[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26699-26700]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12340]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0232]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Interstate Shellfish Dealer's Certificate

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on the information collection provisions of
the Interstate Shellfish Dealer's Certificate.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by August 7, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before August 7, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
midnight Eastern Time at the end of August 7, 2018. Comments received
by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be
considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service
acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2009-N-0232 for ``Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Interstate Shellfish Dealer's
Certificate.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see
ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For

more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see
80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Interstate Shellfish Dealer's Certificate

OMB Control Number 0910-0021--Extension

    Under Section 243 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 243),
FDA is required to cooperate with and aid State and local authorities
in the enforcement of their health regulations and are authorized to
assist States in the prevention and suppression of communicable
diseases. Under this authority, FDA participates with State regulatory
agencies, some foreign nations, and the molluscan shellfish industry in
the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP).
    NSSP is a voluntary, cooperative program to promote the safety of
molluscan shellfish by providing for the classification and patrol of
shellfish growing waters and for the inspection and certification of
shellfish processors. Each participating State and foreign nation
monitors its molluscan shellfish processors and issues certificates for
those that meet the State or foreign shellfish control authority's
criteria. Each participating State and nation provides a certificate of
its certified shellfish processors to FDA on Form FDA 3038,
``Interstate Shellfish Dealer's Certificate.'' FDA uses this
information to publish the ``Interstate Certified Shellfish Shippers
List,'' a monthly comprehensive listing of all molluscan shellfish
processors certified under the cooperative program. If FDA did not
collect the information necessary to compile this list, participating
States would not be able to identify and keep out shellfish processed
by uncertified processors in other States and foreign nations.
Consequently, NSSP would not be able to control the distribution of
uncertified and possibly unsafe shellfish in interstate commerce, and
its effectiveness would be nullified.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Number of
             Activity                FDA Form No.      Number of     responses per   Total annual        Average burden per response        Total hours
                                                      respondents     respondent       responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of Interstate Shellfish            3038              40              57           2,280  0.10 (6 minutes)....................             228
 Dealer's Certificate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Based on a review of the information collection since our last
request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden
estimate. We estimate that 40 respondents will submit 2,280 Interstate
Shellfish Dealer's Certificates annually, for a total burden of 228
hours (2,280 submissions x 0.10 hours = 228 hours). This estimate is
based on our experience with this information collection and the number
of certificates received in the past 3 years, which has remained
constant.

    Dated: June 4, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-12340 Filed 6-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73618-73619]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30692]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP11-161-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Northeast Upgrade Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the
Northeast Upgrade Project (Project) proposed by Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company (TGP) in the above-referenced docket. TGP requests
authorization to construct and operate certain pipeline and compressor
facilities in Pennsylvania and New Jersey in order to expand the
natural gas delivery capacity to the northeast region of the United
States by up to 636,000 dekatherms per year.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC
staff concludes that approval of the proposed Project, with appropriate
mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EA.
Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with
respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and
participate in the NEPA analysis.
    The proposed Project includes the following facilities:
     Installation of approximately 40.3 miles of new 30-inch-
diameter pipeline loop \1\ in five separate segments in Bradford,
Wayne, and Pike Counties, Pennsylvania; and Sussex, Passaic, and Bergen
Counties, New Jersey;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A loop is a segment of pipe that is usually installed
adjacent to an existing pipeline and connected to it at both ends.
The loop allows more gas to be moved through the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Modifications of four existing compressor stations in
Bradford, Susquehanna, and Pike Counties, Pennsylvania; and Sussex
County, New Jersey;
     Abandonment of an existing meter station and construction
of a new meter station in Bergen County, New Jersey;
     Installation of associated appurtenant aboveground
facilities including mainline valves and pig \2\ launchers and
receivers; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A pig is an internal tool that can be used to clean and dry
a pipeline and/or to inspect it for damage or corrosion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Use of contractor/pipe yards and access roads.
    The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is
available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of the
EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street
NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Copies of the EA have been mailed to Federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes;
potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and
groups; libraries in the Project area; and parties to this proceeding.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To
ensure that your comments are properly recorded and considered prior to
a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that the FERC
receives your comments in Washington, DC on or before December 21,
2011.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
Project docket number (CP11-161-000) with your submission. 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 eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to

Documents and Filings. An eComment is an easy method for interested
persons to submit brief, 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 Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you
can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a
file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an
account by clicking on ``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''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Although your comments will be considered by the Commission, simply
filing comments will not serve to make the commenter a party to the
proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must
file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\3\ Only intervenors
have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your comments considered.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (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 (i.e., CP11-
161). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, 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 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.

    Dated: November 21, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-30692 Filed 11-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 64)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16281-16283]
[DOCID:fr04ap07-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0731; FRL-8120-4]

Diphenylamine; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of
diphenylamine in or on pear. Interregional Research Project Number 4
(IR-4) requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective April 4, 2007. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 4, 2007, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0731. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced

Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov,or, if

only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm.
S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington,
VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaja R. Brothers, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural
workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
     Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers
and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g.,
agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this ``Federal
Register'' document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, you may access this Federal Register document

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a

frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at
40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR
site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, any person may file an objection
to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on
this regulation in

accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0731 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All
requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the
Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or before June 4, 2007.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0731, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance and Proposed Rule

    The Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) submitted a
petition (PP 0E6107) for a tolerance for the pesticide
diphenylamine under section 408 of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a.
Specifically, the petition requested that 40 CFR 180.190 be amended by
establishing a tolerance for residues of the plant growth regulator
diphenylamine, in or on pear (post harvest) at 5.0 parts per million
(ppm). However, neither IR-4 nor Atomchem North American Incorporated,
the registrant, submitted all required elements of a petition in
support of establishing a tolerance. Because the petition was
incomplete, EPA did not publish a Notice of Filing for the petition.
Instead, in the Federal Register of December 6, 2006 (71 FR 70703)
(FRL-8104-1), EPA issued a proposed rule pursuant to section 408(e) of
FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e). The proposed rule included EPA's explanation
of why the proposed diphenylamine tolerance regulation met the safety
standard.
     The Northwest Horticulture Council submitted two comments in favor
of the establishment of diphenylamine on pear.
    There was also a comment submitted by a private citizen who opposed
the authorization to sell to any pesticide that leaves a residue on
food. The Agency has previously responded to this commenter's claims
regarding the validity of use animal testing to determine a pesticide's
potential toxicity. Refer to Federal Register of (70 FR 1349, January
7, 2005). This commenter also claimed the Agency was ``negligent'' for
only conducting 90-day testing on rats. The commenter is mistaken,
however, because EPA examined other rat studies involving lifetime
exposure and multiple generations of rats. (71 FR 70703) (FRL-7691-4),
December 6, 2006).
    The final comment opposed the proposed regulation simply on the
grounds that there are ``too many bugs'' and too many pesticide
regulations. This comment supplied no rationale or supporting
information and thus no response is warranted.

III. Action on Tolerance Petition and Proposed Regulation

    Based on the rationale and findings set forth in the proposed rule,
a tolerance is established for the residues of diphenylamine in or on
pear at 5.0 ppm.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed action will not
have significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Establishing a pesticide tolerance or an exemption from
the requirement of a pesticide tolerance is, in effect, the removal of
a regulatory restriction on pesticide residues in food and thus such an
action will not have any negative economic impact on any entities,
including small entities.
    This rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action
alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities
established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section
408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action
will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal
governments, on the relationship between the national government and
the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined
that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6,
2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This rule does not impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law
104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

V. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S.

Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the
Federal Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 21, 2007.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.190 is amended by alphabetically adding the following
commodity to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.190  Diphenylamine; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Pear (post harvest)                                                  5.0
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-5804 Filed 4-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13585-13586]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5533]

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

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Project No. 14364-000]

Three Sisters Irrigation District; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, Protests,
Recommendations, and Terms and Conditions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Conduit Exemption.
    b. Project No.: 14364-000.
    c. Date filed: February 8, 2012.
    d. Applicant: Three Sisters Irrigation District.
    e. Name of Project: Three Sisters Irrigation District Hydroelectric
Project.
    f. Location: The proposed Three Sisters Irrigation District
Hydroelectric Project would be located on the north pipe of the Three
Sisters Irrigation District's Main Canal Pipeline in Deschutes County,
Oregon. The land on which all the project structures is owned by the
applicant.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Marc Thalacker, P.O. Box 2230, Sisters,
OR 97759, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Kelly Houff,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Status of Environmental Analysis: This application is ready for
environmental analysis at this time, and the Commission is requesting
comments, reply comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and
prescriptions.
    k. Deadline for filing responsive documents: Due to the small size
of the proposed project, as well as the resource agency consultation
letters filed with the application, the 60-day timeframe specified in
18 CFR 4.34(b) for filing all comments, motions to intervene, protests,
recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions is shortened
to 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. All reply comments
filed in response to comments submitted by any resource agency, Indian
tribe, or person, must be filed with the Commission within 45 days from
the issuance date of this notice.
    Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. The Commission strongly
encourages electronic filings.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, it must also serve a
copy of the document on that resource agency.
    l. Description of Project: The Three Sisters Irrigation District
Hydroelectric Project would consist of: (1) An intake pipe
approximately 40 feet in length; (2) a powerhouse containing one
proposed generating unit with an installed capacity of 700 kilowatts;
(3) a discharge pipe approximately 50 feet in length; and (4)
appurtenant facilities. The applicant estimates the project would have
an average annual generation of 3,400 megawatt-hours.
    m. This filing is available for review and reproduction at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, P-14364, in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for review and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    n. Development Application--Any qualified applicant desiring to
file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular application, a
competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such
an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an
interested person to file the competing development application no
later than 120 days after the specified deadline date for the
particular application. Applications for preliminary permits will not
be accepted in response to this notice.
    o. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit a competing development application. A notice of intent must be
served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
    p. Protests or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit a protest or
a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In
determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will
consider all protests filed, but only those who file a motion to
intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party
to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be
received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular
application.
    q. All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE
COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMMENTS'',
``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or
``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth
their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of
18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly
from the applicant. Any of these documents must be filed by providing
the original and seven copies to: The Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. An
additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower
Administration and Compliance, Office of Energy Projects, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above address. A copy of any
protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative
of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all
other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by
proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by
the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b)
and 385.2010.

    Dated: March 1, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-5533 Filed 3-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4597-4601]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1626]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-1014-201065; FRL-9257-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Kentucky; Disapproval of Interstate Transport Submission for the 2006
24-Hour PM[ihel2].[ihel5] Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On September 8, 2009, Kentucky's Energy and Environment
Cabinet, through the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ), provided
a letter to EPA with certification that Kentucky's State implementation
plan (SIP) meets the interstate transport requirements with regard to
the 2006 24-hour particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS). Specifically, the interstate transport
requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) prohibit a State's
emissions from significantly contributing to nonattainment or
interfering with the maintenance of the NAAQS in any other State. In
this action, EPA is proposing to disapprove the portion of Kentucky's
September 8, 2009, submission which was intended to meet the
requirement to address interstate transport for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 25, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2010-1014 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2010-1014, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-1014.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Kentucky
SIP, contact Mr. Zuri Farngalo, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Farngalo's telephone number is (404)
562-9152; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information
regarding the PM2.5 interstate transport requirements under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), contact Mr. Steven Scofield, Regulatory
Development Section, at the same address above. Mr. Scofield's
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section provides additional information
by addressing the following questions:

I. What action is EPA proposing in today's notice?
II. What is the background for this proposed action?
III. What is EPA's analysis of Kentucky's submission for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing in today's notice?

    On September 8, 2009, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through KDAQ
provided a letter to EPA with certification that the Kentucky SIP meets
the interstate transport requirements with regard to the 2006 24-hour
fine PM2.5 NAAQS.\1\ Specifically, Kentucky certified that
its current SIP adequately addresses the elements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that implementation plans for each
State contain adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions
from sources within a State from significantly contributing to
nonattainment in or inference with maintenance of the NAAQS (in this
case the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS) in any other State. In
today's action, EPA is proposing to disapprove the portion of
Kentucky's September 8, 2009, submission related to interstate
transport for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because EPA has
made the preliminary determination that this submission does not meet
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for this
NAAQS. EPA's rationale for this proposed disapproval is provided in the
Section III of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Kentucky's September 8, 2009, certification letter also
explained that Kentucky's current SIP sufficiently addresses other
requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, however, today's proposed action only
relates to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA will address the other section
110(a)(2) requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
in relation to Kentucky's SIP in rulemaking separate from today's
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is the background for this proposed action?

    On December 18, 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour average
PM2.5 primary and secondary NAAQS from 65 micrograms per
cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) to 35 [micro]g/m\3\. Section 110(a)(1) of
the CAA requires States to submit ``infrastructure'' SIPs to address a
new or revised NAAQS within 3 years after promulgation of such
standards, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. As
provided by section 110(k)(2), within 12 months of a determination that
a submitted SIP is complete under 110(k)(1), the Administrator shall
act on the plan. As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) of the Act, where
portions of the State submittals are severable, within that 12 month
period EPA may decide to approve only those severable portions of the
submittals that meet the requirements of the Act. When the deficient
provisions are not severable from the other submitted provisions, EPA
must propose disapproval of the submittals, consistent with sections
110(k)(3) of the Act.
    Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that such new infrastructure
SIPs must address, as applicable, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
which pertains to interstate transport of certain emissions. States
were required to provide submissions to address the applicable
110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements, including section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), by September 21, 2009.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The rule for the revised PM2.5 NAAQS was signed
by the Administrator and publically disseminated on September 21,
2006. Because EPA did not prescribe a shorter period for 110(a) SIP
submittals, these submittals for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS were due on
September 21, 2009, three years from the September 21, 2006,
signature date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 25, 2009, EPA issued a guidance entitled ``Guidance on
SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-
Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)'' (2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance). EPA developed the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance to make additional recommendations to States for making
submissions to meet the requirements of section 110, including
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the revised 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    As identified in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance, the ``good neighbor'' provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
require each State to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that
adversely affect another State in the ways contemplated in the statute.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four distinct requirements related to
the impacts of interstate transport. Specifically, the SIP must prevent
sources in the State from emitting pollutants in amounts which will:
(1) Contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other
States; (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other States;
(3) interfere with provisions to prevent significant deterioration of
air quality in other States; or (4) interfere with efforts to protect
visibility in other States.
    In the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance, EPA
explained that submissions from States pertaining to the ``significant
contribution'' and ``interfere with maintenance'' requirements in
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) must contain adequate provisions to prohibit
air pollutant emissions from within the State that contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS in any other State. EPA described a number of considerations for
States for providing an adequate demonstration to address interstate
transport requirements in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance. First, EPA noted that the State's submission
should explain whether or not emissions from the State contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS in any other State and, if so, address the impact. EPA stated
that the State's conclusion should be supported by an adequate
technical analysis. Second, EPA recommended the various types of
information that could be relevant to support the State's submission,
such as information concerning emissions in the State, meteorological
conditions in the State and the potentially impacted States, monitored
ambient concentrations in the State, and air quality modeling. Third,
EPA explained that States should address the ``interfere with
maintenance'' requirement independently which requires an evaluation of
impacts on areas of other States that are meeting the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, not merely areas designated nonattainment.
Lastly, EPA explained that States could not rely on the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) to comply with CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because CAIR
does not address this NAAQS. Recognizing that the demonstration
required may be challenging task for the affected States, EPA also
noted in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance the
Agency's intention to complete a rule to address interstate pollution
transport in the eastern half of the continental United States.
    EPA promulgated CAIR on May 12, 2005 (see 70 FR 25162). CAIR
required States to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides that significantly contribute to, and interfere with maintenance
of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and/or ozone in any downwind State.
CAIR was intended to provide States covered by the rule with a
mechanism to satisfy their CAA section

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations to address significant contribution to
downwind nonattainment and interference with maintenance in another
State with respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. Many
States adopted the CAIR provisions and submitted SIPs to EPA to
demonstrate compliance with the CAIR requirements in satisfaction of
their 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations for those two pollutants.
    EPA was sued by a number of parties on various aspects of CAIR, and
on July 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit or Court) issued its decision to vacate
and remand both CAIR and the associated CAIR Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) in their entirety. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC
Circuit, July 11, 2008). However, in response to EPA's petition for
rehearing, the Court issued an order remanding CAIR to EPA without
vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d
1176 (DC Circuit, December 23, 2008). The Court thereby left CAIR in
place in order to ``temporarily preserve the environmental values
covered by CAIR'' until EPA replaces it with a rule consistent with the
Court's opinion. Id. at 1178. The Court directed EPA to ``remedy CAIR's
flaws'' consistent with its July 11, 2008, opinion, but declined to
impose a schedule on EPA for completing that action. Id.
    In order to address the judicial remand of CAIR, EPA has proposed a
new rule to address interstate transport pursuant to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), the ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone'' (Transport
Rule).\3\ As part of the proposed Transport Rule, EPA specifically
examined the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements that emissions from
sources in a State must not ``significantly contribute to
nonattainment'' and ``interfere with maintenance'' of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by other States. The modeling performed for the
proposed Transport Rule shows that Kentucky significantly contributes
to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Proposed Rule,'' 75
FR 45210 (August 2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is EPA's analysis of Kentucky's submission for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS?

    On September 8, 2009, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through KDAQ,
provided a letter to EPA with certification that Kentucky's SIP meets
the interstate transport requirements with regard to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. In its submission, Kentucky explains that
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is met through Kentucky's CAIR provisions.
    However, CAIR was promulgated before the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS were revised in 2006, and as mentioned above CAIR does not
address interstate transport with respect to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.\4\ EPA's 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance
explicitly notes that reliance on CAIR cannot be used to comply with
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the respective 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. Because Kentucky's submittal relies on CAIR to address the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS while CAIR does not address that NAAQS, this
submission is deficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Further, as explained above and in the Transport Rule
proposal 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 2010), the DC Circuit in North
Carolina v. EPA found that EPA's quantification of States'
significant contribution and interference with maintenance in CAIR
was improper and remanded the rule to EPA. CAIR remains in effect
only temporarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also notes that several States in their submission claim that
controls planned for or already installed on sources within the State
to meet the CAIR provisions satisfied section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. However, States will not be
able to permanently rely upon the emissions reductions predicted by
CAIR, because CAIR was remanded to EPA and will not remain in force
permanently. EPA is in the process of developing a new Transport Rule
to address the concerns of the Court as outlined in its decision
remanding CAIR. For this reason, EPA cannot approve Kentucky's SIP
submission pertaining to the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
because it relies on CAIR for emission reduction measures. Based upon
our evaluation, EPA is proposing to disapprove Kentucky's certification
that its SIP meets the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The submitted provisions are
severable from each other. Therefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove
those provisions which relate to the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) demonstration
and to take no action on the remainder of the demonstration at this
time.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to disapprove the portion of the Commonwealth of
Kentucky's September 8, 2009, submission, relating to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), because EPA has made the preliminary determination
that the Kentucky SIP does not satisfy these requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Although EPA is proposing to disapprove the
portion of the Commonwealth of Kentucky's September 8, 2009,
submission, relating to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA does
acknowledge the Commonwealth's efforts to address this requirement in
its September 8, 2009, submission. Unfortunately, EPA does not believe
that States can sufficiently address the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirement for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by relying on CAIR .
The purpose of the Federal Transport Rule that EPA is developing and
has proposed is to support States efforts to address the section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA
is not proposing to take any action on the remaining elements of the
submission, including the section 110 infrastructure, and section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) portion regarding interference with measures
required in the applicable SIP for another State designed to prevention
of significant deterioration of air quality and protect visibility but
instead will act on those provisions in a separate rulemaking.
    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan (42 U.S.C.A. Sec. Sec.
7501-7515) or is required in response to a finding of substantial
inadequacy as described in Sec.  7410(k)(5) (SIP call) starts a
sanctions clock. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) provisions (the provisions
being proposed for disapproval in today's notice) were not submitted to
meet requirements for Part D, and therefore, if EPA takes final action
to disapprove this submittal, no sanctions will be triggered. However,
if this disapproval action is finalized, that final action will trigger
the requirement under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a FIP no later
than 2 years from the date of the disapproval unless the State corrects
the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or plan
revision before the Administrator promulgates such FIP. The proposed
Federal Transport Rule, when final, is the FIP that EPA intends to
implement to satisfy the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement for Kentucky
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to act on State law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law.

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
because this proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter
I, part D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new
information collection burdens but simply disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of
assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity
is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business
Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This
proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of
the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but
simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the
SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for
small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that
the CAA prescribes that various consequences (e.g., higher offset
requirements) may or will flow from this disapproval does not mean that
EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for
this action. Therefore, this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA
continues to be interested in the potential impacts of this proposed
rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such
impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or Tribal governments or the private
sector. EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval action does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or Tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to
disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,
local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from
this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects 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.''
    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely disapproves
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
EPA is proposing to disapprove would not apply in Indian country
located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an
economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety
risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
This proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part
D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but
simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the
SIP.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA, Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in
its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards. EPA believes that this action
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because
application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's
role is to approve or disapprove State choices, based on the criteria
of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to disapprove
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP under section 110
and subchapter I, part D of the CAA and will not in-and-of itself
create any new requirements. Accordingly, it does not provide EPA with
the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate,
disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order
12898.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: January 14, 2011.
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2011-1626 Filed 1-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


II. D. 4  Page 1 of 14 II. D Appendices: Drinking Water Exposure 4 N methyl Carbamate Usage Estimates The Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( BEAD) of the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs compiled information on key aspects of the typical usage and timing of application of selected carbamate insecticides, as part of EPA's ongoing cumulative risk assessment of these pesticides. The Environmental Fate and Effect Division ( EFED) requested this information in order to more realistically model drinking water risks posed by the carbamates.

The drinking water model requires the following information for each unique crop treated with one or more carbamates in the geographic area being modeled: acres planted; and for each carbamate used on the crop, total pounds, percent of crop treated, application rate, number of applications, and application timing. The carbamate pesticides included in this analysis are aldicarb, carbaryl, carbofuran, formetanate, methiocarb, methomyl, oxamyl, pirimicarb, propoxur, and thiodicarb.

Much of this information is not easily available, or does not exist at the geographic scale ( i. e., the county level) required by the drinking water model. BEAD used the best available information, and substantial effort to compile and develop these data. The general method followed is described below.

Methods In general, data were collected and developed sequentially in three steps. First, geographic areas of interest were identified. Next, target crops were identified and carbamate usage was estimated in each area. Finally, the timing of carbamate applications was determined. Each of these steps are described in detail below.

Identification of Geographic Areas of Interest Chemical use information, developed from agricultural surveys, is uneven in its geographical distribution. Often counties within a given state do not appear in surveys because of the relatively small number of samples used in the surveys. Therefore to overcome this problem, data from geographic areas larger than these counties were used in this analysis to extrapolate usage from areas with data to the areas of interest that lack carbamate use data.

Thirteen subregions ( comprised of 28 counties) were identified by EFED as geographic areas where this class of pesticides appeared to pose significant risks to drinking water. Next, additional geographic areas were identified in preparation to estimate carbamate usage. Counties adjacent to the 13 subregions were identified to form II. D. 4  Page 2 of 14 a " county cluster" and corresponding Crop Reporting Districts ( CRD) were identified. The final result was a series of geographic areas of increasing size ( Number) as follows: County ( 28), Subregion ( 13), County Cluster ( 13), Crop Reporting District ( 13), State ( 12), Region ( 8). The Subregion is the geographical unit that will be used by EFED in its analysis.

Determination of Crops and Carbamate Usage The determination of the crop/ carbamate combination, and the associated usage information, in each subregion was a multi step process. After compiling the available information, adjustments were made for uneven survey coverage, multiple data sources, multiple years of data, and chemical toxicity. These adjustments are described in detail below.

1. Compile Available Usage Data   For each of the geographic areas identified above available information compiled for the following parameters: acres planted; and for each carbamate used on the crop, total pounds, percent of crop treated, application rate, and number of applications.

2. Adjust Usage for Limited Survey Coverage   Carbamate usage at the county cluster, CRD and state levels ( for those crops reporting usage in the counties of interest) were adjusted by multiplying by the proportion of these crops that was grown in the counties within the regions of concern.

For example, if 10,000 acres were grown in the counties of interest and 50,000 acres in the CRD then the usage reported for the CRD would be divided by 5 before being averaged with the acreage estimates from the other three levels. This ensured that figures were adjusted to more accurately reflect what was being used within these regions. Acres treated data were obtained from Doane's databases for all states involved, and also weighted by multiplying the proportion of crops grown within the specific regions of concern.

Table II. D. 4.1. Example of estimated carbamate usage adjusted for limited survey area. Parameter Acres grown Pounds used Acreage ratio Adjusted pounds Subregion 10,000 5,000 1.00 5,000 County cluster 20,000 15,000 0.50 7,500 CRD 30,000 30,000 0.333 10,000 State 100,000 100,000 0.10 10,000 Estimated Usage for Subregion 8,125 3. Adjust Usage for Multiple Data Sources   USDA NASS data for statelevel usage was also compiled for pounds of each carbamate used as well as application rates ( in lbs applied/ acre). Following this, the Doane's and NASS data on pounds of carbamate used were averaged for the state level II. D. 4  Page 3 of 14 estimates of usage. After usage estimates were obtained from Doane, NASS data where available, was used to adjust the estimates, using equal weights for the Doane and NASS state usage estimates.

For example, if the procedure above estimated use in the counties of interest of 10,000 pounds, then  based on Doane's reported state level use of 100,000 pounds and NASS's reported state level use of 120,000 pounds  the estimated use in the counties of interest would be adjusted to 11,000 pounds.

4. Average Usage Data Over Multiple Years   Carbamate usage ( in lbs of each carbamate applied) was averaged for the years 1998  2002 for the following geographic areas: State, Crop Reporting District, County Cluster, and Subregion.

5. Determine Crop / Carbamate Combinations of Interest   The resulting carbamate usage ( in lbs of each carbamate applied) was multiplied by the Relative Potency Factor to adjust for the differing toxicities of each carbamate. The final crop/ carbamate list that resulted from the above analysis was then ranked according to the " toxicity adjusted" pounds of carbamates used.

Those combinations comprising 95 % of the cumulative carbamate usage were selected for the tables included in this document. The complete list of all crops/ chemicals identified by the usage analysis, along with all usage figures, is available in the Excel spreadsheet in Appendix 1.

6. Final Adjustments   Data from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation ( CDPR) indicated that in California, tangerines and nectarines were also crop sites where some carbamates were applied. Therefore, BEAD added these sites to the final crop/ carbamate list. Finally, crops with no identified carbamate use in the California data base were dropped from the analysis. II. D. 4  Page 4 of 14 Determination of Timing of Carbamate Applications Once the crop / chemical combinations were identified in a given subregion, the period of the crop cycle when each carbamate is typically applied, and the dates of application were identified. Where the information was available, dates of application were further characterized as being those when carbamate applications were likely to be most frequent ( or " active") and those for the total time period when the carbamate could reasonably be used ( essentially, the time period when the target pests were present in the crop). It should be noted that typically, all the carbamates discussed here target multiple pests or ones that can occur multiple times during a given crop's growing season, so applications often occur over a broad time period. Where possible, the number of applications that might occur and the type of formulation that is likely to be used has been noted in the " Comments" column. It should also be noted that the number of carbamate applications for all crop/ chemical combinations was also estimated using available databases. These estimates are also included in the tables that follow. For the crop/ chemical combinations of interest, BEAD analysts used a variety of methods to determine most likely application dates for each chemical on each crop in each location. Biologists frequently combined information from several sources and used their best professional judgement to estimate dates of application.

For the California carbamate/ crop use patterns, actual application dates from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation Pesticide Information Portal ( CalPIP) for the counties of interest were used. In other states, biologists relied on a wide variety of references, including those listed in the table below:

Table II. D. 4.2. Data Sources Used to Determine Carbamate Dates of Application. Data Source Use Usage Data Used to determine major pests and approximate time of application ( e. g., preplant, at plant, at cultivation, pinhead to squaring). Doane data and various state surveys were frequently used. Efficacy Data Dates of application from efficacy studies used as surrogates for actual application dates. Efficacy studies were frequently obtained from Arthropod Management Tests USDA Planting, Bloom, and Harvest Dates Used to define limits of application dates. Often used in conjunction with crop phenology information to approximate dates of application and to extrapolate the dates of application from one state to another. Crop Profiles Used to identify major pests and approximate timing of applications. Crop Timelines Used to approximate timing of applications. Crop Weather Reports Used to estimate dates of phenological events ( e. g., planting, squaring) for localized areas. Pest Biology Information Dates of pest emergence used to estimate timing of applications. II. D. 4  Page 5 of 14 Carbamate Usage from 1998 2002 Doanes & NASS usage data ( 10/ 20/ 04, BEAD)

Crop Active Ingredient lb A. I. RPF adj lb ai Planted acres % crop treated App Rate No. apps % rpfadj lb % nonadj lb Most active app dates Ttl Range 1a: Southest Region: NC East  Edgecombe, Halifax and Northampton Counties Cotton Aldicarb 40,000 40,000 110,000 42.7 0.73 1.00 56.9% 54.6% May1 15 Apr21 Jun8 Peanuts Aldicarb 30,000 30,000 40,000 62.1 1.08 1.00 42.6% 40.9% Apr10 Apr20 Apr10 May10 Peanuts Oxamyl 800 177 40,000 1.6 1.25 1.00 0.3% 1.1%

Tobacco Aldicarb 100 100 8,600 0.6 1.64 1.03 0.1% 0.1%

Peanuts Methomyl 500 33 40,000 3.0 0.38 1.00 0.0% 0.7% May30 Sep15 May30 Oct15 Tobacco Carbofuran 100 24 8,600 0.1 4.00 2.00 0.0% 0.1%

Beans, Snap Methomyl 100 7 1,100 39.7 0.23 1.37 0.0% 0.1% Apr15 Jun30 Mar30 Jun30 Tobacco Methomyl 100 7 8,600 2.4 0.35 1.32 0.0% 0.1% Apr30 Aug15 Apr15 Sep30 Cucumber Carbaryl 700 6 3,600 6.7 1.00 2.89 0.0% 1.0% Apr25 Jun1;

May30 Jul15 Apr25 Jun1;

May30 Jul15 Cotton Carbaryl 300 2 110,000 0.4 0.75 1.00 0.0% 0.4%

Beans, Snap Carbaryl 200 2 1,100 19.2 1.00 0.84 0.0% 0.3%

Peanuts Carbaryl 200 2 40,000 0.7 0.57 1.00 0.0% 0.3%

Cotton Thiodicarb 100 1 110,000 0.2 0.60 1.00 0.0% 0.1%

Tobacco Carbaryl 100 1 8,600 0.5 1.09 2.49 0.0% 0.1%

1b: Southest Region: Georgia East  Burke County Cotton Aldicarb 4,500 4,500 40,000 21.9 0.59 1.00 69.2% 65.2% May1 15 Apr21 Jun8 Peanuts Aldicarb 2,000 2,000 5,800 33.5 0.99 1.03 30.8% 29.0% Apr10 Apr20 Apr10 May10 Pecans Carbaryl 400 3 1,500 7.7 1.84 1.80 0.0% 5.8% Aug1 Sep20 Aug1 Sep20 2a: Florida Region: South Florida  Palm Beach County Oranges Aldicarb 20,000 20,000 20,000 14.3 3.85 1.46 73.4% 27.4% Bloom fruit maturity Apr Nov Grapefruit Aldicarb 2,700 2,700 5,200 8.7 3.89 1.50 9.9% 3.7% Bloom fruit maturity Apr Nov Sweet Corn Methomyl 20,000 1,300 20,000 40.4 0.35 7.63 4.8% 27.4% Apr1 Jul30;

Nov15 Dec30 Apr1 Jul30;

Nov15 Dec30 Sugarcane Carbofuran 3,800 912 280,000 1.9 0.72 1.00 3.3% 5.2% Jun20 Aug20 May22 Oct12 Peppers Oxamyl 2,900 641 6,000 14.9 0.51 6.42 2.4% 4.0% Mar Jun Feb Nov Cucumber Oxamyl 2,000 442 4,600 50.4 0.55 1.58 1.6% 2.7% Oct May Oct May II. D. 4  Page 6 of 14 Carbamate Usage from 1998 2002 Doanes & NASS usage data ( 10/ 20/ 04, BEAD)

Crop Active Ingredient lb A. I. RPF adj lb ai Planted acres % crop treated App Rate No. apps % rpfadj lb % nonadj lb Most active app dates Ttl Range Cucumber Carbofuran 1,700 408 4,600 30.5 1.20 1.00 1.5% 2.3% Oct20 Mar15 Sep1 Apr30 Sweet Corn Carbofuran 1,100 264 20,000 6.7 1.00 1.00 1.0% 1.5% Aug1 Apr30 Aug1 Apr30 Peppers Methomyl 3,700 241 6,000 15.7 0.62 6.20 0.9% 5.1% Apr1 Jun15 Jan15 Jun30 Cucumber Methomyl 2,600 169 4,600 21.5 0.58 4.48 0.6% 3.6% Apr15 Jun15 Jan30 Jun15 Sweet Corn Thiodicarb 9,700 116 20,000 23.4 0.58 4.38 0.4% 13.3% Apr1 Jul30;

Nov15 Dec30 Apr1 Jul30;

Nov15 Dec30 Oranges Oxamyl 100 22 20,000 0.2 0.96 2.53 0.1% 0.1% Apr, Jun, Aug,

Oct Apr Aug, Oct Oranges Carbaryl 1,300 10 20,000 1.2 3.54 1.44 0.0% 1.8% Mar1 Jun1 Feb1 Dec1 Grapefruit Carbaryl 1,200 10 5,200 7.0 3.13 1.02 0.0% 1.6% Mar1 Dec30 can't narrow Tomatoes Methomyl 100 7 2,500 2.0 0.48 2.97 0.0% 0.1%

Cucumber Carbaryl 200 2 4,600 1.5 0.58 4.70 0.0% 0.3%

2b: Florida Region: Central Florida  Polk County Oranges Aldicarb 30,000 30,000 80,000 7.8 3.85 1.46 91.0% 75.6% Bloom fruit maturity Apr Nov Grapefruit Aldicarb 2,400 2,400 5,800 7.0 3.89 1.50 7.3% 6.0% Bloom fruit maturity Apr Nov Oranges Oxamyl 1,400 309 80,000 0.7 0.96 2.53 0.9% 3.5% Apr, Jun, Aug,

Oct Apr Aug, Oct Potatoes Aldicarb 200 200 1,000 6.5 2.55 1.01 0.6% 0.5% Oct1 Mar1 Sep15 Mar1 Oranges Carbaryl 5,100 41 80,000 1.3 3.54 1.44 0.1% 12.8% Mar1 Jun1 Feb1 Dec1 Grapefruit Carbaryl 500 4 5,800 2.8 3.13 1.02 0.0% 1.3% Mar1 Dec30 can't narrow Watermelon Carbaryl 100 1 1,600 1.8 0.76 2.64 0.0% 0.3%

3: Midsouth Region: Louisiana Northeast  Franklin, Madison, and Tensas Counties Cotton Aldicarb 40,000 40,000 280,000 25.2 0.53 1.00 96.2% 76.9% May1 15 Apr21 Jun8 Cotton Carbofuran 4,100 984 280,000 3.1 0.44 1.08 2.4% 7.9% Jun24 Aug6 Apr12 Aug21 Cotton Oxamyl 1,000 221 280,000 1.8 0.19 1.11 0.5% 1.9% May4 Jul20 Apr15 Aug15 Corn Carbofuran 800 192 50,000 1.8 0.85 1.00 0.5% 1.5% Mar31 Apr21 Mar24 Apr28 Sorghum Carbofuran 500 120 70,000 1.3 0.50 1.00 0.3% 1.0% Apr20 May22 Apr6 Jun23 II. D. 4  Page 7 of 14 Carbamate Usage from 1998 2002 Doanes & NASS usage data ( 10/ 20/ 04, BEAD)

Crop Active Ingredient lb A. I. RPF adj lb ai Planted acres % crop treated App Rate No. apps % rpfadj lb % nonadj lb Most active app dates Ttl Range Rice Carbaryl 3,900 31 20,000 15.2 1.45 1.00 0.1% 7.5%

Rice Carbofuran 100 24 20,000 0.4 0.83 1.00 0.1% 0.2%

Cotton Thiodicarb 1,600 19 280,000 0.8 0.53 1.42 0.0% 3.1% Jun1 Sep15 May15 Oct1 4: Lower Midwest Region: Texas tip  Cameron and Hidalgo Counties Grapefruit Aldicarb 80,000 80,000 20,000 73.1 4.69 1.17 77.0% 52.4% Jan1 Apr1 Jan1 Apr1 Cotton Aldicarb 10,000 10,000 130,000 18.6 0.49 1.00 9.6% 6.5% Mar10 Jun6 Mar10 Jun30 Grapefruit Formetanat e 6,700 4,020 20,000 35.0 0.92 1.00 3.9% 4.4% Apr20 May30 Apr1 Jul30 Cotton Oxamyl 10,000 2,210 130,000 18.6 0.23 2.12 2.1% 6.5% Mar15 Aug1 Feb20 Sep20 Carrots Oxamyl 8,700 1,923 3,400 91.1 1.25 2.28 1.9% 5.7% Aug10 Jan15 Aug10 Jan15 Cotton Carbofuran 7,500 1,800 130,000 8.8 0.55 1.18 1.7% 4.9% May28 Jul10 Mar16 Jul25 Peppers Oxamyl 4,300 950 2,800 77.3 1.00 2.00 0.9% 2.8% Jan1 Jun1,

Jul1 Oct1 Jan1 Jul1,

Jun15 Dec1 Onions Oxamyl 2,500 553 10,000 26.8 0.48 1.42 0.5% 1.6% Oct1 31,

Nov1 Apr1 Sep20 Nov30,

Oct1 May1 Onions Methomyl 6,200 403 10,000 32.9 0.49 2.83 0.4% 4.1%

Cantaloupe Oxamyl 1,600 354 3,500 22.5 1.76 1.17 0.3% 1.0% Feb15 May15 Feb1 May30 Watermelon Oxamyl 1,600 354 10,000 25.1 0.51 1.04 0.3% 1.0% Jan15 Mar15 Jan15 Apr1 Cucumber Oxamyl 1,100 243 5,200 31.1 0.66 1.00 0.2% 0.7% Feb1 Mar15,

Jul15 Aug15 Jan15 Mar15,

Jul1 Aug31 Corn Carbofuran 1,000 240 120,000 1.2 0.71 1.00 0.2% 0.7% Feb10 Mar10;

Apr11 May5 Feb1 Mar20;

Apr4 May12 Cucumber Methomyl 2,500 163 5,200 34.0 0.47 3.06 0.2% 1.6%

Spinach Methomyl 2,400 156 3,100 85.5 0.45 2.00 0.2% 1.6% II. D. 4  Page 8 of 14 Carbamate Usage from 1998 2002 Doanes & NASS usage data ( 10/ 20/ 04, BEAD)

Crop Active Ingredient lb A. I. RPF adj lb ai Planted acres % crop treated App Rate No. apps % rpfadj lb % nonadj lb Most active app dates Ttl Range Grapefruit Oxamyl 700 155 20,000 4.2 0.59 1.39 0.1% 0.5%

Sorghum Carbofuran 300 72 250,000 0.3 0.50 1.00 0.1% 0.2%

Cantaloupe Methomyl 1,100 72 3,500 47.7 0.39 1.67 0.1% 0.7%

Cabbage Methomyl 800 52 5,400 13.7 0.57 1.86 0.1% 0.5%

Peppers Methomyl 800 52 2,800 3.0 0.60 15.00 0.1% 0.5%

Carrots Methomyl 500 33 3,400 33.2 0.45 1.00 0.0% 0.3%

Watermelon Carbofuran 100 24 10,000 1.9 0.49 1.00 0.0% 0.1%

Beans, Snap Methomyl 300 20 400 51.7 0.49 3.07 0.0% 0.2%

Watermelon Methomyl 300 20 10,000 2.2 0.41 2.63 0.0% 0.2%

Cotton Methomyl 100 7 130,000 0.2 0.36 1.00 0.0% 0.1%

Cotton Carbaryl 700 6 130,000 1.0 0.53 1.01 0.0% 0.5%

Peppers Carbaryl 400 3 2,800 3.8 1.00 4.00 0.0% 0.3%

Watermelon Carbaryl 200 2 10,000 1.9 0.86 1.25 0.0% 0.1%

Cotton Thiodicarb 100 1 130,000 0.1 0.32 1.29 0.0% 0.1%

Cantaloupe Carbaryl 100 1 3,500 0.6 0.94 5.24 0.0% 0.1%

Squash Carbaryl 100 1 200 35.5 0.78 1.00 0.0% 0.1%

5a: North/ North Central Region: Pennsylvania Central  Adams, Lancaster and York Counties Corn Carbofuran 2,200 528 370,000 0.7 0.89 1.00 32.6% 11.7% May10

May25;

Jun30 Aug26 Apr30 Jun15;

Jun15 Sep10 Apples Methomyl 4,700 306 20,000 26.1 0.39 2.86 18.9% 25.0% May30 Aug15 May15 Aug30 Alfalfa Carbofuran 1,200 288 70,000 2.8 0.61 1.00 17.8% 6.4% Mar15 Apr15;

Mar9 May15;

Jun16 Aug8 Mar15 Sep15;

Mar1 Jul20;

Apr1 Nov10 Sweet Corn Methomyl 2,200 143 3,800 33.9 0.38 4.47 8.8% 11.7% Jul15 Sep30 Jun15 Oct15 Pumpkin Carbofuran 300 72 1,500 24.8 0.81 1.01 4.4% 1.6% Jun15 Jul1 Jun10 Jul6 Sweet Corn Carbofuran 300 72 3,800 7.8 1.00 1.00 4.4% 1.6% Apr25 Jun5 Apr15 Jun15 Apples Oxamyl 300 66 20,000 2.9 0.60 1.19 4.1% 1.6% Apr20 Aug30 Apr10 Aug30 Apples Formetanat e 100 60 20,000 0.7 0.85 1.15 3.7% 0.5% Apr24 May20 Apr16 May24 II. D. 4  Page 9 of 14 Carbamate Usage from 1998 2002 Doanes & NASS usage data ( 10/ 20/ 04, BEAD)

Crop Active Ingredient lb A. I. RPF adj lb ai Planted acres % crop treated App Rate No. apps % rpfadj lb % nonadj lb Most active app dates Ttl Range Apples Carbaryl 4,700 38 20,000 17.3 1.12 1.52 2.3% 25.0% Apr20 Aug30 Apr10 Aug30 Peaches Methomyl 200 13 1,800 9.4 0.43 3.33 0.8% 1.1% Apr15 Sep5 Apr15 Sep10 Potatoes Methomyl 200 13 1,900 3.8 0.45 5.00 0.8% 1.1% Jun15 Sep30 Apr30 Oct30 Sweet Corn Carbaryl 700 6 3,800 7.4 0.98 2.45 0.3% 3.7% Jun15 Sep15 Jun15 Oct15 Peaches Carbaryl 500 4 1,800 9.8 1.33 2.35 0.2% 2.7% Jun15 Sep30 Apr1 Oct15 Sweet Corn Thiodicarb 300 4 3,800 5.5 0.58 2.34 0.2% 1.6% Jul15 Sep30 Jun15 Oct15 Grapes, Wine Carbaryl 400 3 200 106.9 1.34 1.83 0.2% 2.1%

Pumpkin Carbaryl 300 2 1,500 7.5 0.86 3.17 0.1% 1.6%

Potatoes Carbaryl 200 2 1,900 9.4 0.75 1.77 0.1% 1.1%

5b: North/ North Central Region: Illinios Central  LaSalle, Livingston and McLean Counties Corn Carbofuran 2,700 648 940,000 0.4 0.67 1.04 86.5% 40.3% Jun20 Aug16 Jun1 Aug30 Alfalfa Carbofuran 100 24 10,000 0.6 0.71 1.00 3.2% 1.5% Apr15 May15 Apr1 Jun1 Sweet Corn Carbofuran 100 24 4,600 6.2 0.35 1.00 3.2% 1.5% May1 Jun15 Apr20 Jul1 Beans, Lima Methomyl 300 20 1,800 13.3 1.05 1.00 2.6% 4.5% Jun15 Sep30 May20 Oct10 Corn Carbaryl 2,200 18 940,000 0.2 1.00 1.00 2.3% 32.8% May15 Sep30 May15 Sep30 Sweet Corn Carbaryl 1,100 9 4,600 6.4 1.49 2.61 1.2% 16.4% Jul15 Sep15 Jun15 Oct15 Sweet Corn Methomyl 100 7 4,600 1.8 0.37 3.00 0.9% 1.5%

Alfalfa Carbaryl 100 1 10,000 1.1 0.78 1.16 0.1% 1.5%

6: North Great Plains Region: Red River Valley  Polk ( Minnesota), and Grand Forks and Walsh ( North Dakota) Counties Potatoes Aldicarb 3,200 3,200 70,000 2.0 2.30 1.00 44.4% 14.7% 1 Jun May15 Jun1 Sugar Beets Aldicarb 2,900 2,900 190,000 1.0 1.50 1.00 40.2% 13.4% Apr30 Jul20 Apr22 Jul30 Sugar Beets Carbofuran 1,900 456 190,000 1.0 1.00 1.00 6.3% 8.8% Jun1 30 May15 Jul15 Potatoes Carbofuran 1,100 264 70,000 1.0 0.80 2.00 3.7% 5.1% May13 24;

Jun14 Aug23 May5 Jun1;

Jun1 Sep7 Potatoes Oxamyl 800 177 70,000 1.0 0.60 2.00 2.5% 3.7% May30 Aug30 MAy15

Sep15 II. D. 4  Page 10 of 14 Carbamate Usage from 1998 2002 Doanes & NASS usage data ( 10/ 20/ 04, BEAD)

Crop Active Ingredient lb A. I. RPF adj lb ai Planted acres % crop treated App Rate No. apps % rpfadj lb % nonadj lb Most active app dates Ttl Range Sunflowers Carbofuran 500 120 90,000 1.0 0.60 1.00 1.7% 2.3% May23 Jun4;

Jun15 Aug15 May15 Jun13;

Jun1 Sep1 Wheat, Spring Carbaryl 11,000 88 690,000 2.0 0.80 1.00 1.2% 50.7% Jun1 Jul15 May15 Jul30 Sunflowers Carbaryl 100 1 90,000 # N/ A # N/ A # N/ A 0.0% 0.5%

Alfalfa Carbaryl 100 1 80,000 # N/ A # N/ A # N/ A 0.0% 0.5%

Sugar Beets Carbaryl 100 1 190,000 # N/ A # N/ A # N/ A 0.0% 0.5%

7: Northwest Region: Washington Central  Franklin and Grant Counties Potatoes Aldicarb 120,000 120,000 110,000 36.1 2.89 1.08 90.3% 63.0% 1 Jun May15 Jun1 Dry Beans/ Peas Aldicarb 6,600 6,600 30,000 17.2 1.20 1.00 5.0% 3.5% Apr1 Jul20 beans May10

Jul20; peas Apr1 Jun20 Potatoes Carbofuran 6,100 1,464 110,000 6.9 0.66 1.28 1.1% 3.2%

Onions Oxamyl 6,500 1,437 8,800 36.5 0.97 2.09 1.1% 3.4% Mar15 Apr30;

Jun15 Aug30 Mar15 Apr30;

May30 Sep30 Apples Formetanat e 1,900 1,140 30,000 5.1 0.97 1.20 0.9% 1.0%

Potatoes Oxamyl 5,000 1,105 110,000 1.7 1.04 2.65 0.8% 2.6% Apr10 May5;

MAy30 Oct15 Mar15 May15; May30 Oct30 Carrots Oxamyl 2,100 464 6,500 8.8 0.99 3.68 0.3% 1.1% Apr1 Jun15 Apr1 Jun15 Beans, Lima Methomyl 3,800 247 4,900 43.3 0.90 2.00 0.2% 2.0% May30 Sep30 May15 Oct15 Apples Carbaryl 20,000 160 30,000 42.1 1.22 1.41 0.1% 10.5% Apr15 Aug31 Apr1 Oct1 Sweet Corn Methomyl 1,100 72 60,000 0.6 0.44 6.91 0.1% 0.6% Jun30 Sep30 Jun10 Sep25 Cherries Carbaryl 7,500 60 4,900 50.3 1.82 1.68 0.0% 3.9% Mar20 Aug10 Mar20 Aug10 Onions Methomyl 900 59 8,800 7.2 0.90 1.53 0.0% 0.5%

Asparagus Carbaryl 5,400 43 8,300 47.2 1.18 1.17 0.0% 2.8%

Alfalfa Carbofuran 100 24 70,000 0.3 0.50 1.00 0.0% 0.1%

Corn Carbofuran 100 24 7,200 1.3 1.00 1.00 0.0% 0.1% II. D. 4  Page 11 of 14 Carbamate Usage from 1998 2002 Doanes & NASS usage data ( 10/ 20/ 04, BEAD)

Crop Active Ingredient lb A. I. RPF adj lb ai Planted acres % crop treated App Rate No. apps % rpfadj lb % nonadj lb Most active app dates Ttl Range Apples Oxamyl 100 22 30,000 0.2 1.20 1.07 0.0% 0.1%

Potatoes Carbaryl 1,400 11 110,000 0.5 0.95 3.07 0.0% 0.7%

Pears Carbaryl 1,100 9 1,100 28.7 1.10 3.11 0.0% 0.6%

Asparagus Methomyl 100 7 8,300 2.3 0.60 1.00 0.0% 0.1%

Carrots Methomyl 100 7 6,500 6.0 0.30 1.00 0.0% 0.1%

Beans, Lima Carbaryl 200 2 4,900 2.7 1.37 1.00 0.0% 0.1%

Peaches Carbaryl 200 2 300 15.1 2.07 1.85 0.0% 0.1%

Grapes, Wine Carbaryl 100 1 2,200 2.3 1.13 1.44 0.0% 0.1%

8: Southwest Region: Fresno, Kern, Kings and Tulare Counties Cotton Aldicarb 270,000 270,000 670,000 29.6 1.13 1.21 81.6% 44.0% 15 Apr Jan1 Jul31 Nectarine Formetanat e 30,000 18,000 40,000 46.0 0.70 1.00 5.4% 4.9%

Cotton Oxamyl 60,000 13,260 670,000 12.5 0.66 1.08 4.0% 9.8% Jun1 Aug28 Apr2 Sep21 Oranges Formetanat e 10,000 6,000 170,000 5.8 1.02 1.15 1.8% 1.6% Apr22 Jun30 Apr2 Oct10 Cotton Carbofuran 20,000 4,800 670,000 5.1 0.48 1.30 1.5% 3.3% Aug14 Sep21 Jul20 Nov16 Potatoes Aldicarb 2,700 2,700 8,800 10.1 3.00 1.00 0.8% 0.4% n/ a n/ a Tomatoes Methomyl 40,000 2,600 100,000 40.1 0.70 1.53 0.8% 6.5% May15 Sep30 May5 Oct20 Alfalfa Carbofuran 9,200 2,208 270,000 5.6 0.60 1.00 0.7% 1.5% Feb18 Mar29 Dec28 May27 Garlic Oxamyl 6,200 1,370 20,000 13.6 2.00 1.00 0.4% 1.0% Mar24 29 Feb7 May8 Cantaloupe Oxamyl 4,700 1,039 30,000 16.1 0.95 1.00 0.3% 0.8% Apr19 Jun1 Feb27 Sep25 Peaches Formetanat e 1,500 900 30,000 5.5 0.80 1.02 0.3% 0.2% Mar6 23 Mar6 Jul27 Grapes, Wine Carbofuran 3,000 720 110,000 0.4 6.03 1.18 0.2% 0.5% na na Dry Beans/ Peas Aldicarb 700 700 30,000 2.7 0.95 1.00 0.2% 0.1%

Cantaloupe Methomyl 10,000 650 30,000 35.8 0.62 1.70 0.2% 1.6% Jul1 Sep15 Jun16 Oct6 Lettuce Methomyl 10,000 650 10,000 73.1 0.70 1.76 0.2% 1.6% Jun15 NOv30 Jun15 NOv30 II. D. 4  Page 12 of 14 Carbamate Usage from 1998 2002 Doanes & NASS usage data ( 10/ 20/ 04, BEAD)

Crop Active Ingredient lb A. I. RPF adj lb ai Planted acres % crop treated App Rate No. apps % rpfadj lb % nonadj lb Most active app dates Ttl Range Grapes, Table Methomyl 9,500 618 70,000 16.8 0.75 1.01 0.2% 1.5% May1 Aug15 Mar3 Oct9 Grapes, Raisin Carbofuran 2,400 576 290,000 0.3 2.80 1.00 0.2% 0.4%

Nectarine Methomyl 5,500 358 40,000 12.0 0.75 2.00 0.1% 0.9%

Tangerine Formetanat e 500 300 4,000 14.0 0.81 1.10 0.1% 0.1%

Lemons Formetanat e 500 300 9,300 3.2 1.06 1.60 0.1% 0.1% May1 4 Apr26 Aug12 Plums/ Prunes Formetanat e 500 300 50,000 0.9 1.15 1.00 0.1% 0.1% Mar1 22 Feb12 MAr24 Grapefruit Formetanat e 400 240 3,400 6.3 1.13 1.82 0.1% 0.1% Apr26 May5 Apr26 May24 Oranges Carbaryl 30,000 240 170,000 3.2 4.40 1.24 0.1% 4.9% May17 Nov3 Jan1 Dec21 Sugar Beets Methomyl 3,100 202 9,200 53.7 0.52 1.19 0.1% 0.5% Jun15 Oct10 May30 Oct18 Oranges Oxamyl 700 155 170,000 0.2 0.50 4.01 0.0% 0.1% Feb3 16;

May27 Jun23;

Aug15 Sep22 Feb3 Sep22 Tomatoes Oxamyl 700 155 100,000 1.2 0.59 1.00 0.0% 0.1% Apr20 Jul7 Mar27 Aug18 Peaches Oxamyl 600 133 30,000 0.5 2.00 2.00 0.0% 0.1% Jan3 Feb15 Jan3 Feb15 Carrots Methomyl 1,900 124 50,000 4.1 0.57 1.56 0.0% 0.3% Aug15 Sep25 May31 Oct12 Garlic Methomyl 1,600 104 20,000 5.5 0.45 2.90 0.0% 0.3% Apr29 May19 Apr29 May19 Watermelon Methomyl 1,600 104 5,700 21.9 0.62 2.05 0.0% 0.3% Jun10 Aug31 May19 Sep11 Peaches Carbaryl 10,000 80 30,000 5.4 4.02 1.39 0.0% 1.6% May15 Sep4 Jan2 Oct19 Asparagus Methomyl 1,200 78 3,900 36.5 0.82 1.05 0.0% 0.2% Jun30 Aug30 Jun30 Sep14 Pistachios Carbaryl 9,100 73 70,000 3.0 4.00 1.15 0.0% 1.5% Feb5 Jul4 Jan22 Sep30 Alfalfa Methomyl 1,100 72 270,000 1.4 0.29 1.00 0.0% 0.2% Jun15 Sep5 Mar14 Sep27 Grapes, Raisin Methomyl 1,100 72 290,000 0.4 0.74 1.42 0.0% 0.2% May1 Aug15 Mar3 Oct9 II. D. 4  Page 13 of 14 Carbamate Usage from 1998 2002 Doanes & NASS usage data ( 10/ 20/ 04, BEAD)

Crop Active Ingredient lb A. I. RPF adj lb ai Planted acres % crop treated App Rate No. apps % rpfadj lb % nonadj lb Most active app dates Ttl Range Onions Methomyl 1,000 65 20,000 3.8 0.72 1.58 0.0% 0.2% May11 Jul20 Mar30 Aug14 Broccoli Methomyl 800 52 8,200 11.2 0.57 1.63 0.0% 0.1% Aug1 Oct30 Mar24 Nov8 Oranges Methomyl 800 52 170,000 0.8 0.61 1.00 0.0% 0.1% Apr20 Jun15;

Nov4 30 Mar2 Dec29 Potatoes Methomyl 700 46 8,800 8.6 0.71 1.33 0.0% 0.1% May7 Jun28 Mar25 Oct19 Onions Oxamyl 200 44 20,000 0.3 1.00 2.00 0.0% 0.0%

Cotton Carbaryl 4,900 39 670,000 1.5 0.50 1.00 0.0% 0.8% Apr4 Jul8 Mar24 Oct8 Peaches Methomyl 600 39 30,000 2.4 0.66 1.22 0.0% 0.1% Apr10 Sep15 Mar4 Oct10 Plums/ Prunes Carbaryl 4,800 38 50,000 3.3 2.97 1.00 0.0% 0.8% Jan13 Aug28 Jan2 Oct23 Lettuce Thiodicarb 2,900 35 10,000 19.4 0.63 1.66 0.0% 0.5%

Cantaloupe Carbaryl 4,300 34 30,000 17.5 0.78 1.04 0.0% 0.7% Apr9 Aug21 Apr4 Jul8 Nectarine Carbaryl 4,200 34 40,000 4.0 3.20 1.00 0.0% 0.7%

Apples Carbaryl 4,200 34 7,900 20.4 1.81 1.45 0.0% 0.7% Apr10 Sep15 Grapes, Wine Methomyl 500 33 110,000 0.4 0.74 1.22 0.0% 0.1% Jan13 Aug28 Cotton Methomyl 400 26 670,000 0.1 0.48 1.00 0.0% 0.1%

Peppers Methomyl 400 26 4,500 9.9 0.56 1.70 0.0% 0.1% Apr9 Aug21 Plums/ Prunes Methomyl 400 26 50,000 0.8 0.78 1.35 0.0% 0.1%

Walnuts Methomyl 400 26 50,000 0.7 0.83 1.50 0.0% 0.1%

Tomatoes Carbaryl 3,200 26 100,000 3.2 0.95 1.02 0.0% 0.5%

Potatoes Oxamyl 100 22 8,800 1.1 0.73 1.00 0.0% 0.0%

Grapes, Wine Carbaryl 2,500 20 110,000 0.8 1.56 1.72 0.0% 0.4%

Watermelon Carbaryl 2,500 20 5,700 30.7 0.96 1.46 0.0% 0.4%

Beans, Snap Methomyl 300 20 1,900 15.6 0.46 1.99 0.0% 0.0%

Cucumber Methomyl 300 20 1,200 28.3 0.59 1.79 0.0% 0.0%

Grapefruit Carbaryl 2,300 18 3,400 8.4 6.46 1.25 0.0% 0.4%

Almonds Carbaryl 1,800 14 210,000 0.2 3.13 1.39 0.0% 0.3%

Almonds Methomyl 200 13 210,000 0.1 0.62 1.00 0.0% 0.0%

Apricots Carbaryl 1,300 10 4,900 7.8 2.85 1.16 0.0% 0.2% II. D. 4  Page 14 of 14 Carbamate Usage from 1998 2002 Doanes & NASS usage data ( 10/ 20/ 04, BEAD)

Crop Active Ingredient lb A. I. RPF adj lb ai Planted acres % crop treated App Rate No. apps % rpfadj lb % nonadj lb Most active app dates Ttl Range Lemons Carbaryl 1,200 10 9,300 2.6 4.78 1.00 0.0% 0.2%

Grapes, Raisin Carbaryl 1,100 9 290,000 0.3 1.28 1.00 0.0% 0.2%

Grapes, Table Carbaryl 1,000 8 70,000 1.1 1.21 1.00 0.0% 0.2%

Dry Beans/ Peas Methomyl 100 7 30,000 1.3 0.33 1.09 0.0% 0.0%

Strawberries Methomyl 100 7 800 6.5 0.67 2.89 0.0% 0.0%

Corn Carbaryl 800 6 110,000 1.2 0.60 1.00 0.0% 0.1%

Walnuts Carbaryl 800 6 50,000 0.8 2.26 1.00 0.0% 0.1%

Carrots Carbaryl 400 3 50,000 0.6 0.52 2.41 0.0% 0.1%

Sugar Beets Carbaryl 400 3 9,200 5.4 0.70 1.08 0.0% 0.1%

Asparagus Carbaryl 200 2 3,900 3.0 1.51 1.15 0.0% 0.0%

Cherries Carbaryl 200 2 1,700 2.9 2.63 1.17 0.0% 0.0%

Strawberries Carbaryl 200 2 800 8.1 1.21 2.38 0.0% 0.0%

Beans, Lima Carbaryl 100 1 600 8.2 1.42 1.00 0.0% 0.0%

Beans, Snap Carbaryl 100 1 1,900 4.5 1.20 1.00 0.0% 0.0%

Lettuce Carbaryl 100 1 10,000 0.5 0.95 1.43 0.0% 0.0%

Onions Carbaryl 100 1 20,000 0.3 0.75 1.00 0.0% 0.0%

Peppers Carbaryl 100 1 4,500 0.8 1.10 1.80 0.0% 0.0%

Squash Carbaryl 100 1 500 7.2 0.95 1.99 0.0% 0.0%