[Federal Register: January 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 15)]
[Notices]
[Page 4427-4428]
[DOCID:fr26ja09-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP09-29-000]

Centerpoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Carthage to
Perryville Project--Phase IV and Request for Comments on Environmental
Issues

January 15, 2009.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
address the environmental impacts of the Carthage to Perryville
Project--Phase IV involving construction and operation of facilities by
Centerpoint Energy Gas Transmission Company (Centerpoint) in Red River
and Jackson Parishes, LA.\1\ The Commission will use the EA in its
decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the
public convenience and necessity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On December 5, 2008, Centerpoint filed its application with
the Commission under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157
of the Commission's regulations. The Commission issued its Notice of
Application on December 17, 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice explains the scoping process we \2\ will use to gather
environmental input from the public and interested agencies on the
projects. Your input will help the Commission determine the issues that
need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping period
will close on February 17, 2009. Details on how to submit comments are
provided in the ``Public Participation'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 2 ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental
staff of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is being sent to affected landowners; Federal, State,
and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and
public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested
parties; and local libraries and newspapers. State and local government
representatives are asked to notify their constituents of this proposed
project and to encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about survey permission and/or the
acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the
proposed facilities. The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a
mutually acceptable agreement for its project. However, if the project
is approved by the Commission, that approval conveys with it the right
of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce
an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings in accordance with state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). This fact
sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the
use of eminent domain and how to participate in the FERC's proceedings.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    The purpose of the project is to increase the capacity of Line CP
in meeting producer and shipper demand for Haynesville Shale natural
gas in northwestern Louisiana that is planned for development. The
proposed facilities would increase the capacity of Line CP by 274,000
dekatherms per day to a total capacity of 1.87 Billion cubic feet per
day. Centerpoint specifically proposes to:
     Install one 15,000-horsepower compressor unit, 11 air-
cooled heat exchanger units, and minor yard and station piping at its
existing Westdale Compressor Station in Red River Parish, LA; and
     Install one 15,000-horsepower compressor unit, 11 air-
cooled heat exchanger units, and minor yard and station piping at its
existing Vernon Compressor Station in Jackson Parish, LA.
    Centerpoint plans to begin constructing the project in June 2009,
and to place the project in service in time for the winter 2009-2010
heating season.

Land Requirements for Construction

    All proposed facilities would be constructed entirely within the
existing fenced-in 6.1-acre Vernon Compressor Station and 12.2-acre
Westdale Compressor Station. All temporary work areas within the
compressor stations disturbed for the project would be restored to a
vegetative, gravel, or paved cover following construction. Centerpoint
may require the use of contractor/pipe yards outside of the compressor
stations. Contractor/pipeyards would be located on commercial or
industrial property and there would be no below-ground disturbance.
    The general location of the proposed facilities is shown in
appendix 1.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices are
available on the Commission's Web site at the ``eLibrary'' link or
from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary refer to the ``Additional Information''
section of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail. Requests for detailed maps
of the proposed facilities should be made directly to Centerpoint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the
EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the
EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify
their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     Geology and Soils.
     Water Resources, Fisheries and Wetlands.
     Vegetation and Wildlife.
     Threatened and Endangered Species.
     Land Use and Visual Quality.
     Cultural Resources.
     Air Quality and Noise.
     Reliability and Safety.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project
or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA.
Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA
may be published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies,
public interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
local libraries and newspapers, and the Commission's official service
list for this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review
if the EA is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before
we make our recommendations to the

Commission. To ensure your comments are received and considered, please
carefully follow the instructions in the ``Public Participation''
section below.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified two issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and
the environmental information provided by Centerpoint. This preliminary
list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.
     Potential impacts on air quality and noise emissions may
occur.
     Potential water quality impacts on two streams adjacent to
the Vernon Compressor Station.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the Carthage to Perryville Project--Phase
IV. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects
of the proposal, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or
lessen the environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the
more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please send in your comments so that they will be
received in Washington, DC on or before February 17, 2009.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number CP09-29-000 with your submission.
The docket number can be found on the front of this notice. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has dedicated
eFiling expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located on the Commission's internet Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. A Quick
Comment is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only
comments on a project.
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's internet Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. eFiling
involves preparing your submission in the same manner as you would if
filing on paper, and then saving the file on your computer's hard
drive. You will attach that file as your submission. New eFiling users
must first create an account by clicking on ``Sign up'' or
``eRegister''. You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making. A comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment on
a Filing.''
    (3) You may file your comments via mail to the Commission by
sending an original and two copies of your letter to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE.,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426;
    Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 2,
PJ11.2.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the
Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities.
    If you do not want to send comments at this time but still want to
remain on our mailing list, please return the Information Request
(Appendix 2). If you do not return the Information Request, you will be
taken off the mailing list.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor,'' which is an official party to the
proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are
able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if
they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor
formally participates in a Commission proceeding by filing a request to
intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the
User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link.
Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/
EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

 Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-1474 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42393-42394]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15366]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements Agency
Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the nature of the information collection and the expected
burden. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period was
published on December 9, 2015 (Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 236/pp.
16613-16615).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 29, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary T. Byrd,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Evaluation of Community-Oriented Enforcement Demonstrations.
    Type of Request: New information collection requirement.
    Abstract: NHTSA was established by the Highway Safety Act of 1970
(23 U.S.C. 101). Its Congressional mandate is to reduce the number of
deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle
crashes on our nation's highways. To accomplish this mission, NHTSA
conducts research on driver behavior and traffic safety to develop
efficient and effective means of bringing about safety improvements.
This information collection supports NHTSA's strategic goal of safety.
Within the next hour, an average of one person will die in an alcohol-
impaired-driving crash and one person will die unbuckled in a crash. In
2014, 9,967 people died in alcohol-impaired-driving crashes, an average
of one alcohol-impaired-driving death every 53 minutes. In the same
year, 9,385 people died in passenger vehicle crashes while not wearing
a seat belt, an average of one person dying unbuckled every 56 minutes.
To help decrease alcohol-impaired-driving deaths and save more lives
with seat belts, approval is requested to conduct a public information
collection to help evaluate the effectiveness of two traffic safety
programs called Building Community Support for Impaired Driving
Enforcement and Building Community Support for Seat Belt Enforcement.
The programs will use community-oriented enforcement programs to
increase community involvement in and support for alcohol-impaired-
driving and seat belt enforcement. The programs are designed to create
stronger community norms surrounding the value of traffic enforcement
and the importance of driving sober and being buckled. A key to
determining if these programs reach their objective is to survey the
public regarding exposure to the program and support for enforcement.
    Affected Public: The potential respondent universe is comprised of
licensed drivers aged 18 years and older visiting locations such as
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices in the program and control
(comparison) areas. The program and control areas for these programs
have not been selected as of the time of this request. The program
areas will be communities with a population between 75,000 and 200,000
people, a local government and law enforcement agency interested in
participation, alcohol-impaired-driving crashes and fatalities above
the national average (alcohol-impaired-driving program only), seat belt
use below the national average, unrestrained fatalities above the
national average, and lower levels of seat belt enforcement (seat belt
program only). The control areas will be demographically similar to the
program areas and be in separate media markets.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 2,168 hours (i.e., 21,216 total
participants including 16,416 taking an average of 5 minutes to
complete the screener survey and 4,800 taking an average of 10 minutes
to complete the full survey).
    Comments are invited on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection;
    (iii) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (iv) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
    A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30
days of publication.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).

    Issued on: June 24, 2016.
Jeff Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2016-15366 Filed 6-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 44 (Monday, March 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10542-10543]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4738]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61618; File No. SR-NSCC-2010-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate
Guarantee of Payment in Connection With the Envelope Settlement Service

March 1, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On January 4, 2010, the National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2010-01 pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'').\1\
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on January 29, 2010.\2\ No comment letters were received on
the proposal. This order approves the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61415 (January 25,
2010), 75 FR 4896.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    NSCC's the Envelope Settlement Service (``ESS'') allows an NSCC
member to physically deliver through the facilities of NSCC a sealed
envelope \3\ containing securities and such other items as NSCC may
permit from time to time to a specified receiving member. NSCC then
delivers the envelope to the receiving member. ESS is provided for

primarily pursuant to Rule 9 and Addendum D with related provisions in
Addendum D with related provisions in Addendum K and Procedure XV. The
primary substantive changes of this proposed rule change are in Rule 9,
Addendum D, and Addendum K with a conforming change to Procedure XV.
Technical clean-up changes are also being made in each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule 9 provides that except as NSCC may determine to be
appropriate or necessary, NSCC will not examine the contents of the
envelopes or verify the amounts of money shown on the credit list,
and it shall not be responsible with respect thereto except to
deliver the envelopes accepted by it to the authorized
representatives of the members to whom they are addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The delivering member must attach to each envelope, a credit list
(in duplicate), which reflects the total money value, if any, of the
envelope's contents. If after receipt of the envelope NSCC determines
that the envelope is properly listed on the accompanying credit list,
NSCC stamps the duplicate credit list and makes it immediately
available to the delivering member's representative. An envelope listed
on the credit list shall be deemed to have been accepted by NSCC when
the duplicate credit list is stamped.
    As a related feature of ESS, the payment shown on the credit list
is processed as part of the members' daily end of day net money
settlement obligations in reliance on the agreement between the
delivering and receiving parties outside NSCC that the amount listed is
the contract amount.
    In order to protect the NSCC against the risk of member non-payment
NSCC is amending Rule 9 and related provisions so that NSCC does not
guarantee the payment obligation to the receiving member in an ESS
delivery and so that the credits and debits of the payment amount of an
envelope may be reversed. The payment reversal may be effected by NSCC
even if the receiving member has taken possession of the envelope;
however, if the receiving member has not yet taken possession of the
envelope at the time of a payment reversal, NSCC will return the
envelope to the delivering member. Any dispute between the delivering
and receiving members must be resolved by them outside the facilities
of the NSCC.
    Changes to Rule 9 affirmatively provide that NSCC does not
guarantee the payment obligation in ESS and that payment credits and
debits may be reversed. Technical and conforming changes clarify the
concepts of delivering and receiving members and that settlement
processing is subject not only to the rights of NSCC in Section 2 of
Rule 12 but also to the new reversal provision in Section 4 of Rule 9.
    To conform to amended Rule 9, Addendum D is similarly being amended
to state that ESS is not guaranteed and that payment credits and debits
may be reversed as provided in Rule 9. Language making it clear that
settlement processing is subject to the rights of NSCC under new
Section 4 of Rule 9 and Section 2 of Rule 12, was also carried over to
Addendum D. Because Addendum D also covers other services for which no
change is made by this filing, certain of the revisions to Addendum D
clarify that the revisions are limited to ESS. Historical statements in
Addendum D are being eliminated.
    The change to Addendum K is to delete the provision whereby NSCC
provided a guarantee for ESS and thereby deemed ESS to be a ``System''
within the meaning of Rule 4. Without the guarantee, ESS is not
considered to be a ``System.'' Consistent with the change, Procedure XV
is modified so that when the clearing fund component titled ``For Other
Transactions'' (that is, for other than CNS transactions and balance
order transactions) is computed, ESS will not be included.
    In considering the elimination of the guarantee, NSCC surveyed
selected members and learned that they did not consider it vital that
NSCC be responsible for their ESS payment obligations and that they do
not rely on the NSCC to guarantee such payments. However, these members
expressed a strong desire for NSCC to maintain the centralized delivery
service. NSCC designed the proposed rule changes to meet the expressed
need of certain members while reducing risk to NSCC and its members
generally. NSCC believes that it is shifting the burden of risk to
those that should bear it and to outside NSCC's facilities.

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act \4\ and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to NSCC. In particular, the Commission believes
that by amending its rules, NSCC's exposure to potential losses from
member defaults, insolvencies, mistakes, and fraud will be reduced and
the risk of such potential losses will be appropriately shifted to the
contracting members in an ESS transaction outside NSCC. The proposal is
therefore consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F),\5\
which requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency
are designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \6\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\7\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NSCC-2010-01) be,
and hereby is, approved.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \8\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-4738 Filed 3-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Notice of Record of Decision (ROD) for the Goethals Bridge Replacement Project - Attachment A


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43908-43909]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17442]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1334]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before October 21, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1334, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the

flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and
FIS report become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location and
the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Atchison County, Kansas, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Atchison.......................  City Hall, 515 Kansas Avenue,
                                          Atchison, KS 66002.
City of Huron..........................  City Hall, 206 South 3rd
                                          Street, Huron, KS 66041.
City of Muscotah.......................  City Hall, 604 Kansas Avenue,
                                          Muscotah, KS 66058.
Unincorporated Areas of Atchison County  County Courthouse, 423 North
                                          5th Street, Atchison, KS
                                          66002.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Dukes County, Massachusetts, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Aquinnah.......................  Town Hall, 65 State Road,
                                          Aquinnah, MA 02535.
Town of Chilmark.......................  Town Hall, 401 Middle Road,
                                          Chilmark, MA 02535.
Town of Edgartown......................  Town Hall, 70 Main Street,
                                          Edgartown, MA 02539.
Town of Gosnold........................  Gosnold Town Hall, 28 Tower
                                          Hill Road, Cuttyhunk Island,
                                          MA 02713.
Town of Oak Bluffs.....................  Town Hall, 56 School Street,
                                          Oak Bluffs, MA 02557.
Town of Tisbury........................  Town Hall, 51 Spring Street,
                                          Vineyard Haven, MA 02568.
Town of West Tisbury...................  Town Hall, 1059 State Road,
                                          West Tisbury, MA 02575.
Tribe of Wampanoag of Gay Head           20 Black Brook Road, Aquinnah,
 (Aquinnah).                              MA 02535.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Essex County, Massachusetts (All Jurisdictions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Beverly........................  City Hall, 191 Cabot Street,
                                          Beverly, MA 01915.
City of Gloucester.....................  City Hall, 9 Dale Avenue,
                                          Gloucester, MA 01930.
City of Lynn...........................  City Hall, 3 City Hall Square,
                                          Lynn, MA 01901.
City of Newburyport....................  City Hall, 60 Pleasant Street,
                                          Newburyport, MA 01950.
City of Salem..........................  City Hall, 93 Washington
                                          Street, Salem, MA 01970.
Town of Essex..........................  Town Hall, 30 Martin Street--
                                          2nd Floor, Essex, MA 01929.
Town of Ipswich........................  Town Hall, 25 Green Street,
                                          Ipswich, MA 01938.
Town of Manchester-By-The-Sea..........  Town Hall, 10 Central Street,
                                          Manchester-by-the-Sea, MA
                                          01944.
Town of Marblehead.....................  Town Hall, 188 Washington
                                          Street, Marblehead, MA 01945.
Town of Nahant.........................  Town Hall, 334 Nahant Road,
                                          Nahant, MA 01908.
Town of Newbury........................  Town Hall, 25 High Road,
                                          Newbury, MA 01951.
Town of Rockport.......................  Town Hall, 34 Broadway,
                                          Rockport, MA 01966.
Town of Rowley.........................  Town Hall, 139 Main Street,
                                          Rowley, MA 01969.
Town of Saugus.........................  Town Hall, 298 Central Street,
                                          Saugus, MA 01906.
Town of Swampscott.....................  Town Hall, 22 Monument Avenue,
                                          Swampscott, MA 01907.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: July 2, 2013.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-17442 Filed 7-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


ATTACHMENT 3. Methodology for Estimating Exposures to Terrestrial Animals (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates)
Introduction

Two types of exposures are estimated for terrestrial vertebrates: concentration (dietary) based and dose-based. Dose-based exposures include dietary, drinking water, dermal and inhalation routes. This attachment describes the method for estimating dietary-based and dose-based exposures to listed terrestrial vertebrates located on the treated field, as well as in adjacent areas receiving spray drift. All of the dose-based exposures are estimated using allometric equations that are dependent upon body weight. Dietary requirements as well as body weights of specific species are provided within the MAGtool model. All information on species traits, including dietary items and body weights, are based on data gathered from Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) species documents (e.g., Recovery Plans, 5-year review, etc.).

This attachment also summarizes the methodology that is used to estimate exposures to terrestrial invertebrates. Available toxicity data is expressed as a wide variety of units. Those that can be translated into an application rate (i.e., lb a.i./A), a direct exposure (e.g., mg/kg-bw), or a concentration in a relevant medium (e.g., food, soil) can be used to estimate exposures to terrestrial invertebrates. Toxicity data that are expressed as lb a.i./A combine multiple exposure routes, while concentration-based endpoints may represent contact or dietary exposure routes.

The methods described in this attachment may also be used to assess potential exposures to animals that represent the prey of listed species. These exposures can be used to assess potential effects to prey, pollination, habitat, and/or dispersal (PPHD) of a listed species.

Since this approach applies to Steps 1 and 2, the scale of these models is focused on the field level. The intention of this approach is to assess exposures to individuals of a listed species. Estimated exposures to individuals are intended to be conservative, representing potential "high-end" exposures to an individual animal.
Exposures expressed as application rate (lb a.i./A)

Application rates are taken directly from registered labels and can be used to determine whether or not the rate is above the available toxicity endpoints expressed as lb a.i./A. The AgDRIFT model is used to determine the distance from the edge of the field where the deposition (in lb a.i./A) is equivalent to the endpoints and thresholds of concern.
Spray Drift

According to Equation 1, the fraction of the application rate (FAR) that is equivalent to the threshold is used to determine the distance where the risk extends (dt; units: ft). Spray drift deposition differs by application method, droplet spectra and release height. An analysis of the deposition curves generated from AgDRIFT (v. 2.1.1) yielded the parameters included in Table 1 that are used by Equation 1.

Equation 1. dt=c5FAR1b5-1a5

Table 1. Parameters for Spray Drift Equation, Based on Application Method.
                              Application method
                                  Boom height
                               Droplet spectrum
                                      a5
                                      b5
                                      c5
                                    Aerial
                                      NA
                               Very Fine to Fine
                                    0.0292
                                     0.822
                                    0.6539

                                Fine to Medium
                                     0.043
                                     1.03
                                      0.5

                               Medium to Coarse
                                    0.0721
                                    1.0977
                                    0.4999

                             Coarse to Very Coarse
                                    0.1014
                                    1.1344
                                    0.4999
                                    Ground
                                     High
                               Very Fine to Fine
                                    0.1913
                                    1.2366
                                    1.0552

                             Fine to Medium/Coarse
                                    2.4154
                                    0.9077
                                    1.0128

                                      Low
                               Very Fine to Fine
                                    1.0063
                                    0.9998
                                    1.0193

                             Fine to Medium Coarse
                                    5.5513
                                    0.8523
                                    1.0079
                               Airblast (sparse)
                                      NA
                                      NA
                                    0.0351
                                    2.4586
                                    0.4763

Concentrations on and in food of terrestrial diet of animals and direct exposures to listed invertebrates

Concentration based exposures (units: mg a.i./kg-ww) are reliant upon the amount of pesticide in/on a dietary item. As discussed in the appendices that describe the specific listed birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, the diets of listed vertebrates include plants (seeds, leaves, grass, fruit, flowers, nectar), invertebrates (above and below ground in terrestrial areas) and other vertebrates (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and carrion). Food items of listed terrestrial invertebrates include: grass, broadleaf plants, arthropods, fruit, seeds, carrion and nectar.

The methods for estimating concentrations on these food items are based on existing models, i.e., T-REX and T-HERPS, both of which are described in detail at: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/models-pesticide-risk-assessment#terrestrial. In this approach, upper-bound and mean concentrations are estimated. The upper bound concentrations on plants represent high-end exposures that are based on empirical data from Hoerger and Kenaga 1972 and Fletcher et al. 1994. The mean values represent the mean concentrations across many different fields, crops, locations throughout the US and pesticides.

 Plants

The method for estimating upper-bound and mean concentrations of pesticides on seeds, grass (short and tall), broadleaves and fruit is described in detail in the T-REX manual. Direct estimates of pesticides are not available for some food items; therefore, surrogates are used as follows:
 For nectar and pollen, tall grass is used as a surrogate (based on honeybee risk assessment methodology).
 For pine needles and twigs, short grass is used.
 Broadleaves are used for flowers, fungi, and lichens.

 Invertebrates

Concentrations are estimated in units of mg a.i./kg-ww. For direct effects to listed invertebrates, these concentrations can be compared to thresholds that are in the same units. Note that these concentrations may be compared to toxicity data from contact or dietary based exposure toxicity studies.

Above ground

The method for estimating upper-bound and mean concentrations of pesticides on above-ground arthropods is described in detail in the T-REX manual. These residues represent values from a 90[th] percentile field. These values are used to assess exposures for direct effects to listed invertebrates as well as insect prey.

The original dataset used to estimate residues on arthropods is based on empirical residues from larvae, beetles, crickets, grasshoppers and wild caught invertebrates. This method may not account for the increased surface area of species with large wings (e.g., butterflies) and therefore may underestimate exposure to large winged species.

The contact-based exposure approach integrated into the BeeREX model was not used because that approach includes residues that are specific to honeybees. It is assumed here that the arthropod residue values in the T-REX model generally apply to more species. Resides from the two approaches are generally similar.
Soil dwelling

A simple partitioning approach is employed in this analysis to estimate concentrations of the pesticide of interest in earthworms using the earthworm fugacity model. Earthworms are used to represent soil dwelling invertebrate prey (e.g., worms, snails) of listed species, as well as listed invertebrates that inhabit soil, for instance, snails.

In this approach, it is assumed that a pesticide partitions between the soil and the pore water of the treatment site. It is assumed that earthworms dwelling within the soil are exposed to a pesticide via ingestion of and contact with contaminated soil.  The concentration of a pesticide in earthworm tissues can be calculated according to Equation 2. In this approach, the octanol water partitioning coefficient (Kow) of a chemical and the lipid content of the worm is used to predict the partitioning of the chemical between the worm and pore water. L is based on the lipid content of earthworms, which was assumed to be 0.01 (Cobb et al. 1995).  The density of the earthworm (ρE) is assumed to be 1 kg/L (equivalent to density of water).

Equation 2. CE=Cw(pore)*L*KowρE

Pesticide concentrations in pore water are estimated using a simple partitioning approach (Equation 3; Table 2) that is based on modifications to the Tier I rice model (USEPA, 2007b). In this equation, the pesticide concentration in pore water is dependent upon the pesticide application rate (Arate), mean organic carbon-water partitioning coefficient of the pesticide (Koc; L/kg), and the puddle depth and soil properties. A factor of 11.2 is used to convert the units of the application rate, which are lb a.i./A, to the metric units needed to generate a concentration value expressed in ug a.i./mL. Water depth (dw) is assumed to be 0 cm. The soil depth (dsoil) is set to 2.6 cm (1 inch). Default parameter values for soil properties, including bulk density (ρb) and fraction of organic carbon (foc(soil)), are based on EFED scenarios for the Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM). The default values of 1.5 kg/L for ρb and 0.015 for foc(soil) are based on the mean values from the field crop and orchard scenarios. Porosity (θsoil) and bulk density are related (Equation 4), where ρp is the density of soil particles (kg/L). A typical value of 2.65 (Smettem 2006) is used for soil particle density.

Equation 3.		Cw(pore)=Arate*11.2dw+dsoilθsoil+ρb*Koc*foc(soil)

Equation 4. 		θsoil=1-ρbρp

It should be noted that the estimated exposure generated using this approach is based on the pesticide concentration in the tissue of the worm. It does not include the pesticide that is in the gut of the worm (e.g., sorbed to soil). In addition, metabolism of the chemical by the worm is not accounted for, potentially resulting in an overestimate of exposure. Finally, it is assumed that the partitioning of the chemical between worms and pore water is comparable to the chemical's partitioning between octanol and water. This is a common assumption when predicting chemical uptake by organisms (e.g., in aquatic bioaccumulation modeling).

Table 2. Summary of parameters used to estimate pesticide concentrations in soil dwelling invertebrates.
Symbol
Definition
Units
Arate
Application rate from label
lb a.i./A
CE
Chemical concentration in earthworm tissue
mg a.i./kg
Cw(pore)
Concentration of the pesticide in pore water
mg/L = ug/mL
dsoil
Depth of soil at equilibrium with water
cm
dw
Depth of puddle water
cm
foc(soil)
Fraction of organic carbon in soil
none
Koc
Organic carbon:water partition coefficient
L/kg-oc
KOW
Octanol to water partition coefficient
none
L
Lipid fraction of earthworm
none
θsoil
Porosity of soil
none
ρb
Bulk density of soil
kg/L
ρE
density of earthworm
kg/L
ρp
Density of soil particles
kg/L

 Vertebrates

The method for estimating upper-bound and mean concentrations of pesticides in mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians is described in detail in the T-HERPS manual. For mammals serving as prey, the 15 g mammal that consumes short grass was chosen because it is conservative and representative of prey species expected to be commonly found. For birds, the small bird (20 g) that consumes 100% arthropods was selected because this is the most common dietary item among birds (Appendix D of TIM manual). A 2 g animal that consumes 100% arthropods is selected to represent reptile and amphibian prey. For carrion, residues in large mammals (1000 g) consuming short grass are used as a surrogate.

In this approach, concentrations in mammals and birds are decreased on a daily basis based on elimination or metabolism. The amount of chemical that is retained from one day to the next is based on chemical-specific magnitude of the residue studies with chickens and rats.
Concentrations in soil

The pesticide concentration in soil can be calculated using the pore water concentration used in the earthworm fugacity model. In this approach, Cw(pore) (units: mg a.i./L-water) is multiplied by the Koc (L-water/kg-oc) and the foc (fraction of organic carbon in soil). The default foc value is 0.015. The result is the mg a.i./kg-dw (soil). This value is used to estimate exposures to terrestrial invertebrates.

For species that consume decaying organic matter that is likely associated with soil (e.g., decaying leaves and bark), estimated concentrations in soil will be used to represent concentration-based EECs. This will be applied to some species of soil-dwelling invertebrates.
Concentrations in aquatic organisms

Many species of listed vertebrates also consume aquatic organisms (e.g., plants, benthic invertebrates, fish). Typically, EFED would run the Kow (based) Aquatic BioAccumulation Model (KABAM) for a pesticide with Log Kow values >=4 to estimate concentrations of the pesticide in the tissues of aquatic organisms. Unless a chemical-specific metabolism rate constant can be derived, KABAM estimates concentrations of the chemical in aquatic organisms assuming that the chemical is at steady state and that there is no metabolism of the chemical. Although part of the analyses in the model, for carbaryl and methomyl, based on their low Kow values, bioaccumulation is not expected.

This attachment is focused on methods for estimating exposures to birds, mammals, reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians. Exposures to aquatic-phase amphibians (i.e., tadpole life stages and aquatic-obligate species) will be assessed using PWC. Dietary exposures to aquatic-phase amphibians (that consume algae, aquatic invertebrates, fish and amphibians) will not be quantified because the major uptake route of carbaryl and methomyl for aquatic organisms is expected to be through respiration. In addition, since the available toxicity data representative of aquatic-phase amphibians is expressed as aqueous concentrations, dietary-based exposures cannot be evaluated.
Doses received by birds, mammals, reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians

Dose-based exposures (units: mg a.i./kg-bw = ug a.i./g-bw) include four different routes: diet, drinking water, dermal and inhalation. Essentially, a dose-based exposure is calculated by multiplying the relevant ingestion rate by the concentration in the relevant medium. Ingestion rates are heavily dependent upon the body weight of the assessed animal because they are calculated using allometric equations. In general, the smaller the animal, the larger the dose. The methods for estimating dose-based exposures from different routes are described below.

Doses estimated using the MAGtool for each exposure route are evaluated independently by comparing the estimated dose to the appropriate toxicity endpoint. Individual doses are not added together due to their conservative nature. In the MAGtool, drinking water, inhalation and dermal based exposure values are calculated and used in the determination of off-site transport distances in both Step 1 and Step 2, if they represent the most sensitive exposure value. In the Step 2 probabilistic analyses, as outlined in the MAGtool documentation, the exposure analysis is focused on dietary exposures.  As discussed below, exposure can be assessed directly on the field or in areas that receive spray drift.

 Diet

Concentration based values in the appropriate food item of a species are multiplied by the food ingestion rate and then divided by the body weight of the assessed species (Equation 5; Table 3). Food ingestion rates vary by type of vertebrate and the water content of the diet (Table 4). Equation 6 is the allometric equation that is used to estimate the daily food ingestion rate (g food per day, wet weight) for an animal. The taxa-specific parameters used by Equation 6 are provided in Table 5. Based on the available data from USEPA 1993, food ingestion rates can be estimated for birds in the Passeriformes order ("passerines") and non-passerine birds as well as mammals in the Rodentia order ("rodents") and non-rodent species. One set of parameters is available for a reptile (iguana), which are used to estimate the food intake rate of reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians.

Equation 5. Dietary Dose=IRfood*CfoodBW

Equation 6. IRfood=a1*BWb11-FWk

Table 3. Parameters used to calculate dietary-doses.
Symbol
Description
Units
BW
Body weight (of species)
g
Cfood
Pesticide concentration on a food item
mg a.i./kg = ug a.i./g
FWk
Fraction of water in dietary item k
none
IRfood
Food intake rate
g per day (WW)

Table 4. Fraction of Water in Fresh Food Items (FWk) (from USEPA 1993).
                                 Food Item (k)
                                      FWk
                                  Amphibians
                                     0.85
                                  Arthropods
                                     0.69
                                Aquatic plants
                                     0.80*
                             Benthic invertebrates
                                    0.78**
                            Birds, mammals, carrion
                                     0.68
                         Broadleaves (and surrogates)
                                     0.85
                                     Fruit
                                     0.77
                                     Fish
                                     0.75
                                    Grasses
                                     0.79
                                Filter feeders
                                     0.82
                                    Nectar
                                     0.70+
                                    Pollen
                                    0.063++
                   Soil-dwelling invertebrates (earthworms)
                                     0.84
                                   Reptiles
                                     0.66
                Seeds (assumed to also represent pine needles)
                                     0.093
                                  zooplankton
                                     0.83#
*Although a range of values is available, 0.8 was chosen to represent the upper end of "emergent vegetation". This value is also consistent with those available for algae (0.84+-0.047) and aquatic macrophytes (0.87+-0.031).
**Value for shrimp used.
+Average sugar content of nectar is 0.3 (from bee risk assessment method), remainder is assumed to be water.
++From Morgano et al 2011
#Midpoint of range of values for cladocerans used (i.e., 0.79-0.87).

Table 5. Parameters used to calculate food intake rate for vertebrates (from USEPA 1993).
                                     Taxa
                                      a1
                                      b1
                         Birds in Passeriformes order
                                     0.398
                                     0.850
           All Birds (applied to species not in Passeriformes order)
                                     0.301
                                     0.751
                           Mammals in Rodentia order
                                     0.621
                                     0.564
         All mammals (applied to mammal species not in Rodentia order)
                                     0.235
                                     0.822
                           Reptiles and amphibians*
                                     0.013
                                     0.773
*No amphibian-specific values are available, therefore, reptile values are used as a surrogate.

 Drinking water

The pesticide dose received through a day's worth of drinking contaminated water is calculated using Equation 7. Like with food, drinking water ingestion rates vary by type of vertebrate and the water content of the diet. As indicated by Equation 8, the daily water drinking water rate is based on the difference between an animal's daily flux and the amount of water consumed through the diet. The daily water flux rate, which represents the total daily water requirement from all sources is estimated according to Equation 9, with the parameters in Table 6. If all of an animal's daily water need (i.e., flux) is met through the diet, then that animal does not drink water. Two different types of drinking water are assessed independent of each other: puddles and dew. Equations 3 and 11 are used to generate CW values for puddles and dew, respectively.

Equation 7. Drinking water Dose=IRdw*CwBW

Equation 8.

Equation 9.

Equation 10.

Equation 11.

Pesticide concentrations in puddles are estimated using a simple partitioning approach (Equation 3; Table 6) that is based on the Tier I rice model (USEPA, 2007b), with modifications. The approach for estimating pesticide concentrations in puddle water is the same as the one discussed above for pore water, with the following exception: puddle depth (dw) is assumed to be 1.3 cm (0.5 in).

Table 6. Parameters used to calculate drinking water-doses.
Symbol
Description
Units
BW
Body weight (of species)
g
Cw(dew)
Concentration of the pesticide in dew
mg/L = ug/mL
Cplant
Concentration of the pesticide in crop foliage
mg/kg = ug/g
Cw(puddle)
Concentration of the pesticide in puddle
mg/L = ug/mL
dsoil
Depth of soil at equilibrium with water (in puddle)
Cm
dw
Depth of puddle water
cm
Fdfr
Dislodgeable foliar residue adjustment factor
kg/m[2]
Fluxwater
Total daily water flux rate
mL/day
foc(soil)
Fraction of organic carbon in soil
none
FWk
Fraction of water in a fresh food item k
none
IRdw
Drinking water intake rate
mL/day
IRfood
Food intake rate
g per day (WW)
Koc
Organic carbon:water partition coefficient
L/kg-oc
mwax
Mass of wax per surface area of leaf cuticle
kg/m[2]
ρb
Bulk density of soil
kg/L
ρp
Density of soil particles
kg/L
ρwater
Density of water (1)
kg/L
θsoil
Porosity of soil
none

Table 7. Parameters used to calculate water intake rate for vertebrates (from Nagy and Peterson 1988).
                                     Taxa
                                      a2
                                      b2
                                      c2
                         Birds in Passeriformes order
                                     1.18
                                     0.874
                                       1
                    Other birds not in Passeriformes order
                                     1.18
                                     0.874
                                      3.7
                                    Mammals
                                     0.326
                                     0.818
                                       1
                           Reptiles and amphibians*
                                     0.065
                                     0.726
                                       1
*No amphibian-specific values are available, therefore, reptile values are used as a surrogate.

Pesticide concentrations in dew are estimated through the use of a simple equilibrium partitioning model. This model assumes two compartments, water and leaf cuticle, into which the pesticide may associate. Equation 11 is used to estimate the pesticide concentration in dew (Cw(dew)(t)). Partitioning between the two compartments is based on the octanol-water partition coefficient of the chemical (Kow), where octanol is a surrogate for the waxy, external (epicuticular) layer of the leaf cuticle. Cplant is the total concentration of pesticide in broadleaf forage leaves (mg/kg-ww). Fdfr is used to account for the amount of pesticide that is present on the surface of the leaf, and thus may partition between the waxy layer of the leaf cuticle and dew. This approach establishes a distribution of pesticide concentrations in dew that is correlated with random selection of pesticide concentrations on broadleaf forage. The pesticide partitions into the epicuticular layer of the cuticle, which is influenced by the mass of wax (mwax). Available data indicate that the mass of wax in the epicuticular layer varies by species, with ranges of 5-30 ug/cm[2] (Buschhaus and Jetter, 2011). Therefore, a default value of 0.012 kg/m2 is selected for mwax to represent the central tendency of this parameter. The density of water is used to generate an estimate of the pesticide concentration in water. It is assumed that the density of water is 1 kg/L.

In this approach, drinking water is estimated under the assumption that the animal is consuming 100% of its daily diet from an individual food item and 100% of the remaining water need from either puddles or dew. If the diet of a species includes multiple food items (e.g., yellow-billed cuckoo), the model automatically calculates the drinking water rates for each of these food items, for dew and for puddles, independent of each other. This is a kind of "what-if" approach, where the question is: "What is the dose if the animal is consuming 100% of its diet as this single food item with residues representative of the treated field and 100% of its remaining water from either dew or puddles on the treated field?"
 Dermal

Two different types of dermal dose are calculated here: direct spray at the time of application and contact with contaminated foliage. Because most toxicity data for terrestrial vertebrates are based on oral exposure studies, it is necessary to convert dermal doses to oral equivalents so that these exposures can be evaluated by existing toxicity data. This method is described below.

These methods were originally developed for assessing dermal exposures to birds. For amphibians and reptiles, which are expected to be lower to the ground than birds and mammals, contact with contaminated foliage seems less likely. Therefore, dermal exposures for reptiles and amphibians are only estimated considering direct spray of the pesticide.

Dermal exposure estimates rely upon the estimated surface area of the assessed species, which is calculated using an allometric equation that differs by taxon (Equation 12, Table 8).

Equation 12.
Table 8. Parameters used to calculate surface area for vertebrates.
                                     Taxon
                                      a3
                                      b3
                                    Source
                                    Birds
                                      10
                                     0.667
                                  USEPA 1993
                                    Mammals
                                     12.3
                                     0.65
                                  USEPA 1993
                          Amphibians: frogs and toads
                                     1.131
                                     0.579
                                  USEPA 1993
                            Amphibians: salamanders
                                     8.42
                                     0.694
                                  USEPA 1993
                        Reptiles: turtles and tortoises
                                     16.61
                                     0.61
                  For soft-shelled turtle; Stone et al. 1992
                               Reptiles - snakes
                                     25.05
                                     0.63
                               Gans et al. 1968

Dermal dose through direct spray

Dermal exposure from applied pesticide droplets is considered for the day of application (Equation 13, Table 9). The dermal interception model assumes that pesticide deposition occurs in a manner consistent with a horizontal surface in the treatment area. It is assumed that the upper half of the animal in the field is exposed as a result of either ground or aerial spray applications. Therefore, the total surface area of the animal is multiplied by 0.5.  The dermal adsorption fraction (DAF) is used to account for pesticide specific data that define a fraction of the pesticide mass present on the animal that is actually absorbed.  These data may be submitted by the registrant (non-guideline study) or obtained from the literature. When no data are available to parameterize DAF, the default value is 1. In this equation, a factor of 11.2 is used to convert the units of the application rate, which are lb a.i./A, to the metric units needed to generate a concentration value expressed in ug a.i./g-bw. The dermal equivalency factor (Fred) is described below.

Equation 13. Dermal spray dose=Arate*11.2*SAtotal*0.5*DAFBW*Fred

Table 9. Parameters Used to Estimate Pesticide dose through Dermal Exposure.
                                    Symbol
                             Parameter Description
                                     Units
                                     Arate
                          Application rate from label
                                   lb a.i./A
                                      BW
                                  Body weight
                                    g/bird
                                   Cplant(t)
           Concentration of the pesticide in crop foliage at time t
                                     mg/kg
                                      DAF
                          Dermal absorption fraction
                                     none
                                     Fdfr
                 Dislodgeable foliar residue adjustment factor
                                    kg/m[2]
                                     Fred
                        Dermal route equivalency factor
                                     none
                                Rfoliar contact
                         Rate of foliar contact (6.01)
                   cm[2]foliage/cm[2]body surface (per hour)
                                    SAtotal
                          Total surface area of bird
                                     cm[2]

Dermal equivalency factor

The dermal route equivalency factor (Fred) is applied to estimated dermal exposures in order to derive an estimate of the equivalent oral dose (Equation 14).  Chemical-specific dermal LD50 values are rarely available.

For birds, a dermal LD50 can be estimated using Equation 15 (see Appendix H of TIM manual). This equation was derived using relationships between avian dermal and oral toxicity data for 25 chemicals (primarily organophosphate insecticides). Effectively, this equation generates a dermal LD50 that is greater than the oral LD50 (indicating that the dermal route is less toxic). Since avian toxicity data is used as a surrogate for reptiles, this equation will also be applied to reptiles. Since the skin of birds and amphibians is remarkably different (in terms of assumed permeability), this approach will not be applied to amphibians. Instead, it will be assumed that the toxicity of the assessed chemical is equivalent through the dermal and oral routes for terrestrial-phase amphibians (since only avian toxicity data are available, it will be assumed that the oral and dermal toxicity endpoints of a chemical for amphibians are equivalent to the endpoints available for birds). For mammals, dermal toxicity data for rats will be used if available. If not, it will also be assumed that the oral and dermal routes are equivalent.

Equation 14. Fred=LD50(oral)LD50(dermal)

Equation 15. log LD50(dermal)=0.84+0.62*log LD50(oral)

Dermal contact dose

For birds and mammals, dermal contact with foliage is modeled using Equation 16. The dermal exposure doses from contact with dislodgeable pesticide residues on treated foliage (i.e., incidental dermal contact dose) is calculated by considering the concentration of pesticide on treated foliage, fraction of total residues that are dislodgeable, the rate of foliar contact of the bird or mammal, the surface area of the bird or mammal that is contacted by dislodgeable foliar residues, and BW of the animal.  Cplant is the same residue value used for the broadleaf foliage concentration in the assessment of dietary exposure. In this equation, a factor of 0.1 is used to generate Dcontact(t) value with units in ug a.i./g-bw. A default value of 0.62 can be used for the Fdfr (details in TIM manual). The default value for Rfoliar contact is 6.01 cm2 foliage/cm2 body surface (TIM manual). Since this value is on an hourly basis, it is multiplied by 8 in order to generate a dermal dose on a daily time step (assuming that the animal is active for 8 hours a day).The value of 0.079 is used to represent the fraction of the animal that is contacting foliage. This value is based on the fraction of a bird that is represented by its unfeathered feet. It is assumed that this fraction can also be applied to mammals.

Equation 16. Dcontact(t)=Cplant(t)*Fdfr*Rfoliar contact*8*SAtotal*0.079*0.1BW*Fred

 Inhalation

Similar to dermal exposure, two different routes of exposure through inhalation are considered: inhalation of spray droplets at the time of the application and inhalation of volatilized residues under the crop's canopy. Also, these does are converted to an oral-equivalent for comparison to oral-based thresholds and toxicity data. This section describes the methods for estimating pesticide doses through inhalation.

Spray dose

Inhalation exposure from applied pesticide droplets is considered on the day of the application. The pesticide dose inhaled by the animal in airborne droplets from a spray application is estimated using Equation 17 (Table 10). This equation accounts for the pesticide concentration in the volume of air under the release height (Cair(drops)), the volume of air respired by the animal during the time step (Vinhalation) and the fraction of droplets that can be respired (Frespired). These factors considered together result in a mass of pesticide respired by the animal on the day of the application. This number is converted to a dose basis by dividing by the BW of the assessed animal. It is assumed that a suspended droplet will have either settled or cleared from the application area by 60 minutes after application. Therefore, only one hour of inhalation is considered.

Equation 17. Dose from inhaled spray=Cair(drops)*Vinhalation*FrespiredBW*Fre

Table 10. Parameters Used to Estimate Pesticide Dose through Inhalation Exposure.
                                    Symbol
                             Parameter Description
                                     Units
                                     Arate
                          Application rate from label
                                   lb a.i./A
                                     Bvol
The volume-based biotransfer factor; function of Henry's law constant and Log Kow
                      μg/L fresh weight leaf/ μg/L air
                                      BW
                                  Body weight
                                    g/bird
                                  Cair(drops)
Pesticide concentration in a volume of air for the time step immediately following the pesticide application
                                    ug/mL
                                 Cair(t)(vol)
Concentration of the pesticide in air at time t (resulting from volatilization); function of Mpesticide, mplant, and Bvol
                                    ug/mL
                                      CH
                                Height of crop
                                       m
                                       D
                  Fraction of hour where pesticide is applied
                                     none
                                Dinhalation(t)
               Dose through inhalation for a pesticide at time t
                              ug pesticide/g-bw
                                   Dspray(t)
                            Droplet Inhalation Dose
                              ug pesticide/g-bw
                                   Dvapor(t)
Volatilization inhalation dose; function of pesticide concentration in air, volume of inhaled air, and body weight of the bird
                              ug pesticide/g-bw
                                      FAM
The ratio of avian to mammalian pulmonary membrane diffusion rates from USEPA 2004
                                     none
                                      Fre
                      The avian route equivalency factor
                                     none
                                   Frespired
Volumetric fraction of droplet spectrum not exceeding the upper size limit of respired particles for birds
                                     none
                                       H
                            Henry's law constant
                                 atm-m[3]/mol
                                      Kow
                      Octanol-water partition coefficient
                                     none
                                     LD50
           Lethal dose sufficient to kill 50% of exposed individuals
                                 mg/kg= ug/g
                                  Mpesticide
The pesticide concentration on the treated field at time t (accounting for dissipation); function of application rate
                                      mg
                                    mplant
           The mass of plant (crop) per hectare based on user input
                                      kg
                                       R
                     Universal gas constant (8.205 e[-5])
                                atm-m[3]/mol-K
                                      RH
                            Height of spray release
                                       m
                                     Rrate
                   Respiration rate (during a toxicity test)
                                     mL/h
                                       T
                                Air temperature
                                       K
                                     Vair
 The volume of air in 1 ha to a height equal to the height of the crop canopy
                                       L
                                  Vinhalation
                            Volume of air respired
                                      mL
                                    ρplant
         The density of the crop tissue assumed as fresh leaf  (0.77)
                                     kg/L

The pesticide concentration in a volume of air (Cair(drops)) for the day of the pesticide application is calculated according to Equation 18. This equation uses the application rate of the pesticide (Arate), the release height (RH) of the application and the fraction of the time step where the pesticide is being applied (D). For aerial applications, it is assumed that D = 0.025 based on 90 s duration of direct spray inhalation and for ground spray applications, D = 0.0083 based on 30 s duration of direct spray applications. For ground and aerial applications, RH is assumed to be a constant value of 1 m and 3.3 m, respectively. D (hours) is calculated by dividing the duration of the application (in minutes) by 60 minutes to give a fraction in hours, which is the duration of the time step of interest. In this equation, the factor of 0.112 is used to convert the units of the application rate, which are lb a.i./A, to the metric units needed to generate a concentration value expressed in ug a.i./mL of air.

Equation 18. Cair(t)(drops)=D*Arate*0.112RH

The size of the spray droplet spectrum that can be inhaled into the lungs is conservatively assumed to be up to 100 μm in diameter. Therefore, the fraction of applied pesticide spray (Frespired) is assumed to be the fraction of the spray droplet spectrum that is <=100μm. This value varies based on the application scenario of the pesticide being modeled, with variability attributed to nozzle types. Table 11 includes the default values for Frespired that were determined using the Tier III aerial module of AgDRIFT for aerial and ground spray applications (Teske et al., 2001).   For airblast applications, droplet spectra are not available in AgDRIFT. Therefore, for airblast applications, a default value of 0.28 is used for Frespired, which is the most conservative value of the droplet spectra included in Table 11.

Table 11. Frespired Values for Different Droplet Spectra for Ground and Aerial Applications.
Droplet spectra
Frespired
Very fine to fine
0.28
Fine to medium
0.067
Medium to coarse
0.028
Coarse to very coarse
0.02

Inhaled air volume (Vinhalation)

The volume of inhaled air (Vinhalation) in an hour is determined according to Equation 19. This incorporates an allometric equation that estimates a respiration rate. Taxa specific parameters are included in Table 12. Based on the recommendation of USEPA (1993), this equation includes a factor of three that allows for adjustment of the laboratory derived respiration rate to represent a field respiration rate.  Since this equation uses BW values that are in kg, the BW of an animal is divided by 1000 to convert from g to kg. The original equation for respiration rate, as provided in USEPA (1993), generates values in units of mL/minute, which are in turn converted to an hourly time step by multiplying by 60 (min/hour).

Equation 19. Vinhalation=3*60*a4*BW1000b4

Table 12. Parameters used to calculate inhalation rate for vertebrates (from USEPA 1993).
                                     Taxa
                                      a4
                                      b4
                                    Birds
                                      284
                                     0.77
                                    Mammals
                                      379
                                     0.80
                           Reptiles and amphibians*
                                     76.9
                                     0.76
*No value is available for amphibians. Parameters for lizards published by Bennett 1973 are used.

According to USEPA 1993, amphibians and reptiles have irregular breathing patterns over the course of a day. Variability is due to activity level. Gas exchange also occurs through skin. An equation for an iguanid (from Bennett 1973) is used here. According to the authors, this equation generates higher inhalation rates (and thus more conservative exposures through this route) compared to other reptiles (snakes and turtles).

Relating External Inhalation Dose to Oral Dose Equivalents

In cases where inhalation toxicity data are available for the same species for a specific chemical, they may be used to derive the oral dose equivalence factor (Fre) for a taxon using Equation 20. Typically, these data will be available for rats, therefore, this approach can be used for mammals.

Equation 20.

Generally, mammalian or avian inhalation toxicity endpoints are expressed as concentration and specific duration based on the exposure period of the test (e.g., 4-hour LC50 in mg a.i./L). The user must convert the LC50 to a dose-based endpoint (i.e., LD50 in mg a.i./kg-bw) using Equation 21. It should be noted that the BW and respiration rate used in this equation should be derived based on the test species (BWtest and Rrate(test)). The variable h represents the duration of the exposure period (in hours) and is used to derive the total volume of contaminated air inhaled by the bird during the study. This approach assumes that the animals that died during the study did so after the 4-hour exposure period.

Equation 21. LD50(inhalation)=LC50*Rrate(test)*hBWtest

When taxon-specific inhalation toxicity data are not available for birds, the relationship between rat acute oral and acute inhalation LD50 values can be used to establish a route equivalency factor. This factor is applied to avian inhalation dose estimates to calculate an oral dose equivalent exposure for subsequent comparison with oral dose acute toxicity endpoints. Based on pulmonary membrane diffusion rate estimates for birds and mammals, the relative diffusion rates across the pulmonary membrane (FAM) is between 2.4 and 3.4 times greater in birds than in mammals of similar BWs (weight range 1 to 2,000 g; Table 13). These differences in diffusion rate can be used to modify the relationship of oral to inhalation toxicity endpoints in mammals to produce a route equivalency factor Fre that would at least account for the expected higher diffusion rates across avian pulmonary membranes (Equation 22). Using the oral equivalent dose to describe inhalation exposure allows the available oral toxicity studies to describe potential risks resulting from estimated inhalation exposures. To simplify this approach, the maximum available FAM value (3.4), which generates the most conservative dose, is used for all avian species, regardless of their body weights.

Equation 22.

Table 13. Respiratory physiology adjustment factors based on BW of assessed species.
Approximate BW (g)
                                      FAM
10
                                      2.6
20
                                      2.7
30-50
                                      2.8
60-110
                                      2.9
120-220
                                      3.0
250-500
                                      3.1
550-900
                                      3.2
1000
                                      3.3
2000
                                      3.4

For reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians, the difference in toxicity when comparing the inhalation and oral routes has not been established. Given this lack of knowledge relating reptiles and amphibians to mammals, it will be assumed that the oral and inhalation routes of exposure are equivalent for reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians. Therefore, a value of 1 will be used for FRE for reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians.

Vapor inhalation dose

The on-field dose of volatilized pesticide inhaled by an animal is estimated using Equation 23. This equation accounts for the pesticide concentration in air as a result of volatilization from plant leaves (Cair(t)(vol)) and the volume of air respired (Vinhalation), multiplied by 24 to estimate the dose over a 24 hour period. These factors considered together result in a mass of pesticide (mg) respired by the animal over the course of a day. This number is converted to a dose basis by dividing by the BW of the assessed species.

Equation 23. Dvapor(t)=Cair(t)(vol)*Vinhalation*24BW*Fre

Air concentrations in treated agricultural fields are calculated using a two-compartment model (Equation 24).  These compartments include the crop foliage and the air that is between the crop canopy and the soil of the treated field. In this equation, t is time in hours and r is the foliar dissipation rate constant of the chemical of interest. The mass of the plant (mplant) per hectare is assumed to be 25,000 kg. The total pesticide mass applied to a 1-ha treated field (Mpesticide; Equation 25) combined with dissipation between the time of application and time t are used to estimate the total mass of pesticide available for partitioning between crop leaf and canopy air. The density of the crop tissue (ρplant) assumed to be fresh leaf is 0.77 kg/L, based on the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) Farm Food chain Model (USEPA 1999). The air compartment volume (Vair) is represented by a 1-ha area, with a height set at the top of the canopy at time of application (Equation 26). The available pesticide residue is then partitioned between the two compartments (air and leaf mass) through the application of the volume-based biotransfer factor (Bvol) developed for the HWIR model (Equation 27). It is assumed that the air temperature (T) is a constant value of 298.1 K (equivalent to 25[o]C, 77[o]F). A temperature of 25[o]C was chosen because Henry's law constant and octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) values for pesticides are frequently available at this temperature; however, the relevance to the actual environment at the time of pesticide application is an uncertainty. The total available residues establish an upper limit of available pesticide concentration in the air as a result of volatilization from (treated) leaf surfaces.

Equation 24. Cair(t)(vol)=MpesticideVair+mplant*B volρplant*e-rt

Equation 25. Mpesticide=Arate*1.12*106

Equation 26.  Vair=CH* 107
Equation 27.
Dissipation

After the initial application, the simulated chemical is dissipated from the media of interest. The concentration of a pesticide on that media represents the sum of residues based on the following application and remaining residues from previous applications. The foliar dissipation half-life is used to model dissipation from grass, leaves, seeds, fruit and arthropods. This also impacts pesticide concentrations in vertebrate prey and dermal contact doses.  For the earthworm model and puddles, dissipation is based on the aerobic soil metabolism half-life.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 136 (Monday, July 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32848-32849]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1839-001.
    Applicants: ExxonMobil Baton Rouge Complex.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance to 8202015 to be
effective 6/26/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20180710-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1981-000.
    Applicants: Pratt Wind, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Pratt Wind, LLC Application
for Market-Based Rates to be effective 9/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180709-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1982-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-07-09_MISO 2nd Quarter
Tariff Clean-Up Filing to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180709-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1983-000.
    Applicants: Silver Run Electric, LLC, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Silver Run and NTD submit
revisions to OATT to reflect Notice of Succession to be effective 6/27/
2018.
    Filed Date: 7/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180709-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1984-000.
    Applicants: Big Level Wind LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authorization to be effective 9/8/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180709-5127.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1986-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Standard Large Generator
Interconnection Ageement (SA No. 129) of Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180709-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES18-46-000.
    Applicants: Silver Run Electric, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 204 of the
Federal Power Act to Issue Securities of Silver Run Electric, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180709-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by

clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 10, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15117 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P