2,3 cd) pyrene 193395 30.66 1.1388 0.01% 0.003066 0.00011388 3 Methylcholanthrene 56495 0.00%

5 Methylchrysene 3697243 3.50%

1 Nitropyrene 26.27788952 230.5302881 Note: All chemicals have the same 12/ 04 TWF without RSC.

1Explanation of Chemical Compostion is found in the Screening Level Analysis Report . Fraction of TWF Composite TWF