1 SUMMARY INFORMATION FOR CANNED AND PRESERVED FRUITS AND VEGETABLES PROCESSING ( 40 CFR PART 407)

INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION SIC codes identified as Part 407 in the PSC/ SIC code crosswalk SIC code 2033  Canned Fruits, Vegetables, Preserves, Jams, and Jellies Establishments primarily engaged in canning fruits, vegetables, and fruit and vegetable juices; and in manufacturing catsup and similar tomato sauces, or natural and imitation preserves, jams, and jellies.

SIC code 2034  Dried and Dehydrated Fruits, Vegetables, and Soup Mixes Establishments primarily engaged in sun drying or artificially dehydrating fruits and vegetables, or in manufacturing packaged soup mixes from dehydrated ingredients.

SIC code 2035  Pickled Fruits and Vegetables, Vegetable Sauces and Seasonings, and Salad Dressings Establishments primarily engaged in pickling and brining fruits and vegetables, and in manufacturing salad dressings, vegetable relishes, sauces, and seasonings.

SIC code 2037  Frozen Fruits, Fruit Juices, and Vegetables Establishments primarily engaged in freezing fruits, fruit juices, and vegetables. These establishments also produce important by products such as fresh or dried citrus pulp.

SIC code 2096  Potato Chips, Corn Chips, and Similar Snacks Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing potato chips, corn chips, and similar snacks. 2 Table: Number of Facilities SIC Code 1997 Census PCS TRI total major minor total reporters no reported discharge direct discharge indirect discharge both direct and indirect 2033 695 70 8 62 12 11 1 0 0 2034 152 1 0 1 8 5 0 3 0 2035 354 12 2 10 11 7 0 4 0 2037 258 20 7 13 57 42 9 5 1 2096 368 2 1 1 20 14 2 4 0 Source: PCSLoads2000, TRIReleases2000 Applicability of 40 CFR Part 407 Subpart A  Apple Juice Subcategory. The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from the processing of apples into apple juice or apple cider.

Subpart B  Apple Products Subcategory. The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from the processing of apples into apple products. The processing of apples into caustic peeled or dehydrated products is specifically excluded.

Subpart C  Citrus Products Subcategory. The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from the processing of citrus into citrus products.

Subpart D  Frozen Potato Products Subcategory. The provisions of this subpart are applicableto discharges resulting from the processing of white potatoes into frozen potato products.

Subpart E  Dehydrated Potato Products Subcategory. The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from the processing of white potatoes into dehydrated potato products.

Subpart F  Canned and Preserved Fruits Subcategory. The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from the processing of the following fruit products: apricots; caneberries; sweet, sour and brined cherries; cranberries; dried fruit; grape juice canning and pressing; olives; peaches; pears; fresh and processed pickles, and pickle salting stations; pineapples; plums; raisins; strawberries; and tomatoes.

Subpart G  Canned and Preserved Vegetables Subcategory. The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from the processing of the following vegetable products: beets; 3 broccoli; carrots; canned and frozen corn; dehydrated onions and garlic; dehydrated vegetables; dry beans; lima beans; mushrooms; canned onions; peas; sauerkraut canning and cutting; snap beans; spinach; squash; and canned potatoes.

Subpart H  Canned and Miscellaneous Specialties Subcategory. Applicable to discharges resulting from the processing of the following specialty products: added ingredients; baby food; corn, potato, and tortilla chips; ethnic foods; jams and jellies; mayonnaise and dressings; soups; and tomato starch cheese canned specialties. definitions: The term chips, potato shall mean the processing of fried chips, made from fresh or stored white potatoes, all varieties. The term chips, corn shall mean the processing of fried corn, made by soaking, rinsing, milling and extruding into a fryer without toasting.

Potential new Subcategories: ° SIC code 2075  Soybean Oil Mills; ° SIC code 2082  Malt Beverages; ° SIC code 2085  Distilled and Blended Liquors; and ° SIC code 21  Tobacco Products.

REGULATORY BACKGROUND Regulatory History ° Effluent limitations were first proposed ° Final versions of the effluent limitations for Subparts A  E were promulgated March 21, 1974.

° Final versions of the effluent limitations for Subparts F, G, and H were promulgated April 16, 1976.

° The technology basis of existing regulations was [

Existing Limitations ° BAT and NSPS limitations guidelines are normalized on the basis of metric ton ( kkg) of raw material.

° EPA established no limitations for PSES or PSNS. 4 ° NSPS for Subparts F, G, and H is reserved.

Table: Effluent Guidelines for Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables Processing, Part 407 BPT 30 day averages ( kg/ kkg) NSPS 30 day averages ( kg/ kkg)

BOD5 0.05 to 3.34 0.07 to 0.55 TSSb 0.00 to 5.09 0.1 to 0.55 Oil and Greasea 20 mg/ L none pH within the range 6 to 9c within the range 6 to 9b a Oil and grease limits for Subpart H, only. b BPT TSS limit for " added ingredients" in Subpart H is 0 kg/ kkg. NSPS limits for Subpart H are " reserved." c pH range 6 to 9.5 for subparts F, G, and H WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND POLLUTANT SOURCES Wastewater Characteristics ° Fruit and vegetable processing plants are located in large agricultural producing regions, especially California and Florida.

° Processing is seasonal for most producers.

° Water use and wastewater pollutant loads vary according to the specific raw material processes ( e. g., 2,400 gal/ ton apples to 17,000 gal/ ton cauliflower).

° Total pollutant loads are directly correlated to the amount of water used in processing.

° Water conservation practices reduce pollutant loads.

° Most processors employ secondary ( biological) treatment. 5 Table: Wastewater Flows SIC code Number of Major Facilities Reporting Nonzero Flows Median Facility Flow 2000 ( MG) Range of Facility Flows 2000 ( MG) Total Flow 2000 ( MG)

2033 7 82 15 to 542 1,330 2034 none

2035 2 103 84 to 123 207 2037 7 889 9 to 1510 5,170 2096 1 101 NA 101 Source: PCSLoads2000.

1NA indicates that no range was calculated because only one facility reported a nonzero flow.

Pollutant Sources Table: Sources of Process Wastewater in Fruits and Vegetable Processing Process Wastewater Pollutants Washing: general cleaning and dirt removal of raw products suspended solids including fibers and soil particles; possibly pesticides residues Grading, stemming, pitting, and seeding dissolved organic material ( BOD5), suspended solids including fibers and soil particles, and possibly pesticides residues Peeling, steam or lye and washing sodium hydroxide ( high pH), BOD5, and suspended solids Blanching ( scald with water or steam) dissolved organic material ( BOD5) and suspended solids Post blanching washing and cooling dissolved organic material ( BOD5) and suspended solids Fluming ( conveyance) dissolved organic material ( BOD5) and suspended solids Filling and packaging , including adding syrup, brine, etc. dissolved organic material ( BOD5), salt, oil and grease ( depending on product)

Sanitation and plant clean up dissolved organic material ( BOD5) and suspended solids, residual disinfectant ( e. g., chlorine)

Source: References 1,2, and 3.

TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION INFORMATION Treatment Technology ° Standard treatment is biological treatment with primary solids removal, oil and 6 grease removal, and neutralization ( pH adjustment) depending on products. Treatment systems must be sufficiently robust to handle seasonal variations in pollutant loads.

° Direct discharge plants may disinfect wastewater with chlorine prior to discharge.

° Advanced treatment would replace chlorine disinfection with ozone or ultraviolet light.

° Most advances are water conservation and other pollution prevention practices. 7 Pollution Prevention Table: Water Conservation and Pollution Prevention Alternatives for Fruits and Vegetable Processing Process Water Conservation/ Pollution Prevention Alternatives Washing: general cleaning and dirt removal of raw products Perform washing and cleaning at the agricultural site, so wastes are reused at the farm. Air flotation to remove suspended debris from raw crop materials. Minimize water use.

Grading, stemming, pitting, and seeding Minimize water use.

Peeling, steam or lye and washing Use dry peeling methods.

Blanching ( scald with water or steam) Use steam blanching rather than water blanching. In the future, replace blanching with nonthermal means of destroying microbes.

Post blanching washing and cooling Use air cooling. Reuse relatively clean cooling water for peeling, primary washing, or post peeling washing.

Fluming ( conveyance) Replace water flumes with pneumatic ( air based) transport. Reuse relatively clean fluming water for peeling, primary washing, or post peeling washing.

Filling and packaging , including adding syrup, brine, etc. Minimize water use.

Sanitation and plant clean up Use low volume/ high pressure cleaning systems.

Source: US AEP, CAST, foodsci. unl 8 INDUSTRY TRENDS Table: 1992 and 1997 Census Data Number of Establishments Value of Goods Shipped SIC code 1997 1992 % Change 1997 1992 % Change 2033 Canned Fruits, Vegetables Preserves, Jams, and Jellies 695 683 1.8 14.5 mil 15.0 mil  3.7 2034 Dried and Dehydrated Fruits, Vegetables, and Soup Mixes 152 159  1.9 2.9 2.8 1.3 2035 Pickled Fruits and Vegetables, Vegetable Sauces and Seasonings, and Salad Dressings 354 377  6.1 7.1 7.8  9.6 2037 Frozen Fruits, Fruit Juices, and Vegetables 258 255 1.2 9.6 7.5 27.9 2096 Potato Chips, Corn Chips, and Similar Snacks 368 408  9.8 9.1 7.3 25.6 Source: U. S. Economic Census ° NAICS code 311 represents food manufacturing, including grains, fruits and vegetables, dairy, meats, seafood, and miscellaneous food. Advance comparative statistics from the 2002 Economic Census for NAICS code 311 show, for the five year period 1997 to 2002, a very small increase in the number of establishments ( 0.27 percent) and an 8.4 percent increase in the value of shipments ( not adjusted for inflation).

 Establishments: 2002 26,374 1997 26,302  Value of Shipments: 2002 $ 457 billion 1997 $ 422 billion 9 REFERENCES US EPA, ( date?) Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Apple, Citrus, and Potato Processing Segment of the Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables Point Source Category. 440174027a US EPA, ( date?) Development Document for Interim Final and Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Fruits, Vegetables, and Specialties Segment of the Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables Point Source Category. 440175046.

1. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, 1995. Waste Manaagement and Utilization in Food Production and Process, Chapter 5, Water and Wastewater Use in the the Food Processing Industry. Accessed at: < http:// www. p2pays. org/ ref/ 01/ 0069205. pdf> on June 15, 2004.

2. Food Manufacturing Coalition for Innovation and Technolgy Transfer, State of the Art Report, Wastewater Reduction and Recycling in Food Processing Operations. Accessed at: < http:// foodsci. unl. edu/ fmc/ 7wastewa. htm> on June 15, 2004.

3. U. S. Asia Environmental Partnership, Clean Technologies in U. S. Indlustries: Food Processing. Accessed at < http:// www. p2pays. org/ ref/ 09/ 08853. htm> on June 15, 2004 4. World Bank Group, 1998. Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook, Fruit and Vegetable Processing. Accessed at < http:// ifcln1. ifc. org/ ifcext/ enviro. nsf/ AttachmentsByTitle/ gui_ fruitveg_ WB/$ FILE/ fruitan dvg_ PPAH. pdf> on June 15, 2004.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28655-28667]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11718]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Order 2012-5-8; Docket DOT-OST-2012-0069]

Notice of Order Soliciting Community Proposals

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is soliciting proposals from
communities or consortia of communities interested in receiving a grant
under the Small Community Air Service Development Program. The full
text of the Department's order is attached to this document. There are
two mandatory requirements for filing of applications, both of which
must be completed for a community's application to be deemed timely and
considered by the Department. The first requirement is the submission
of the community's proposal, as described below; the second requirement
is the filing of SF424 through http://www.grants.gov.

DATES: Grant Proposals as well as the SF424 should be submitted no
later than June 11, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties can submit applications and the SF424
electronically through http://www.grants.gov. An electronic version of
this document is available at www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aloha Ley, Office of Aviation
Analysis, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., W86-310, Washington, DC 20590,
(202) 366-2347.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Overview

    By this order, the Department invites proposals from communities
and/or consortia of communities interested in obtaining a federal grant
under the Small Community Air Service Development Program (Small
Community Program or SCASDP) to address air service and airfare issues
in their communities. Applications of no more than 25 pages each (one-
sided only, excluding the completed SF424, cover sheet, Summary
Information schedule, and any letters from the community showing
support for the application), including all required information, must
be submitted to www.grants.gov no later than 5 p.m. EDT on Monday, June
11, 2012.
    This order is organized into the following sections:

I. Background
II. Selection Criteria and Guidance on Application of Selection
Criteria
III. Evaluation and Selection Process
IV. How to Apply
V. Air Service Development Zone
VI. Grant Administration
VII. Questions and Clarifications
Appendix A--Additional Information on Applying Through
www.grants.gov
Appendix B--Cover Sheet Contents
Appendix C--Summary Information
Appendix D--Application Checklist
Appendix E--Confidential Commercial Information

I. Background

    The Small Community Program was established by the Wendell H. Ford
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (Pub. L. 106-
181) and reauthorized by the Vision 100-Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 108-176). The program is designed to
provide financial assistance to small communities to help them enhance
their air service. The Department provides this assistance in the form
of monetary grants that are disbursed on a reimbursable basis.
Authorization for this program is codified at 49 U.S.C. 41743.
    The Small Community Program is authorized to receive appropriations
under 49 U.S.C. 41743(e)(2), as amended. Appropriations are provided
for this program for award in FY 2012 pursuant to the FAA Modernization
and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95). The Department has up to $14
million available for FY 2012 grant awards to carry out this program.
There is no limit on the amount of individual awards, and the amounts
awarded will vary depending upon the features and merits of the
proposals selected. In past years, the Department's individual grant
sizes have ranged from $20,000 to nearly $1.6 million.

A. Eligible Applicants

    Eligible applicants are small communities that meet the following
statutory criteria (49 U.S.C. 41743):
    1. As of calendar year 1997, the airport serving the community was
not larger than a small hub airport, and it has insufficient air
carrier service or unreasonably high air fares; and
    2. The airport serving the community presents characteristics, such
as geographic diversity or unique circumstances, that demonstrate the
need for, and feasibility of, grant assistance from the Small Community
Program.
    No more than 4 communities or consortia of communities, or a
combination thereof, from the same state may be selected to participate
in the program in any fiscal year. No more than 40 communities or
consortia of communities, or a combination thereof, may be selected to
participate in the program in each year for which the funds are
appropriated.
    Communities without existing air service: Communities that do not
currently have commercial air service are eligible for SCASDP funds,
but air service providers must have met or be able to meet in a
reasonable period all Departmental requirements for air service
certification, including safety and economic authorities.
    Essential Air Service communities: Small communities that meet the
basic SCASDP criteria and currently receive subsidized air service
under the Essential Air Service (EAS) program are eligible to apply for
SCASDP funds. However, grant awards to EAS-subsidized communities are
limited to marketing or promotion projects that support existing or
newly subsidized EAS. Grant funds will not be authorized for EAS-
subsidized communities to support any new competing air service.
Furthermore, no funds will be authorized to support additional flights
by EAS carriers or changes to those carriers' existing schedules. These
restrictions are necessary to avoid conflicts with the EAS program.
    Consortium applications: Both individual communities and consortia
of communities are eligible for SCASDP funds. An application from a
consortium of communities must be one that seeks to facilitate the
efforts of the communities working together toward one joint grant
project, with one joint objective, including the establishment of one
entity to ensure that the joint objective is accomplished.
    Multiple Applications: Communities may file only one application
for a grant, either individually or as part of a consortium.

B. Eligible Projects

    The Department is authorized to award grants under 49 U.S.C. 41743
to communities that seek to provide assistance to:
     An air carrier to subsidize service to and from an
underserved airport for a period not to exceed 3 years;
     An underserved airport to obtain service to and from the
underserved airport; and/or
     An underserved airport to implement such other measures as
the Secretary, in consultation with such airport, considers appropriate
to improve air service both in terms of the cost of such service to
consumers and the availability of such service, including improving air
service through marketing and promotion of air service and enhanced
utilization of airport facilities.
    Applicants also should keep in mind the following statutory
restrictions on eligible projects:
     An applicant may not receive an additional grant to
support the same project from a previous grant (see Same Project
Limitation, below); and
     An applicant may not receive an additional grant, prior to
the completion of its previous grant (see Concurrent Grant Limitation,
below).
    Same Project Limitation: A community may not receive an additional
grant to support the same project for which it received a previous
grant. In assessing whether a previous grantee's current application
represents a new project, the Department will compare the goals and
objectives of the previous grant, including the key components of the
means by which those goals and objectives were to be achieved, to the
current application. For example, if a community received an earlier
grant to support a revenue guarantee for service to a particular
destination or direction, a new application by that community for
another revenue guarantee for service to the same destination or in the
same direction is ineligible, even if the revenue guarantee were
structured differently or the type of carrier were different. However,
a new application by such a previous grantee for service to a new
destination or direction using a revenue guarantee, or for general
marketing of the airport and the various services it offers, is
eligible. We recognize that not all revenue guarantees, marketing
agreements, equipment purchases, etc. are of the same nature, and that
if a subsequent application incorporates different goals or
significantly different components, it may be sufficiently different to

constitute a new project under 49 U.S.C. 41743(c).
    Concurrent Grant Limitation: A community may have only one SCASDP
grant at any time. If a community applies for a subsequent SCASDP grant
when its current grant has not yet expired, that community must notify
the Department of its intent to terminate the current SCASDP grant
prior to entering into the new grant. In addition, for consortium
member applicants, permission must be granted from both the grant
sponsor and the Department to withdraw from the current SCASDP grant
before the consortium will be deemed eligible to receive a subsequent
SCASDP grant.

II. Selection Criteria and Guidance on Application of Selection
Criteria

    SCASDP grants will be awarded based on the selection criteria as
outlined below. There are two categories of selection criteria:
Priority Selection Criteria and Secondary Selection Criteria.
Applications that meet one or more of the priority selection criteria
will be viewed more favorably than those that do not meet any priority
selection criteria.

A. Priority Selection Criteria

    The law directs the Department to give priority consideration to
those communities or consortia where the following criteria are met:
     Air fares are higher than the national average air fares
for all communities--DOT will compare the local community's air fares
to the national average air fares for all communities. Communities with
air fares significantly higher than the national average air fares for
all communities will be given priority. DOT calculates these fares
using the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) database. BTS
Origin Destination Survey data is used to gather fare data for all
markets that serve airports represented in SCASDP applications. The
SCASDP air fare comparison report represents a community's (each
individual applicant's) air fares as a percentage of National Averages
(Fare Premium). The report compares a community's air fares to the
average for all other markets in the Country that have similar density
(passenger volume) and distance characteristics (market groupings). The
Fare Premium calculation includes all markets that averaged more than 1
passenger a day.
     The community or consortium will provide a portion of the
cost of the activity from local sources other than airport revenue
sources--DOT will consider whether a community or consortium proposes
local funding for the proposed project. Applications providing
proportionately higher levels of cash contributions from other than
airport revenues will be viewed more favorably. Applications that
provide multiple levels of contributions (state, local, airport, cash
and in-kind contributions) also will be viewed more favorably. See
Additional Guidance--Cost Sharing and Local Contributions, in
Subsection C below, for more information on the application of this
selection criterion.
     The community or consortium has established or will
establish a public-private partnership to facilitate air carrier
service to the public--DOT will consider a community or consortium's
commitment to facilitate air carrier service in the form of a public-
private partnership. Applications that describe in detail how the
partnership will actively participate in the implementation of the
proposed project will be viewed more favorably.
     The assistance will provide material benefits to a broad
segment of the traveling public, including business, educational
institutions, and other enterprises, whose access to the national air
transportation system is limited--DOT will consider whether the
proposed project would provide, to a broad segment of the community's
traveling public, important benefits relevant to the community, for
example: Service that would offer new or additional access to a
connecting hub airport, service that would provide convenient travel
times for both business and leisure travelers that would help obviate
the need to drive long distances, or service that would offer lower
fares.
     The assistance will be used in a timely manner--DOT will
consider whether a proposed project provides a well-defined plan and
reasonable timetable for use of the grant funds. In DOT's experience, a
reasonable timetable for use of grant funds includes a year to complete
studies, two years for marketing and promotion of the airport,
community, carrier, or destination, and three years for projects that
target a revenue guarantee, subsidy, or other financial incentives.
Applicants should describe how their projects can be accomplished
within a reasonable time period.
     Multiple communities cooperate to submit a regional or
multistate application to consolidate air service into one regional
airport--DOT will consider whether a proposed project involves a
consortium effort to consolidate air service into one regional airport.
This is a new statutory priority criterion, added pursuant to Section
429 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95).

B. Secondary Selection Criteria

    1. Innovation--DOT will consider whether an application proposes
new and creative solutions to the transportation issues facing the
community, including:
     The extent to which the applicant's proposed solution(s)
to solving the problem(s) is new or innovative, including whether the
proposed project utilizes or encourages intermodal or regional
solutions to connect passengers to the community's air service (i.e.,
cost-effective inter/intra city passenger bus service, marketing of
intermodal surface transportation options also available to air
travelers, or projects that have a positive impact on travel and
tourism); whether the proposed project, if successfully implemented,
could serve as a working model for other communities; and
     Whether the proposed project clearly addresses the
applicant's stated problems.
    2. Participation--DOT will consider whether an application has
broad community participation, including:
     Whether the proposed project has broad community support;
and
     The community's demonstrated commitment to and
participation in the proposed project.
    3. Location--DOT will consider the location and characteristics of
a community:
     The geographic location of each applicant, including the
community's proximity to larger centers of air service and low-fare
service alternatives;
     The population and business activity, as well as the
relative size of each community; and
     Whether the community's proximity to an existing or prior
grant recipient could adversely affect either its proposal or the
project undertaken by the other recipient.
    4. Other Factors--DOT will also consider:
     The community's existing level of air service and whether
that service has been increasing or decreasing;
     Whether the applicant has a plan to provide any necessary
continued financial support for the proposed project after the
requested grant award expires;
     The grant amount requested compared with total funds
available for all communities;
     The proposed federal grant amount requested compared with
the local share offered;
     Any letters of intent from airline planning departments or
intermodal

surface transportation providers on behalf of applications that are
specifically intended to enlist new or expanded air service or surface
transportation service in support of the air service in the community;
     Whether the applicant has plans to continue with the
proposed project if it is not self-sustaining after the grant award
expires; and
     Equitable and geographic distribution of available funds.

C. Additional Guidance

    Market Analysis: Applicants requesting funds for a revenue
guarantee/subsidy/financial incentive are encouraged to conduct and
reference in their applications an in-depth analysis of their target
markets. Target markets can be destination specific (e.g. service to
LAX), a geographic region (e.g. northwest mountain region) or
directional (e.g. hub in the southeastern United States).
    Complementary Marketing Commitment: Applicants requesting funds for
a revenue guarantee/subsidy/financial incentive are encouraged to
designate in their applications a portion of the project funds
(federal, local or in-kind) for the development and implementation of a
marketing plan in support of the service sought.
    Subsidies for a carrier to compete against an incumbent: The
Department is reluctant to subsidize one carrier but not others in a
competitive market. For this reason, communities that propose to use
the grant funds for service in a city-pair market that is already
served by a carrier must explain in detail why the existing service is
insufficient or unsatisfactory, or provide other compelling information
to support such proposals.
    Cost Sharing and Local Contributions: Applications must clearly
identify the level of federal funding sought for the proposed project.
Applications must also identify the community's cash contributions to
the proposed project, in-kind contributions from the airport, and in-
kind contributions from the community. Cash contributions from airport
revenues must be identified separately from cash contributions from
other community sources, and cash contributions from the state and/or
local government should be separately identified and described.
    Types of contributions. Contributions should represent a new
financial commitment or new financial resources devoted to attracting
new or improved service, or addressing specific high-fare or other
service issues, such as improving patronage of existing service at the
airport. For those communities that propose to contribute to the grant
project, that contribution can be in the following forms:
    Cash from non-airport revenues. A cash contribution can include
funds from the state, the county or the local government, and/or from
local businesses, or other private organizations in the community.
Contributions that are comprised of intangible non-cash items, such as
the value of donated advertising, are considered in-kind contributions
(see further discussion below).
    Cash from airport revenues. This includes contributions from funds
generated by airport operations. Airport revenues may not be used for
revenue guarantees to airlines, per 49 U.S.C. 47107, 47133.
Applications that include local contributions based on airport revenues
do not receive priority consideration for selection.
    In-kind contributions from the airport. This can include such items
as waivers of landing fees, terminal rents, fuel fees, and/or vehicle
parking fees.
    In-kind contributions from the community. This can include such
items as donated advertising from media outlets, catering services for
inaugural events, or in-kind trading, such as advertising in exchange
for free air travel. Travel banks and travel commitments/pledges are
considered to be in-kind contributions,\1\ as are reduced fares offered
by airlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A travel bank involves the actual deposit of funds from
participating parties (e.g., businesses, individuals) into a
designated bank account for purchasing air travel on the selected
airline, with defined procedures for the subsequent use or
withdrawal of those funds under an agreement with the airline.
Often, however, what communities refer to as a travel bank actually
involves travel pledges from businesses in the community without any
collection of funds or formal procedures for use of the funds. As
with other types of in-kind contributions, the Department views
travel banks and pledges included in grant applications as an
indicator of local community support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cash vs. in-kind contributions. Communities that include local
contributions made in cash will be viewed more favorably.

III. Evaluation and Selection Process

    The Department will first review each application to determine
whether it has satisfied the following eligibility requirements:
    1. The applicant is an Eligible Applicant;
    2. The application is for an Eligible Project (including compliance
with the Same Project Limitation); and
    3. The application is complete (including submission of a completed
SF424 and all of the information listed in Contents of Application, in
Section IV below).
    To the extent that the Department determines that an application
does not satisfy these eligibility requirements, the Department will
deem that application ineligible and will not consider it further.
    The Department will then review all eligible applications based on
the selection criteria outlined above in Section II. Applications that
meet one or more of the priority selection criteria will be viewed more
favorably than those that do not meet any priority selection criteria.
    Grant awards will be made as promptly as possible so that selected
communities can complete the grant agreement process and implement
their plans. Given the competitive nature of the grant process, the
Department will not meet with applicants regarding their applications.
All non-confidential portions of each application, all correspondence
and ex-parte communications, and all orders will be posted in the
above-captioned docket on www.regulations.gov.
    The Department will announce its grant selections in a Selection
Order that will be posted in the above-captioned docket, served on all
applicants and all parties served with this Solicitation Order, and
posted on the Department's SCASDP Web site at http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/X50%20Role_files/smallcommunity.htm.

IV. How to Apply

Required Steps

     Determine eligibility;
     Register with www.grants.gov (see Registration with
www.grants.gov, below);
     Submit an Application for Federal Domestic Assistance
(SF424);
     Submit a cover sheet including all required information
(see Appendix B);
     Submit a completed ``Summary Information'' schedule (see
Appendix C);
     Submit a detailed application of up to 25 pages (one-sided
only, excluding the completed SF424, cover sheet, Summary Information
schedule, and any letters from the community showing support for the
application) that meets all required criteria (see Appendix D);
     Attach any letters from the community showing support for
the application to the proposal, which should be addressed to Aloha
Ley, Associate Director, Small Community Program; and
     Provide separate submission of confidential material, if
requested. (see Appendix E)
    Each application must be no longer than 25 one-sided pages
(excluding the

completed SF424, cover sheet, Summary Information schedule, and any
letters from the community showing support for the application). DOT
will not consider any information contained in pages beyond page 25
(excluding any letters of support).
    An application will not be complete and will be deemed ineligible
for a grant award until and unless all required materials, including
SF424, have been submitted through www.grants.gov by 5 p.m. EDT on June
11, 2012.
    Registration with www.grants.gov: Communities must be registered
with www.grants.gov in order to submit an application for funds
available under this program. For consortium applications, only the
consortium must be registered with www.grants.gov in order to submit
its application for funds available under this program. See Appendix A
for additional information on applying through www.grants.gov.
    Contents of Application: There is no set format that must be used
for applications. Each application should, to the extent possible,
address the selection criteria set forth in Section II, above,
including a clear description of the air service needs/deficiencies and
present plans/strategies that directly address those needs/
deficiencies. At a minimum, however, each application must include the
following information:
     A description of the community's air service needs or
deficiencies, including information about: (1) Major origin/destination
markets that are not now served or are not served adequately; (2) fare
levels that the community deems relevant to consideration of its
application, including market analyses or studies demonstrating an
understanding of local air service needs; and (3) any air service
development efforts over the past three years and the results of those
efforts (including marketing and promotional efforts).
     A strategic plan for meeting those needs under the Small
Community Program, including the community's specific project goal(s)
and detailed plan for attaining such goal(s). Applicants are advised to
obtain firm assurances from air carriers proposing to offer new air
services if a grant is awarded. Plans should:
    [check] For applications involving new or improved service, explain
how the service will become self-sufficient.
    [check] Fully and clearly outline the goals and objectives of the
project. When an application is selected, these goals and objectives
will be incorporated into the grant agreement and define its basic
project scope. Once a grant agreement is signed, if an amendment is
sought to allow for different activities or a different approach, the
Department will consider whether the amendment sought is consistent
with the project scope as set forth in the grant agreement. Amendments
that would alter the scope will not be permitted.
    [check] Include alternative or back-up strategies for achieving
their desired goals and objectives. These strategies will be
incorporated into the grant agreement.
     A detailed description of the funding necessary for
implementation of the proposed project (including federal and non-
federal contributions).
     An explanation of how the proposed project differs from
any previous projects for which the community received SCASDP funds
(see Same Project Limitation, above).
     Designation of a legal sponsor responsible for
administering the proposed project. The legal sponsor of the proposed
project must be a government entity. If the applicant is a public-
private partnership, a public government member of the organization
must be identified as the community's sponsor to receive project cost
reimbursements. A community may designate only one government entity as
the legal sponsor, even if it is applying as a consortium that consists
of two or more local government entities. Private organizations may not
be designated as the legal sponsor of a grant under the Small Community
Program. The community has the responsibility to ensure that the
recipient of any funding has the legal authority under state and local
laws to carry out all aspects of the grant.

V. Air Service Development Zone Designation

    As part of the Small Community Program, the Department may also
designate one grant recipient as an Air Service Development Zone. The
purpose of the designation is to provide communities interested in
attracting business to the area surrounding the airport and/or
developing land-use options for the area to work with the Department on
means to achieve those goals. The Department will assist the designated
community in establishing contacts with and obtaining advice and
assistance from appropriate government agencies, including the
Department of Commerce and other offices within the Department of
Transportation, and in identifying other pertinent resources that may
aid the community in its efforts to attract businesses and to formulate
land-use options. However, the community receiving this designation
will be responsible for developing, implementing, and managing
activities related to the air service development zone initiative. Only
communities that are interested in these objectives and have a plan to
accomplish them should apply for this designation. There are no
additional funds associated with this designation, and applying for
this designation will provide no special benefit or priority to a
community applying for a SCASDP grant.
    Grant applicants interested in selection for the Air Service
Development Zone designation must include in their applications a
separate section, titled, Support for Air Service Development Zone
Designation. The community should provide as detailed a plan as
possible, including what goals it expects to achieve from the air
service development zone designation and the types of activities on
which it would like to work with the Department in achieving those
goals. The community should also indicate whether further local
government approvals are required in order to implement the proposed
activities.

VI. Grant Administration

    Grant Agreements: Communities awarded grants are required to
execute a grant agreement with the Department before they begin to
expend funds under the grant award. Applicants should not assume they
have received a grant, nor should they obligate or expend local funds
prior to receiving and fully executing a grant agreement with the
Department. Expenditures made prior to the execution of a grant
agreement, including costs associated with preparation of the grant
application, will not be reimbursed. Moreover, there are numerous
assurances that grant recipients must sign and honor when federal funds
are awarded. All communities receiving a grant will be required to
accept the responsibilities of these assurances and to execute such the
assurances when they execute their grant agreements. Copies of
assurances are available online at http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/X50%20Role_files/smallcommunity.htm, (click on ``SCASDP Grant
Assurances'').
    Carrier Assurances for New Air Service: Applicants are advised to
obtain firm assurances from air carriers proposing to offer new air
service if a grant is awarded. The Department will grant an extension
only when the community can provide strong evidence of a firm
commitment on the part of an air carrier to deliver the desired
service.
    Payments: The Small Community Program is a reimbursable program;
therefore, communities are required to

make expenditures for project implementation under the program prior to
seeking reimbursement from the Department. Project implementation costs
are reimbursable from grant funds only for services or property
delivered during the grant term. Reimbursement rates are calculated as
a percentage of the total federal funds requested divided by the
federal funds plus the local cash contribution (which is not
refundable). The percentage is determined by: (SCASDP Grant Amount) /
(SCASDP Grant Amount + Local Cash Contribution + State Cash
Contribution, if applicable). Payments/expenditures in forms other than
cash (e.g. in-kind) are not reimbursable. For example, if a community
requests $500,000 in federal funding and provides $100,000 in local
contributions, the reimbursement rate would be 83.33 percent:
((500,000)/(500,000 + 100,000)) = 83.33.
    Grantee Reports: Each grantee must submit quarterly reports on the
progress made during the previous quarter in implementing its grant
project. In addition, each community will be required to submit a final
report on its project to the Department, and 10 percent of the grant
funds will not be reimbursed to the community until such final report
is received. Additional information on award administration for
selected communities will be provided in the grant agreement.
    Grant Amendments: Any amendment to a grant agreement must be
approved by the Department. A grantee may wish to amend its agreement
with the Department in the event of a change in circumstances after the
date the agreement is executed. Typically, amendments involve an
extension to the time period for completing the grant or a change in
the types of activities authorized for reimbursement under the goals
and objectives of the grant agreement. Grantees are cautioned, however,
that the Department cannot authorize amendments that are incompatible
with the scope of the agreement.

VII. Questions and Clarifications

    For further information concerning this notice please contact Aloha
Ley at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Brooke Chapman at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>. A TDD is available for
individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The
Department may post answers to questions and other important
clarifications in the above-captioned docket on www.regulations.gov and
on the program Web site at http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/X-50%20Role_files/smallcommunity.htm.
    This order is issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.56a(f).
    Accordingly,
    1. Applications for funding under the Small Community Air Service
Development Program should be submitted via www.grants.gov as an
attachment to the SF424 by June 11, 2012; and
    2. This order will be published in the Federal Register, posted on
www.grants.gov, and served on the Conference of Mayors, the National
League of Cities, the National Governors Association, the National
Association of State Aviation Officials, County Executives of America,
the American Association of Airport Executives, and the Airports
Council International-North America.

    Issued May 9, 2012.

    By:
 Robert A. Letteney,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.

Appendix A

Additional Information on Applying Through www.grants.gov

    Applications must be submitted through www.grants.gov. To apply
for funding through www.grants.gov, applicants must be properly
registered. Complete instructions on how to register and apply can
be found at www.grants.gov. If applicants experience difficulties at
any point during registration or application process, please call
the www.grants.gov Customer Support Hotline at 1-800-518-4726,
Monday-Friday from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. EDT. Registering with
www.grants.gov is a one-time process; however, processing delays may
occur and it can take up to several weeks for first-time registrants
to receive confirmation and a user password. It is highly
recommended that applicants start the registration process as early
as possible to prevent delays that may preclude submitting an
application by the deadlines specified. Applications will not be
accepted after June 11, 2012; delayed registration is not an
acceptable reason for extensions.
    In order to apply for SCASDP funding and to apply for funding
through www.grants.gov, all applicants are required to complete the
following:
    1. Acquire a DUNS Number. A DUNS number is required for
www.grants.gov registration. The Office of Management and Budget
requires that all businesses and nonprofit applicants for federal
funds include a DUNS (Data Universal Numbering System) number in
their applications for a new award or renewal of an existing award.
A DUNS number is a unique nine-digit sequence recognized as the
universal standard for identifying and keeping track of entities
receiving federal funds. The identifier is used for tracking
purposes and to validate address and point of contact information
for federal assistance applicants, recipients, and sub-recipients.
The DUNS number will be used throughout the grant life cycle.
Obtaining a DUNS number is a free, one-time activity. Obtain a DUNS
number by calling 1-866 705-5711 or by applying online at http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform.
    2. Acquire or Renew Registration with the Central Contractor
Registration (CCR) Database. All applicants for federal financial
assistance maintain current registrations in the Central Contractor
Registration (CCR) database. An applicant must be registered in the
CCR to successfully register in www.grants.gov. The CCR database is
the repository for standard information about federal financial
assistance applicants, recipients, and sub-recipients. Organizations
that have previously submitted applications via www.grants.gov are
already registered with CCR, as it is a requirement for
www.grants.gov registration. Please note, however, that applicants
must update or renew their CCR registration at least once per year
to maintain an active status, so it is critical to check
registration status well in advance of relevant application
deadlines. Information about CCR registration procedures can be
accessed at www.ccr.gov.
    3. Acquire an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) and a
www.grants.gov Username and Password. Complete your AOR profile on
www.grants.gov and create your username and password. You will need
to use your organization's DUNS Number to complete this step. For
more information about the registration process, go to
www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp.
    4. Acquire Authorization for your AOR from the E-Business Point
of Contact (E-Biz POC). The E-Biz POC at your organization must log
in to www.grants.gov to confirm you as an AOR. Please note that
there can be more than one AOR for your organization.
    5. Search for the Funding Opportunity on www.grants.gov. Please
use the following identifying information when searching for the
SCASDP funding opportunity on www.grants.gov. The Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for this solicitation is 20.930,
titled Payments for Small Community Air Service Development.
    6. Submit an Application Addressing All of the Requirements
Outlined in this Funding Availability Announcement. Within 24-48
hours after submitting your electronic application, you should
receive an email validation message from www.grants.gov. The
validation message will tell you whether the application has been
received and validated or rejected, with an explanation. You are
urged to submit your application at least 72 hours prior to the due
date of the application to allow time to receive the validation
message and to correct any problems that may have caused a rejection
notification.

    Note: When uploading attachments please use generally accepted
formats such as .pdf, .doc, and .xls. While you may imbed picture
files such as .jpg, .gif, .bmp, in your files, please do not save
and submit the attachment in these formats. Additionally, the
following formats will not be accepted: .com, .bat, .exe, .vbs,
.cfg, .dat, .db, .dbf, .dll, .ini, .log, .ora, .sys, and .zip.

Experiencing Unforeseen www.grants.gov Technical Issues

    If you experience unforeseen www.grants.gov technical issues
beyond your control that prevent you from submitting your
application by 5 p.m. EDT on June 11, 2012, you must contact us at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER> within the 24 hours
following the deadline and request approval to submit your
application after the deadline has passed. At that time, DOT staff
will require you to provide your DUNS number and your www.grants.gov
Help Desk tracking number(s). After DOT staff review all of the
information submitted and contact the www.grants.gov Help Desk to
validate the technical issues you reported, DOT staff will contact
you to either approve or deny your request to submit a late
application through www.grants.gov. If the technical issues you
reported cannot be validated, your application will be rejected as
untimely. To ensure a fair competition for limited discretionary
funds, the following conditions are not valid reasons to permit late
submissions: (1) Failure to complete the registration process before
the deadline date; (2) failure to follow www.grants.gov instructions
on how to register and apply as posted on its Web site; (3) failure
to follow all of the instructions in the funding availability
notice; and (4) technical issues experienced with the applicant's
computer or information technology (IT) environment.

Appendix B

Cover Sheet

    The cover page for all applications should bear the title
``Application Under the Small Community Air Service Development
Program, Docket DOT-OST-2012-0069'' and should include:
    (1) The name of the community or consortium of communities
applying for the grant;
    (2) The legal sponsor and its Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data
Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, including + 4; Employee
Identification Number (EIN) or Tax ID; and
    (3) The 2-digit Congressional district code applicable to the
sponsoring organization and, if a consortium, to each participating
community.
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15MY12.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15MY12.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15MY12.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15MY12.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15MY12.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15MY12.023

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-C

Appendix E

Confidential Commercial Information

    Applicants will be able to provide certain confidential business
information relevant to their proposals on a confidential basis.
Under the Department's Freedom of Information Act regulations (49
CFR 7.17), such information is limited to commercial or financial
information that, if disclosed, would either likely cause
substantial harm to the competitive position of a business or
enterprise or make it more difficult for the Federal Government to
obtain similar information in the future.
    Applicants seeking confidential treatment of a portion of their
applications must segregate the confidential material in a sealed
envelope marked ``Confidential Submission of X (the applicant) in
Docket DOT-OST-2012-0069,'' and include with that material a request
in the form of a motion seeking confidential treatment of the
material under 14 CFR 302.12 (Rule 12) of the Department's
regulations. The applicant should submit an original and two copies
of its motion and an original and two copies of the confidential
material in the sealed envelope.
    The confidential material should not be included with the
original of the applicant's proposal that is submitted via
www.grants.gov. The applicant's original submission, however, should
indicate clearly where the confidential material would have been
inserted. If an applicant invokes Rule 12, the confidential portion
of its filing will be treated as confidential pending a final
determination. All confidential material must be received by June
11, 2012, and delivered to the Office of Aviation Analysis, 8th
Floor, Room W86-310, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    A template for the confidential motion can be found at http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/X-50%20Role_files/smallcommunity.htm.
    Applicants will be able to provide certain confidential business
information relevant to their proposals on a confidential basis.
Under the Department's Freedom of Information Act regulations (49
CFR 7.17), such information is limited to commercial or financial
information that, if disclosed, would either likely cause
substantial harm to the competitive position of a business or
enterprise or make it more difficult for the Federal Government to
obtain similar information in the future.
    Applicants seeking confidential treatment of a portion of their
applications must segregate the confidential material in a sealed
envelope marked ``Confidential Submission of X (the applicant) in
Docket DOT-OST-2011-0119,'' and include with that material a request
in the form of a motion seeking confidential treatment of the
material under 14 CFR 302.12 (Rule 12) of the Department's
regulations. The applicant should submit an original and two copies
of its motion and an original and two copies of the confidential
material in the sealed envelope.
    The confidential material should not be included with the
original of the applicant's proposal that is submitted via
www.grants.gov. The applicant's original submission, however, should
indicate clearly where the confidential material would have been
inserted. If an applicant invokes Rule 12, the confidential portion
of its filing will be treated as confidential pending a final
determination. All confidential material must be received by August
2, 2011, and delivered to the Office of Aviation Analysis, 8th
Floor, Room W86-310, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    A template for the confidential motion can be found at http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/X-50%20Role_files/smallcommunity.htm.

[FR Doc. 2012-11718 Filed 5-10-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on May 26, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2004-17893

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  VOLGA-DNEPR J.S. CARGO AIRLINE
        Date Filed:  May 17, 2004

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 U.S.C. section 40109(g) to permit
the applicant to operate, on behalf of Lockheed Martin, one, one-way
cargo charter flight over the routing Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to
Stennis Space Center, Mississippi, to Moffet Field, California, on or
about May 28-June 8, 2004, using its AN-124-100 aircraft.  Volga-Dnepr
plans to carry on this flight one Lockheed Martin Space Systems
satellite in a container (to be enplaned at Philadelphia), and one empty
satellite container (to be enplaned at Stennis Space Center).  The
applicant stated that Lockheed Martin urgently needs lift to meet tight
assembly and launch schedules, that the cargo is too large for
transportation on U.S.-carrier aircraft; and that surface transportation
is not feasible because of the delicate nature and high value of the
cargo, and conditions unsuitable to maintaining system integrity
compliance.

Applicant representative:  Glenn P. Wicks,<PHONE_NUMBER>         DOT
analyst:  Allen F. Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  Volga-Dnepr served its application on those U.S.
carriers operating large all-cargo aircraft.  Each carrier indicated
that it did not have aircraft available to conduct the proposed
operation and that it had no comment or did not oppose grant of the
requested authority.

Statutory Standards:  Under 49 U.S.C. section 40109(g), we may authorize
a foreign air carrier to carry commercial traffic between U.S. points
(i.e., cabotage traffic) under limited circumstances.  Specifically, we
must find that the authority is required in the public interest; that
because of an emergency created by unusual circumstances not arising in
the normal course of business the traffic cannot be accommodated by U.S.
carriers holding certificates under 49 U.S.C. section 41102; that all
possible efforts have been made to place the traffic on U.S. carriers;
and that the transportation is necessary to avoid unreasonable hardship
to the traffic involved (an additional required finding, concerning
emergency transportation during labor disputes, was not relevant here).

        DISPOSITION

Action: Approved
                                             Action date:  May 26, 2004

Effective dates of authority granted:  May 26, 2004, through June 8,
2004

Basis for approval:  We are granting Volga-Dnepr’s request to operate
its proposed flight, enplaning cargo at Philadelphia and at Stennis
Space Center, and carrying that cargo to Moffet Field, through June 8,
2004.  We found that its request met all the relevant criteria of 49
U.S.C. section 40109(g) for the grant of an exemption of this type and
that the grant was required in the public interest.  Specifically, we
were persuaded that the need to move the cargo promptly in order to meet
the tight assembly and launch schedules, the fact that the cargo could
not be transported by surface transportation because of its delicate
nature and high value, the potential negative impact of delivery delay,
and the unique, outsized nature of the cargo, constituted an emergency
not arising in the normal course of business.  Moreover, based on the
representations of the U.S. carriers, we concluded that no U.S. carrier
had aircraft available that could be used to conduct the operations at
issue here.  We also found that grant of this authority would prevent
unreasonable hardship to Lockheed Martin.  Finally, we found that the
applicant was qualified to perform its proposed operation.

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to our
standard exemption conditions and to the condition that the applicant
must comply with an FAA-approved flight routing for the authorized
operation.

Action taken by:        Karan K. Bhatia

                                  Assistant Secretary

                     for Aviation and International Affairs

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp


You Asked For the Following: Year : From: 1980 To: 2003 State : Chesapeake By State Species : SPOT " Year"," State"," Species"," Metric Tons"," Pounds","$" " 1980"," Maryland"," SPOT"," 2.9"," 6,300"," 1,6 33" " 1980"," Virginia"," SPOT"," 814.3"," 1,795,100"," 591,2 37" " 1981"," Maryland"," SPOT"," 6.4"," 14,200"," 5,4 35" " 1981"," Virginia"," SPOT"," 465.3"," 1,025,800"," 410,6 86" " 1982"," Maryland"," SPOT"," 2.8"," 6,200"," 2,1 13" " 1982"," Virginia"," SPOT"," 461.4"," 1,017,100"," 389,8 92" " 1983"," Maryland"," SPOT"," 58.7"," 129,400"," 52,8 64" " 1983"," Virginia"," SPOT"," 711.2"," 1,567,900"," 490,1 53" " 1984"," Maryland"," SPOT"," 19.6"," 43,200"," 18,3 51" " 1984"," Virginia"," SPOT"," 333.5"," 735,200"," 260,7 89" " 1985"," Maryland"," SPOT"," 3.5"," 7,700"," 3,5 26" " 1985"," Virginia"," SPOT"," 708.4"," 1,561,739"," 573,7 45" " 1986"," Maryland"," SPOT"," 47.4"," 104,400"," 43,4 10" " 1986"," Virginia"," SPOT"," 834.4"," 1,839,500"," 588,8 70" " 1987"," Maryland"," SPOT"," 114.2"," 251,800"," 78,6 25" " 1987"," Virginia"," SPOT"," 1,687.9"," 3,721,100"," 1,100,6 59" " 1988"," Maryland"," SPOT"," 26.3"," 58,000"," 30,1 33" " 1988"," Virginia"," SPOT"," 900.6"," 1,985,500"," 732,0 64" " 1989"," Maryland"," SPOT"," 52.5"," 115,800"," 62,5 99" " 1989"," Virginia"," SPOT"," 1,119.5"," 2,468,100"," 1,081,1 41" " 1990"," Maryland"," SPOT"," 58.0"," 127,882"," 87,5 00" " 1990"," Virginia"," SPOT"," 739.7"," 1,630,735"," 822,8 25" " 1991"," Maryland"," SPOT"," 98.0"," 216,035"," 90,3 75" " 1991"," Virginia"," SPOT"," 1,151.8"," 2,539,340"," 1,031,8 86" " 1992"," Maryland"," SPOT"," 150.5"," 331,837"," 92,6 74" " 1992"," Virginia"," SPOT"," 1,132.9"," 2,497,622"," 783,4 01" " 1993"," Maryland"," SPOT"," 82.6"," 182,198"," 106,0 38" " 1993"," Virginia"," SPOT"," 1,519.3"," 3,349,399"," 1,575,1 75" " 1994"," Maryland"," SPOT"," 75.4"," 166,246"," 91,5 35" " 1994"," Virginia"," SPOT"," 1,936.6"," 4,269,402"," 1,629,8 73" " 1995"," Virginia"," SPOT"," 1,643.4"," 3,622,954"," 1,272,3 80" " 1996"," Maryland"," SPOT"," 116.4"," 256,711"," 167,2 73" " 1996"," Virginia"," SPOT"," 1,352.7"," 2,982,083"," 1,151,4 34" " 1997"," Maryland"," SPOT"," 54.6"," 120,331"," 50,6 82" " 1997"," Virginia"," SPOT"," 1,571.9"," 3,465,507"," 1,451,6 17" " 1998"," Maryland"," SPOT"," 102.5"," 225,937"," 152,5 22" " 1998"," Virginia"," SPOT"," 1,940.2"," 4,277,256"," 1,535,8 91" " 1999"," Maryland"," SPOT"," 101.4"," 223,463"," 102,6 47" " 1999"," Virginia"," SPOT"," 1,343.5"," 2,961,890"," 1,040,3 87" " 2000"," Maryland"," SPOT"," 80.3"," 176,946"," 84,9 72" " 2000"," Virginia"," SPOT"," 1,707.6"," 3,764,679"," 2,255,9 80" " 2001"," Maryland"," SPOT"," 128.6"," 283,488"," 148,7 42" " 2001"," Virginia"," SPOT"," 1,473.4"," 3,248,212"," 1,325,7 82" " 2002"," Maryland"," SPOT"," 62.9"," 138,640"," 81,2 12" " 2002"," Virginia"," SPOT"," 1,389.0"," 3,062,211"," 1,255,6 35" " 2003"," Maryland"," SPOT"," 83.7"," 184,437"," 89,6 99" " 2003"," Virginia"," SPOT"," 1,574.7"," 3,471,484"," 1,687,5 84"


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION - COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITION

Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0428

EPA Registration Division Contact: Sidney Jackson<PHONE_NUMBER>

Interregional Research Project Number 4
Pesticide Petition Number: 4E8309
	EPA has received a pesticide petition PP# 4E8309 from the Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), IR-4 Project Headquarters,  Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08450  proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.449 by establishing a tolerance for the residues of the insecticide avermectin (abamectin), including its metabolites and degradates, determined by measuring only avermectin B1 a mixture of avermectins containing greater than or equal to 80% avermectin B1 a (5-O-demethyl avermectin A1) and less than or equal to 20% avermectin B1b (5-O-demethyl-25-de(1-methylpropyl)-25-(1-methylethyl) avermectin A1) and its delta-8,9-isomer, in or on the raw agricultural commodities: Fruit, stone, group 12 - 12 at 0.09 parts per million (ppm), Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13  -  07F at 0.02 ppm, Nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.01 ppm, Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.07 ppm, Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.02 ppm, Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at 0.05 ppm, Fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.02 ppm, Papaya at 0.40 ppm, Star apple at 0.40 ppm, Black sapote at 0.40 ppm, Sapodilla at 0.40 ppm, Canistel at 0.40 ppm, Mamey sapote at 0.40 ppm, Guava at 0.015 ppm, Feijoa at 0.015 ppm, Jaboticaba at 0.015 ppm, Wax jambu at 0.015 ppm, Starfruit at 0.015 ppm, Passionfruit at 0.015 ppm, Acerola at 0.015 ppm, Lychee 0.01 ppm, Longan at 0.01 ppm, Spanish lime at 0.01 ppm, Rambutan at 0.01 ppm, Pulasan at 0.01 ppm, Pineapple at 0.015 ppm, Bean at 0.015 ppm, and Onion, green, subgroup 3-07B at 0.08 ppm. Upon approval of the aforementioned tolerances, it is proposed that 40 CFR 180.449 be amended to remove the established tolerances for the residues of avermectin B1 in or on the raw agricultural commodity: : Bean, dry, seed at 0.01 ppm, Pear at 0.02 ppm, Apple at 0.02 ppm, Citrus at 0.02 ppm, Fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.09 ppm, Nut, tree, group 14 at 0.01 ppm, Pistachio at 0.01 ppm, Grape at 0.02 ppm, Strawberry at 0.05 ppm and Vegetable, fruiting group, 8 at 0.02 ppm. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
   A. Residue Chemistry
	1. Plant metabolism. The metabolism of abamectin in plants is adequately understood and the residues of concern include the parent insecticide abamectin (also referred to as avermectin B1 which is a mixture of a minimum of 80% avermectin B1a and a maximum of 20% avermectin B1b) and the delta 8,9-isomer of the B1a and of the B1b components of the parent insecticide.
      1. Analytical method. The analytical methods involve homogenization, filtration, partition, and cleanup with analysis by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)-fluorescence detection. The methods are sufficiently sensitive to detect residues at or above the tolerances proposed. All methods have undergone independent laboratory validation.
      2. Magnitude of residues. Complete residue data to support the requested tolerances have been submitted.  The requested tolerances are adequately supported.
In support of the requested tolerances, IR-4 has conducted the necessary trials in accordance with the requirements of the EPA Residue Chemistry Guidelines 860.1500 to determine the magnitude of residue of avermectin B1 in or on requested commodities.
B. Toxicological Profile
	1. Acute toxicity.  The database includes the following studies with Syngenta's technical abamectin products:
Abamectin Technical:
i. A rat acute oral study with an lethal dose (LD)50 of 13.6 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg).
ii. A rat acute oral study with an LD50 of 214-232 mg/kg.
iii. A rabbit acute dermal study with an LD50 of 2000 mg/kg.
iv. A rat acute inhalation study with an lethal concentration (LC)50 of 0.21 mg/liter (L) (nose only).
v. A primary eye irritation study in rabbits which showed no irritation.
vi. A primary skin irritation study in rabbits which showed slight irritation.
vii. A dermal sensitization study (Buehler) in guinea pigs which was negative.
Abamectin Technical II
i. A rat acute oral study with an LD50 of 372.5  mg/kg
ii. A rat acute dermal study with an LD50 of >200 mg/kg but <2000 mg/kg
ii. A rat acute inhalation study with an LC50 of >0.0518 mg/L (nose only)
v. A primary eye irritation study in rabbits which showed no irritation.
vi. A primary skin irritation study in rabbits which showed slight irritation.
vii. A dermal sensitization study (Buehler) in guinea pigs with Abamectin Technical supports the registration of this technical.
	2. Genotoxicty. The Ames assays conducted with and without metabolic activation were both negative. The V - 79 mammalian cell mutagenesis assays conducted with and without metabolic activation did not produce mutations. In an alkaline elution/rat hepatocyte assay, abamectin was found to induce single strand DNA breaks without significant toxicity in rat hepatocytes treated in vitro at doses greater than 0.2 millimole per liter (mM). This in vitro dose of 0.2 mM is biologically unobtainable in vivo, due to the toxicity of the compound. However, at these potentially lethal doses, in vivo treatment did not induce DNA single strand breaks in hepatocytes. In the mouse bone marrow assay, abamectin was not found to induce chromosomal damage. There are also, many studies and a great deal of clinical and follow-up experience with regard to ivermectin, a closely similar human and animal drug.
	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. In a 2-generation study in rats the no-observed adverse-effect level (NOAEL) was established at 0.12 mg/kg/day in pups based upon retinal folds, decreased body weight (bwt), and mortality. The NOAELs for systemic and reproductive toxicity were 0.4 mg/kg/day. In the 1-generation reproduction study in rats with the delta 8,9-isomer, the NOAEL was 0.4 mg/kg/day and the lowest- observed adverse-effect level (LOAEL) was greater than 0.4 mg/kg/day highest dose tested (HDT). In an oral developmental toxicity study in rabbits the maternal NOAEL was 1.0 mg/kg/day based upon decreased body weights and tremors. The fetal NOAEL was 1.0 mg/kg/day based upon clubbed feet. In an oral developmental toxicity study in rats the maternal and fetal NOAEL was 1.6 mg/kg/day, the HDT. In an oral developmental toxicity study the maternal NOAEL in CF-1 mice that expressed P-glycoprotein was greater than 1.5 mg/kg/day, the highest and only dose tested. No cleft palates were observed in fetuses that expressed normal levels of P-glycoprotein, but fetuses with low or no levels of P-glycoprotein had increased incidence of cleft palates. In a developmental neurotoxicity study in rats the maternal NOAEL was 0.4 mg/kg/day, the HDT, and the offspring NOAEL was 0.12 mg/kg/day with an offspring LOAEL of 0.2 mg/kg/day based on slight pup body weight loss. In a second developmental neurotoxicity study in rats the maternal NOAEL was 0.4 mg/kg/day, the HDT, and the offspring NOAEL was 0.2 mg/kg/day with an offspring LOAEL of 0.4 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight in both sexes. There was no evidence of neurotoxicity in the offspring.
	4. Subchronic toxicity. Subchronic toxicity studies included the following:
i. A rat 14 - week oral toxicity study with a NOAEL of 0.4 mg/kg/day, the HDT.
ii. A dog 12 - week feeding study with a NOAEL of 0.5 mg/kg/day based upon mydriasis.
iii. A dog 18 - week oral study with a NOAEL of 0.25 mg/kg/day based upon mortality.
	5. Chronic toxicity. A rat 53 - week carcinogenicity feeding study was negative for carcinogenicity, with a NOAEL of 1.5 mg/kg/day based upon tremors. A CD - 1 mouse 94 - week carcinogenicity feeding study was negative for carcinogenicity, with a NOAEL of 4 mg/kg/day based upon decreased body weights. A dog 53 - week chronic feeding study resulted in a NOAEL of 0.25 mg/kg/day based upon mydriasis.
	6. Animal metabolism. Rats were given oral doses of 0.14 or 1.4 mg/kg bwt/day of abamectin or 1.4 mg/kg bwt/day of the delta 8,9 isomer. Over 7 - days, the percentages excreted in urine were 0.3 - 1% of the administered dose of abamectin and 0.4% of the dose of the isomer. The animals eliminated 69 - 82% of the dose of abamectin and 94% of the dose of isomer in feces. In rats, goats, and cattle, unchanged parent compound accounted for up to 50% of the total radioactive residues in tissues. The 24-hydroxymethyl derivative of abamectin was found in rats, goats, and cattle treated with the compound and in rats treated with the delta 8,9 isomer, and the 3''-O-demethyl derivative was found in rats and cattle administered abamectin and in rats administered the isomer.
	7. Metabolite toxicology. There are no metabolites of concern based on a differential metabolism between plants and animals. The potential hazard of the 24-hydroxymethyl or the 3''-O-demethyl animal metabolites was evaluated in toxicology studies with abamectin photolytic break-down product, the delta 8,9-isomer.
	8. Endocrine disruption. There is no evidence that abamectin is an endocrine disrupter. Evaluation of the rat multigenerational study demonstrated no effect on the time to mating or on the mating and fertility indices, suggesting no effects on the estrous cycle, on mating behavior, or on male or female fertility at doses up to 0.4 mg/kg/day, the HDT. Furthermore, the range finding study demonstrated no adverse effect on female fertility at doses up to 1.5 mg/kg/day, the HDT. Similarly, chronic and subchronic toxicity studies in mice, rats, and dogs did not demonstrate any evidence of toxicity to the male or female reproductive tract, or to the thyroid or pituitary (based upon organ weights and gross and histopathologic examination). In the developmental studies, the pattern of toxicity observed does not seem suggestive of any endocrine effect. Finally, experience with ivermectin in breeding animals, including sperm evaluations in multiple species, shows no adverse effects suggestive of endocrine disruption.
      The EPA notified registrants of the EPA's  first group of specified active ingredients and manufacturers of the EPA's first group of specified  inert ingredients that the Agency was initiating the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) for these compounds. In 2010 the EPA issued Data-Call In's the endocrine assays required for specified active ingredients including abamectin.  The Abamectin EDSP Consortium is generating the required assays

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. Tier IV acute, short-term, and chronic aggregate exposure evaluations were made for abamectin using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCIDTM , version 3.18), which incorporates food consumption data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey/"What We Eat in America" (NHANES/WWEIA) dietary survey conducted in 2003-2008.  These assessments included all current and pending foliar, seed treatment, food handling establishment (FHE), and residential uses for abamectin, as well as a number of revised crop groupings and proposed new IR-4 uses on green onion (subgroup 3-07B), fruiting vegetables (Crop Group 8-10), citrus fruit (Crop Group 10-10), small vine-climbing fruit except fuzzy kiwifruit (subgroup 13-07F), low growing berries (subgroup 13-07G, except cranberry), stone fruit (Crop Group 12-12), pome fruit (Crop Group 11-10), tree nuts (Crop Group 14-12), papaya, star apple, black sapote, sapodilla, canistel, mamey sapote, guava, feijoa, jaboticaba, wax jambu, starfruit, passionfruit, acerola, lychee, longan, Spanish lime, rambutan, pulasan, pineapple, and bean.  For these exposure assessments, residue data were obtained either from the EPA Health Effects Division's July 18, 2011 dietary exposure assessment (DP Barcode: D380796) or from field trial residue studies in which abamectin was applied at the maximum intended use rate and samples were harvested at the minimum pre-harvest interval (PHI) to obtain maximum residue values.  Drinking water estimates were incorporated directly into the dietary exposure assessment using the higher of the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for surface and ground water.  Empirical processing factors were used for cottonseed oil (0.48x), grape juice (0.23x), grapefruit juice (0.85x), orange juice (0.25x), orange peel (2.5x), dried prune (3.9x), raisins (0.75x), tomato paste (0.84x), tomato puree (0.4x), and field corn flour (1.96x).  Percent crop treated values were estimated based upon economic, pest, and competitive pressures.  Residue values for milk and livestock commodities were also obtained from the EPAs July 18, 2011 dietary risk assessment.
	i. Food Acute Exposure.  The abamectin acute dietary (food only) risk assessment was performed for all population subgroups with an acute reference dose of 0.005 mg/kg-bw/day based on a 12-week dose-range finding study in dogs with a NOAEL of 0.5 mg/kg-bw/day and an uncertainty factor of 100X.  The 100-fold safety factor includes intra- and interspecies variations and no additional FQPA safety factors were included in these acute assessments.  For the purpose of the aggregate risk assessment, exposure values were expressed in terms of margin of exposure (MOE), which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the exposure for each population subgroup.  In addition, exposure was also expressed as a percentage of the acute reference dose (% aRfD).  Acute (food only) exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 601 (16.6% of the acute RfD of 0.005 mg/kg-bw/day).  The most sensitive sub-population was children (1-2 years old) with a MOE of 262 (38.2% of the aRfD).  Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since the EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the benchmark or below 100% of the reference dose, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from acute food exposure to residues arising from all current, pending, and proposed uses for abamectin.
      Chronic Exposure.  The abamectin chronic dietary (food only) risk assessment was performed for all population subgroups with a chronic reference dose of 0.0004 mg/kg-bw/day based on combined data from three reproduction studies and two developmental neurotoxicity studies with a NOAEL of 0.12 mg/kg-bw/day and an uncertainty factor of 300X.  The 300-fold safety factor includes intra- and interspecies variations (100X) and the additional FQPA safety factors of 3X for the steepness of the dose-response curve and the severity of effects.  For the purpose of the aggregate risk assessment, exposure values were expressed in terms of margin of exposure (MOE), which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the exposure for each population subgroup.  In addition, exposure was also expressed as a percent of the chronic reference dose (% RfD).  Chronic (food only) exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 2,512 (11.9% of the chronic RfD of 0.0004 mg/kg-bw/day).  The most sensitive sub-population was children (1-2 years old) with a MOE of 577 (52.0% of the chronic RfD).  Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 300 and since the EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the benchmark or below 100% of the reference dose, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from chronic food exposure to residues arising from all current, pending, and proposed uses for abamectin.
      Cancer.  Abamectin is considered "not likely to be a human carcinogen".  Therefore, no cancer risk assessment was performed for abamectin.
	ii. Drinking water. The Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) of abamectin were determined using Tier 1 Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) and PRZM-GW which estimates pesticide concentration in ground water and Tier 2 PRZM/EXAMS which estimates pesticide concentration in surface water.  EDWCs of abamectin from the currently registered, pending and proposed uses (green onion, guava, lima bean, lychee, papaya, pineapple, snap bean, and greenhouse tomato) were determined.  Based on the currently registered/proposed use on golf course turf, SCI-GROW modeling provided the highest groundwater EDWC of  0.00833 parts per billion (ppb) (acute and chronic) and PRZM/EXAMS modeling provided the highest surface water EDWCs of 1.25 ppb for acute and 0.416 ppb for chronic.  Since the surface water EDWCs exceed the ground water EDWC, the surface water values were used for risk assessment purposes and will be considered protective for any ground water exposure concerns.
      Acute Exposure from Drinking Water.  The acute surface water EDWC of 1.25 ppb was input directly into the DEEM-FCID(TM) software as "water, direct and indirect, all sources" to model the acute drinking water exposures.  Exposure contributions at the 99.9%-ile of exposures were determined by taking the difference between the aggregate (food + drinking water) exposures and the food (alone) exposures for each population subgroup.  Acute drinking water exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 11,905  (0.8% of the acute RfD of 0.005 mg/kg-bw/day).  The most exposed sub-population was all infants (<1 year old) with a MOE of 2,841 (3.5% of the aRfD of 0.005 mg/kg/day).  Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since the EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the benchmark or below 100% of the reference dose, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from acute drinking water exposure to residues arising from all current, pending, and proposed uses for abamectin.
      Chronic Exposure from Drinking Water.  The chronic surface water EDWC of 0.416 ppb was input directly into the DEEM-FCID(TM) software as "water, direct and indirect, all sources" to model the chronic drinking water exposures.  Chronic drinking water exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 13,776 (2.2% of the chronic RfD of 0.0004 mg/kg-bw/day).  Chronic drinking water exposure to the most exposed sub-population (infants, <1 year old) resulted in a MOE of 5,343 (5.6% of the chronic RfD of 0.0004 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 300 and since the EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the benchmark or below 100% of the reference dose, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from chronic drinking water exposure to residues arising from all current, pending, and proposed uses for abamectin.
	2. Non-dietary exposure. Residential exposure risk assessments were performed for use of abamectin formulated as Optigard Fire Ant Bait for use on turf, lawns, and landscapes; Abamectin-chelate A12115F for use on golf course fairways, tees and greens; and for off-site drift of agricultural products.  Abamectin-chelate A12115F is labeled for professional use only; therefore no residential handler exposure assessments are required for this product.  Application of Optigard Fire Ant Bait by residents is allowed; therefore residential handler exposure assessments are required.  Residential adult handler/applicator assessments were performed for activities including push spreader, belly grinder, spoon, cup, hand dispersal, and shaker can.  Residential post-application exposure scenarios assessed included adult and child high contact dermal, adult and youth mower, adult and youth golfer, adult and child spray drift, and child hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, soil ingestion, and ingestion of granules.  The most-exposed adult (19+ years) scenario was for post-application spray drift, with a short-term MOE of 4,588 (Benchmark = 300).  The most-exposed youth (11-16 years) post-application scenario was for the youth golfer, with a short-term MOE of 5,219 (Benchmark = 300).  The most-exposed youth (6-11 years) post-application scenario was for the youth golfer, with a short-term MOE of 4,445 (Benchmark = 300).  The most-exposed children's (1-2 years) scenario was via post-application spray drift, with a combined short-term MOE of 881 (Benchmark = 300).
D. Cumulative Effects

	Cumulative Exposure to Substances with a Common Mechanism of Toxicity.  Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider "available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and "other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity".  Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to abamectin and any other substances and abamectin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances.  Therefore, Syngenta has not assumed that abamectin has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.
E. Safety Determination
	1. U.S. population. The acute dietary exposure analysis (food plus drinking water) showed that exposure from all current, pending, and proposed abamectin crop uses result in a MOE of 572 (17.5% of the aRfD, Benchmark MOE = 100) for the general U.S. population.  The short-term exposure analysis (food plus drinking water plus residential) showed that exposure from all current, pending, and proposed abamectin uses result in a MOE of 621 (Benchmark MOE = 300) for the general U.S. population.  The chronic dietary exposure analysis (food plus drinking water) showed that exposure from all current, pending, and proposed abamectin crop uses result in a MOE of 2,125 (14.1% of the chronic RfD, Benchmark MOE = 300) for the general U.S. population.  Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data supporting these uses, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general U.S. population from aggregate exposure to residues arising from all current, pending, and proposed abamectin uses, including anticipated dietary exposure from food, water, and all other types of non-occupational residential exposures.
	2. Infants and children. The acute dietary exposure analysis (food plus drinking water) showed that exposure from all current, pending, and proposed abamectin uses results in a MOE of 257 (38.9% of the aRfD) for children 1-2 years old (the most sensitive population subgroup).  For the short-term aggregate assessments, children 1-2 years old had an aggregate MOE of 336 (Benchmark MOE = 300) for all current, pending, and proposed abamectin uses.  The chronic dietary exposure analysis (food plus drinking water) showed that exposure from all current, pending, and proposed abamectin uses result in a MOE of 544 (55.1% of the cRfD) for children 1-2 years old (the most sensitive population subgroup).  Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data supporting these uses, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to residues arising from all current, pending, and proposed abamectin uses, including anticipated dietary exposure from food, water, and all other types of non-occupational residential exposures.
F. International Tolerances

      Codex has established Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for abamectin on a number of commodities including almonds, apples, citrus, cotton, cucumbers, hops, lettuce, meat, milk, and related commodities (beef and goat), melons, pears, peppers, potatoes, squash, strawberries, tomatoes, and walnuts.


From: Reeves, David Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 4: 18 PM To: ' Mark. Farmer@ am. sony. com' Cc: ' dail. lynn@ epa. gov'; Holloway, Thomas C. ( Tom); ' pimentel. maria@ epa. gov' Subject: Telecon Confirmation Hi Mark. We appreciate your help in clarifying some of the emissions informatio n with us this morning. Please review the attached file ( telecon) and make sure we documented the information correctly. Feel free to mark it up or make chang es to the file and send it back to me.

Regards Dave Reeves RTI International dwreeves@ rti. org ( 919) 316 3739