EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: Reuben Baris, (703) 7356

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please insert "NA-Remove" and maintain the outline. Please do not change the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace the instructions that appear in green, i.e., "[insert company name]," with the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

ISK Biosciences Corporation

[Insert petition number]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([8F8676]) from ISK Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord, Ohio, 44077, 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 by establishing a tolerance for combined residues of the herbicide Tiafenacil, methyl N-[2-[[2-chloro-5-[3,6-dihydro-
3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl]-4-fluorophenyl]thio]-1-oxopropyl]-β-alaninate (CAS), including its metabolite 3-(2-((2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-(3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-2,3-dihydropyrimidin-1(6H)-yl)phenyl)thio) propanamido)propanoic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of Saflufenacil, in or on the raw agricultural commodities corn which includes, field corn and popcorn, at 0.01 parts per million (ppm), soybean seed at 0.01 parts per million (ppm), wheat grain at 0.01 parts per million (ppm), grape at 0.01 parts per million (ppm), grape, raisin at 0.01 parts per million (ppm), cottonseed subgroup 20C, undelinted seed at 0.5 parts per million (ppm) cottonseed subgroup 20C, gin byproducts at 3.0 parts per million (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

 Plant metabolism. The metabolism of Tiafenacil as well as the nature of the residues in plants is adequately understood for the purposes of this tolerance.  Metabolism studies were conducted in a diverse set of crops including corn, cotton, soybeans, potato, and mandarin trees. Residues of parent were predominant in studies following desiccation treatments.  There were no residues of parent tiafenacil in studies following pre-plant treatments. The residues of concern for the tolerance expression consist of Tiafenacil and M-01.

 Analytical method. A practical analytical method for Tiafenacil and M-01 using Liquid Chromatography-MS/MS is available tolerance enforcement purpose.  This method has been confirmed through independent laboratory validation.

 Magnitude of residues. Field trials were conducted to determine the magnitude
      of the residue following a following one pre-plant or pre-emergence application of Tiafenacil on corn, wheat, and soybean and following a single directed application on grapes.  Field trials were also conducted on cotton to determine the magnitude of residue following a single pre-plant application followed by a second application occurring at 10 days prior to normal maturity as a dessicant for harvest aid. The number and locations of the field trials were in accordance with EPA guidelines for conducted crop residue trials. The trials support the proposed label rates, number of applications and pre-harvest intervals (PHI) for all crops. The combined residues detected support the proposed tolerances.

B. Toxicological Profile

   1. 	Acute toxicity.  Results from a battery of acute toxicity studies place technical Tiafenacil in Toxicity Category III for oral LD50, dermal LD50, and eye irritation and Category IV for inhalation LC50.  Technical Tiafenacil was not a dermal sensitizer.

      In an acute neurotoxicity study, Tiafenacil was administered orally to groups of rats at oral doses up to 2000 mg/kg, with no evidence of neurotoxicity or neurohistopathological change.  Consequently, 2000 mg/kg was considered to be the NOEL.
   2.  Genotoxicity. The genotoxic potential of Tiafenacil has been assessed as negative by several in vitro and in vivo mutagenicity studies. Tiafenacil did not elicit a genotoxic response in any of the studies conducted.

   3.  Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Tiafenacil was assessed for effects on reproduction in a rat two-generation reproduction toxicity study.  Its ability to affect embryo-fetal development was assessed in rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies. Tiafenacil had no effects on reproductive toxicity up to 150 ppm (8.01 and 12.7 mg/kg bw/day in males and females), the highest dose tested.  The findings observed in the rat two-generation study were related to the specific toxicity of the substance to disrupt hepatic heme synthesis, such as the increased liver porphyrin levels which were observed in parent and offspring treated with 150 ppm Tiafenacil. Developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit showed no evidence of a selective effect on fetal development in the absence of maternal toxicity.  In rats, a slight increase in the incidence of rib abnormalities (kinked, minimally kinked and costal cartilage(s) not attached to sternum) and lower group mean fetal weights were observed at 50 mg/kg/day.  The rib abnormality incidences were within the current historical data incidence at the testing facility concerned.  These fetal findings were identified in the higher dose group where maternal toxic effects such as lower maternal body weight and decrease of the mean red blood cell volume are apparent.  This maternal toxicity, specific to Tiafenacil, was observed in the 90-day rat study at 330 ppm (28 mg/kg/day, F).  In that study, histological changes were suggestive of anemia.  Therefore, the rib abnormalities and lower fetal weights seen in rat fetuses at 50 mg/kg/day may be secondary to maternal toxicity.  In the rabbit, doses of 30 mg/kg bw/day had no effect on rabbit does.  At 100 mg/kg bw/day, decreased red cell parameters, reticulocyte increase and increase in green discoloration of the amniotic sac were noted. At doses up to 300 mg/kg bw/day, pregnancy performance and fetal weights in the rabbits were similar between all groups and the type and distribution of fetal abnormalities and skeletal ossification parameters did not indicate an association with treatment. The critical NOAEL is 50 ppm (2.60/4.26 mg/kg bw/day in males and females) set for parental general toxicity in the two-generation reproductive toxicity study based on increased total porphyrin content in liver and decreased body weight gain of parental females. The NOAEL of 50 ppm (2.97 and 4.41 mg/kg bw/day in males and females) for the offspring was also due to an increase of total porphyrin content in the liver. There was no effect of treatment on reproductive performance in rats given doses up to 150 ppm (8.99/13.2 mg/kg bw/day (males/females)).
 Subchronic toxicity. The short-term toxicity of Tiafenacil has been evaluated in rats, mice and dogs in studies up to 90 days in duration in rodents and 1 year in dogs. The rat, mouse and dog are similarly sensitive. The primary target organ is the hematopoietic system. In the submitted studies, the target organs were the liver, bone marrow and spleen.  The effect is due to the known mechanism of action of the substance which is a protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibiting herbicide. This type of herbicide generally induces microcytic hypochromic anemia in experimental animals resulting from hepatic heme synthesis disruption, and increased liver porphyrins are defined as a toxicological endpoint. The lowest short term toxicity NOAEL was 110 ppm (corresponding to an achieved average daily dose of 9 mg/kg bw/day in males and 10 mg/kg/day in females) from the rat 90-day dietary toxicity study. This NOAEL was based on lower body weight gains, decreased red cell mass parameters and increased reticulocyte count, increased cellularity of the erythroid lineage in the sternum and femur (males only), increased hematopoiesis in the spleen (males only) and histopathological changes in the liver.  The findings in the liver and spleen suggest extramedullary hematopoiesis, an adaptive response to the reduced circulating red cells. Similar to the rat, the dog oral 90-day NOAEL was set at 10 mg/kg bw/day based on related findings. The effects on erythrocytes and the associated adaptive response from the bone marrow, spleen and liver were observed at the next higher dose levels of 50 mg/kg bw/day in the dog study and 330 ppm in the rat study (25/28 mg/kg bw/day males/females).   These effects were also observed in the 1-year dog oral toxicity study at the highest dose tested, 120 mg/kg bw/day.  A higher NOAEL of 20 mg/kg bw/day was set for this study due to a different choice of doses.  In a mouse 90-day dietary study, the NOAEL of 75 ppm (12.9 mg/kg/day) in males and 250 ppm (46.5 mg/kg bw/day) in females was based on minimal microscopic changes in the liver (centrilobular hypertrophy  -  an adaptive response) with no effects on hematology parameters. However, in a previous mouse 90-day dietary study where only a NOAEL for the females (75 ppm; 13 mg/kg bw/day) could be established, increased incidence of hepatocyte necrosis (minimal to mild adaptive response to fatty change) was accompanied by a decrease in red cell mass parameters and increase reticulocyte count, however there were no findings in the liver and spleen suggesting extramedullary hematopoiesis.  The exposure of Tiafenacil to rats via the dermal route for 28 days did not result in any toxicologically significant findings. The NOAEL was 1000 mg/kg bw/day, the highest dose tested.
      Therefore the short term critical NOAEL was selected as 110 ppm corresponding to an achieved average daily dose of 9 mg/kg bw/day in males and 10 mg/kg/day in females set in the rat 90-day dietary toxicity study.
   5.  Chronic toxicity. Carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice showed no evidence of increased incidence of tumors at the tested doses.  The long-term toxicity and carcinogenic potential of Tiafenacil was evaluated in dietary feeding studies with rats (1 and 2 years) and mice (78 weeks).  The effects observed from short-term exposure occurred at approximately the same dose level from long-term exposures, without increasing in severity. A chronic NOAEL of 50 ppm was set in a 104-week (two-year) study in female rats corresponding to an achieved average daily dose of 4 mg/kg bw/day based on lower body weight gains and changes in red blood cell parameters observed at 250 ppm (20 mg/kg/day).  A higher NOAEL (150 ppm; 8 mg/kg bw/day) was set for males in the same study based on lower body weight gains, changes in red blood cell parameters and increased spleen weight at the next higher dose level (500 ppm) corresponding to an achieved average daily dose of 32 mg/kg bw/day. Increased hematopoiesis of the spleen and in bone, increased spleen weight and retinal atrophy were also findings in females at the top dose level (1000 ppm; 80 mg/kg bw/day achieved average daily dose). In the 52-week study, at 250 ppm and above, the target organ was the spleen.  Similarly to the 2-year study, the NOAELs set for females and males were 50 and 150 ppm, respectively, corresponding to achieved average daily doses of 4 and 8 mg/kg bw/day, respectively, based on lower body weight gains, increased spleen weight, changes in red blood cell parameters and white blood cell counts observed at the next higher doses 250/500 ppm (20/32 mg/kg bw/day (female/male) achieved average daily doses) and above.

      The long term critical NOAEL was 10 ppm set in the mouse 78-week carcinogenicity study, corresponding to an achieved average daily dose of 1.11 mg/kg in males and 1.30 mg/kg/day in females, based on the centrilobular vacuolation in males and females and single cell necrosis and foci of clear cell cellular alteration in males observed at the next higher dose level (75 ppm) corresponding to an achieved average daily dose of 8.0/9.7 mg/kg bw/day (male/female).

   6.  Animal metabolism. The metabolism of Tiafenacil in rats, goats and laying hens are adequately understood. In rats, Tiafenacil is rapidly excreted mainly via the feces. In goats, Tiafenacil is excreted mainly via the feces and urine. In chickens, Tiafenacil is excreted mainly via excreta. There are some common pathways among species and some differences.

   7. 	Metabolite toxicology. No toxicologically significant metabolites were detected in plant or animal metabolism studies.

   8. 	Endocrine disruption. The submitted studies include evaluation of the potential effects on reproduction and development and an evaluation of the pathology of the endocrine organs following short or long-term exposure. The data demonstrate no treatment-related effects on the endocrine system.

   9. 	Immunotoxicity. There was no evidence of an immunotoxic effect after oral (dietary) administration of Tiafenacil at dose levels up to 2000 ppm.

   C. Aggregate Exposure

   1. Dietary exposure. Exposure assessments were conducted to evaluate the potential risk due to dietary exposure of the U.S. population to residues of Tiafenacil.

      For acute dietary exposure, an Acute Reference Dose (aRfD) is not identified for Tiafenacil since there was no evidence of initial acute effects in the acute oral or short-term toxicity studies, or the developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits.  There were no effects seen in the acute neurotoxicity study at the limit dose level of 2000 mg/kg/day.  No initial acute effects were seen in the 90-day neurotoxicity study.
      For chronic dietary exposure, the chronic reference dose (cRfD) is 0.011 mg/kg bwt/day, based on the NOAEL for males from the mouse carcinogenicity study (1.11 mg/kg bwt/day) and dividing by an uncertainty factor of 100.  The chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) is also 0.011 mg/kg bwt/day since the FQPA safety factor is anticipated to be 1 for Tiafenacil.

      i. Food. Tier I dietary (food + drinking water) exposure and risk assessments were conducted for tiafenacil using Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model - FCID (DEEM-FCID or DEEM), version 4.02, 05-10-c that incorporates data from USDA NHANES 2-day food consumption data for 2005-2010 (USEPA, 2014).

      For chronic risk assessment, the toxicity effects endpoint of 0.011 mg/kg was used based on liver effects observed in male mice from a carcinogenicity study; no developmental or reproductive effects were observed; therefore, sensitive subpopulations are protected with this most sensitive point of departure. If calculated tolerances of are considered, the most highly exposed population was non-nursing infants with a risk estimate of 3.5% of the chronic PAD (cPAD) (crop+water). A critical commodity analysis of risk cup contributions greater than 5% indicate that corn syrup in baby food and water are the 9% and 72% of the cPAD, respectively.

      A cancer dietary (food + drinking water) exposure and risk assessment was not performed because tiafenacil is not carcinogenic. The chronic dietary exposure assessments assumed 100% crop treated for registered and proposed uses, meaning that the product is used on 100% of a given labeled crop in any given watershed. This is a standard Tier I assumption and represents an unrefined dietary risk assessment. The chronic dietary exposure analysis is summarized in the table below.

                                  Population
                               Exposure Estimate
                                   % of cPAD
                                   Subgroup
                              (mg/kg body wt/day)

                                U.S. Population
                                   0.000100
                                      0.9
                              Non-Nursing Infants
                                   0.000384
                                      3.5
                           Children (1-2 years old)
                                   0.000204
                                      1.9
                           Children (3-5 years old)
                                   0.000169
                                      1.5
                           Children (6-12 years old)
                                   0.000116
                                      1.1
                            Youth (13-19 years old)
                                   0.000083
                                      0.8
                           Females (13-49 years old)
                                   0.000091
                                      0.8
                           Adults (20-49 years old)
                                   0.000092
                                      0.8
                            Adults (50+ years old)
                                   0.000084
                                      0.8

      It can be concluded that long-term dietary exposure to Tiafenacil through residues on all commodities should not be of cause for concern.

      ii. Drinking water. Exposure estimates from drinking water sources was included in the dietary chronic exposure risk assessments. The chronic (annual average) TTR concentrations (surface water sources) for tiafenacil were used to represent the maximum, most conservative exposure scenario from a drinking water perspective ("water, direct, all sources" and "water, indirect, all sources"). The chronic water concentration was 3.02 ppb (TTR environmental fate surface water). This concentration is based on an extremely conservative representation of anticipated exposure and overestimates parent tiafenacil and metabolite M-01 by including additional metabolites.  The groundwater prediction for parent and M-01 is significantly less than the surface water value.

   2. Non-dietary exposure. Based on the proposed uses for Tiafenacil on the crops noted above, non-occupational exposure of Tiafenacil would not be expected to the general population.  The only anticipated exposure route for the US population is via the diet (food and water only). Therefore, residential risk assessments for the incidental oral, dermal, and inhalation exposure routes are not required.

      Occupational post-application exposure is possible.  For dermal short-term exposure, no toxicity was found at 1000 mg/kg in a 28-day rat dermal toxicity study.  Therefore, in the absence of any hazard identified for dermal exposure, a dermal post-application risk assessment was not conducted.  Potential inhalation exposure was not considered since it is negligible when assessing re-entry risks.

      Occupational exposure for mixing/loading and applying Tiafenacil was considered.  Potential exposure was considered negligible since MOEs were considerably greater than 100 for all calculations.

D. Cumulative Effects

EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to Tiafenacil and any other substances, and Tiafenacil does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that Tiafenacil has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

E. Safety Determination

   1.  U.S. population. Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data and the conservative exposure assessments, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the aggregate exposure of residues of Tiafenacil.

   2.  Infants and children. Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data and the conservative exposure assessments, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from the aggregate exposure of residues of Tiafenacil.

F. International Tolerances

Presently, there are no Codex maximum residue levels (MRLs) established for residues of Tiafenacil on any crop.


	           UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

             OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                  WASHINGTON, D.C.

						Served:  March 24, 2005

NOTICE

U.S.-Hong Kong Fifth-Freedom Frequencies

Under the 2002 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United
States and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s
Republic of China (Hong Kong), there are no limitations on the number of
U.S. all-cargo carriers that may provide fifth-freedom services;
however, U.S. all-cargo carriers are limited to a total of 64 weekly
fifth-freedom frequencies.  As of October 2004, the United States had
allocated 60 of the 64 frequencies.

By letter dated March 11, 2005, UPS returned its two Bangkok-Hong Kong
frequencies.  Consequently, there are now six frequencies available for
U.S. all-cargo carriers to operate fifth-freedom Hong Kong services.

We invite carriers interested to file exemption applications and
frequency applications for use of any of these six frequencies.  Except
for the procedural dates, exemption/frequency applications should
conform to Part 302, Subpart C of our regulations (14 CFR Part 302).
All applications and other related requests should be filed with the
Department of Transportation (Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW,
Washington DC 20590), and should include at a minimum and as applicable,
proposed startup date(s); routings from origin to destination of all
proposed flights; days scheduled; frequencies requested per market; and
the duration of service in each market, if not provided on a year-round
basis; route integration authority, if desired; equipment types; and
existing authority held to conduct the operations.  Carriers may also
present any additional information which they feel will facilitate a
decision in this matter.

2

Applications should be filed no later than 14 calendar days from the
date of service of this notice; answers should be filed 7 calendar days
thereafter.  Should comparative selection among the applicants be
necessary, we will establish further proceedings to handle the requests.

We will authorize service of documents by facsimile and by electronic
email.  Carriers that are interested in such service, however, should
state if they want service by email or fax and should provide interested
parties with their fax number and/or email address.

Therefore, acting under authority assigned in 14 CFR 385.3, we invite
the applications as described above to be filed no later than 14
calendar days from the service date of this Notice.

We will serve this notice on all U.S. certificated carriers operating
large aircraft; the U.S. Department of State (Office of Aviation
Negotiations); and the Federal Aviation Administration.

By:

						PAUL L. GRETCH

			Director, Office of International Aviation

(SEAL)

Dated:  March 24, 2005

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

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

SERVICE LIST

ABX Air Inc.

Robert Silverberg					email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Silverberg Goldman & Bikoff				fax #:<PHONE_NUMBER>

1101 30th Street NW

Washington DC 20007

Air Transport International

Gary B Garofalo					email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Garofalo Goerlich Hainbach				fax#:<PHONE_NUMBER>

1200 New Hampshire Ave NW #800

Washington DC 20036-6802

Amerijet International

John L Richardson					email:   HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
John L Richardson PLLC				fax#:<PHONE_NUMBER>

555 13th Street, Suite 420 West

Washington DC 20004

Arrow Air, Inc.

Larry D Wasko						email:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Law Office						fax#:<PHONE_NUMBER>

1150 Connecticut Ave NW #900

Washington DC 20036

ASTAR Air Cargo

Stephen Lachter					email:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
1150 Connecticut Ave NW #900			fax#:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Washington DC 20036

Atlas Air Inc

Russell E Pommer					email:    HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Atlas Worldwide Holdings Inc				fax#:<PHONE_NUMBER>

1747 Pennsylvania Ave NW # 875

Washington DC 20006

Custom Air Transport

Mark W Atwood					email:    HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Sher & Blackwell					fax#:<PHONE_NUMBER>

1850 M Street NW #900

Washington DC 20036

Evergreen International Airlines

Tom Lydon					email:   HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
1401 New York Ave NW Suite 530		fax#:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Washington DC 20005-2147

Express.Net Airlines LLC

Lorraine B Halloway				email:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Crowell & Moring				fax#:<PHONE_NUMBER>

1001 Pennsylvania Ave NW

Washington DC 20004-2595

Federal Express Corporation

David Short					email:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
3620 Hacks Cross Road				fax#:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Bldg B  Third Floor

Memphis TN 38125

Federal Express Corporation

Nancy Sparks					email:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
1101 Pennsylvania Avenue NW #600		fax#:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Washington DC 20004

Federal Express Corporation

G. Bailey Leopard, Jr.				email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Regulatory and Industry Affairs			fax#:<PHONE_NUMBER>

3620 Hacks Cross Road

Memphis TN 38125

Florida West International

Marshall S Sinick				email:    HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Squire Sanders & Dempsey			fax#:<PHONE_NUMBER>

1201 Pennsylvania Ave NW

Washington DC 20004

Gemini Air Cargo

Moffett B Roller				email:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Roller & Bauer					fax#:<PHONE_NUMBER>

1020 19th Street NW

Washington DC 20036

Kalitta Air LLC

Mark W Atwood				email:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Sher & Blackwell				fax#:<PHONE_NUMBER>

1850 M Street NW #900

Washington DC 20036

Kitty Hawk International

Robert P Silverberg				email:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Silverberg Goldman& Bikoff LLP		fax#:<PHONE_NUMBER>

1101 30th Street NW

Washington DC 20007

Lynden Air Cargo

Pierre Murphy					email:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Law Offices of Pierre Murphy			fax#:<PHONE_NUMBER>

1200 New Hampshire Ave NW #800

Washington DC 20036-6802

Northern Air Cargo

Steve Alterman					email:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Meyers & Alterman				fax#:<PHONE_NUMBER>

1220 Nineteenth Street NW #400

Washington DC 20036-2438

Northwest Airlines Inc

Megan Rae Rosia				email:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
901 15th Street NW				fax#:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Washington DC 20005

Polar Air Cargo

Kevin Montgomery				email:   HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Atlas Worldwide Holdings Inc			fax#:<PHONE_NUMBER>

1747 Pennsylvania Ave NW #875

Washington DC 20006

Polar Air Cargo

Jeffrey Manley					email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr			fax#:   772-6670

2445 M Street NW

Washington DC 20037-1420

Southern Air Inc

R Bruce Keiner Jr				email:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Crowell & Moring				fax#:<PHONE_NUMBER>

1001 Pennsylvania Ave NW

Washington DC 20004

United Parcel Service

David E Vaughan				email:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kelley Drye & Warren				fax#:<PHONE_NUMBER>

1200 19th Street NW #500

Washington DC 20036

World Airways Inc

Mark McMillin					email:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
HLH Building, 101 World Drive		fax#:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Peachtree City, Georgia 30269

U.S. Department of State			email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Office of Aviation Negotiations

2201 C Street NW

Washington DC 20520

Matthew Schack AFS-200			email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue SW

Washington DC 20591

 The sixty allocated frequencies are as follows:  FedEx (21
frequencies): 12 Subic Bay, 6 Paris (via Almaty Kazakhstan and Mumbai),
and 3 Seoul;.  UPS (21 frequencies): 12 Macapagal, Philippines (with 5
of these frequencies via Singapore, see UPS letter dated November 4,
2004 in Docket OST-2004-17279 amending its frequencies via Singapore)
and 6 Cologne (via Mumbai and Dubai with UPS being authorized to
exercise fifth-freedom rights for Dubai on five of its six frequencies),
2 Bangkok, and 1 Singapore; Northwest (5 frequencies): 4 Manila and 1
Seoul; Polar (9 frequencies): 6 Seoul and 3 Jakarta (previously Delhi
and Penang see NOAT 3/12/04, Docket 2002-14049), Kalitta (4
frequencies): 2 Seoul and 2 Dubai (via Kuala Lumpur).

 Carriers should not file applications for these frequencies in the
previous proceeding dockets for fifth-freedom frequencies.  Each carrier
application should receive a new docket number.

 Applicants are reminded that the MOU has city-pair caps as well as
overall frequency limitations, and applications should conform to those
limits. (See the Attachment to the Department’s Notice dated
10/29/2002 re 2002/2003 U.S.-Hong Kong Service Opportunities for the
specifications and limitations for All-Cargo Air Services.)

 It will not be necessary for applicants to file separate motions to
consolidate to assure that the Department considers mutually exclusive
applications contemporaneously; the Department will consolidate all
mutually exclusive applications filed in response to this Notice on its
own initiative for contemporaneous consideration.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 40 (Thursday, February 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 13747]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04684]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Railroad Safety: Advisory Notice Related to Railroad Accidents in
Vicinity of Underground Pipelines

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

ACTION: Advisory Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In response to Safety Recommendation R-12-04 issued by the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), FRA is issuing this
Advisory Notice to inform railroads of the circumstances surrounding
the June 19, 2009, derailment of eastbound Canadian National Railway
(CN) Freight Train U70691-18 in Cherry Valley, IL, and to remind
railroads of the need to immediately notify pipeline operators of rail
accidents occurring in railroad rights-of-way where pipelines are
present and the need to ensure that pipeline inspections are
accomplished prior to resumption of service.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Alexy, Staff Director, Hazardous
Materials Division, Office of Railroad Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Elisabeth Galotto, Trial Attorney, Office of
Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 19, 2009, at approximately 8:36 p.m.
(CST), CN Freight Train U70691-18, traveling eastbound at 36 mph,
derailed at a highway-rail grade crossing in Cherry Valley, IL. The
train consisted of two locomotives and 114 cars, 19 of which derailed.
All of the derailed cars were tank cars carrying denatured fuel
ethanol, a flammable liquid. Thirteen of the derailed tank cars were
breached or lost product and caught fire. At the time of the
derailment, several motor vehicles were stopped on either side of the
grade crossing waiting for the train to pass. As a result of the fire
that erupted after the derailment, a passenger in one of the stopped
cars was fatally injured, two passengers in the same car received
serious injuries, and five occupants of other cars waiting at the
highway-rail grade crossing were injured. Two responding firefighters
also sustained minor injuries. The release of ethanol and the resulting
fire prompted a mandatory evacuation of about 600 residences within a
half-mile radius of the accident site.
    The NTSB determined that the probable cause of the accident was the
washout of the track structure that was discovered about 1 hour before
the train's arrival, and CN's failure to notify the train crew of the
known washout in time to stop the train because of the inadequacy of
CN's emergency communication procedures.
    At the derailment site was a 12-inch diameter underground natural
gas transmission pipeline operated by Nicor Gas. The pipeline well
exceeded Federal standards for protective ground cover. Yet, as the
wreckage was removed from above the pipeline, Nicor's crews discovered
that a railcar wheel and axle assembly had impacted the pipeline.
Although the pipeline was buried about 11 feet deep and protected
within a 16-inch diameter casing, the railcar wheels severely dented
the pipeline. The impact caused a severe flattening of the pipe casing
with sharp angular bends at two locations where the railcar wheel
assembly contacted it. This degree of deformation to the 16-inch pipe
casing likely caused similar damage to the 12-inch carrier pipe. The
NTSB concluded that had the gas pipeline been installed at the railroad
crossing with only the minimum level of ground cover permitted by the
current Federal and industry pipeline construction standards, it likely
would have failed as a result of being struck by derailed equipment in
this accident. Accordingly, NTSB issued Safety Recommendation R-12-04
recommending that FRA ``[i]nform railroads about the circumstances of
the accident and advise them of the need to immediately notify pipeline
operators of accidents occurring in railroad rights-of-way and ensure
that pipeline inspections are accomplished prior to resumption of
service.''
    On July 31, 2012, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) issued an advisory bulletin in the Federal
Register (77 FR 45417-45418), encouraging pipeline owners and
operators, as a part of their public awareness programs, to inform rail
operators and emergency response officials of the benefits of using the
811 ``Call Before You Dig'' program to identify and notify underground
utilities that an incident has occurred in the vicinity of their buried
facilities.
    Like PHMSA, FRA encourages railroads to use the 811 ``Call Before
You Dig'' program to notify pipeline operators of rail accidents
occurring in railroad rights-of-way where pipelines are present and to
ensure that pipeline inspections are accomplished prior to resumption
of service. By calling 811, pipeline owners and operators will be
notified of potential problems the accident may have caused to the
pipeline, and enable the pipeline owners and operators to work with the
involved railroads to prevent further injury to individuals cleaning up
the accident site.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 25, 2013.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013-04684 Filed 2-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="24/04/2008 04:18:25 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register: April 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 67)]
[Notices]
[Page 16200-16202]
[DOCID:fr09ap09-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

March 31, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP95-408-073.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC submits Report on
Sharing of Profits from Base Gas Sales with Customers under the
provisions of the Stipulation.
    Filed Date: 03/26/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090327-0023.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 07, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP96-200-205.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company submits
Amended Negotiated Rate Agreement with Enbridge Marketing, LP under
RP96-200.
    Filed Date: 03/26/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090327-0024.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 07, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-176-192.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC.
    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC submits
First Revised Sheet 33H. 02 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh
Revised Volume 1, to be effective 4/1/09.
    Filed Date: 03/27/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090330-0016.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 08, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-176-193.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC.
    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC submits
Original Sheet 34L.01 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised
Volume 1, to be effective 4/1/09.
    Filed Date: 03/27/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090330-0017.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 08, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-513-048.
    Applicants: Questar Pipeline Company.
    Description: Questar Pipeline Company submits Sixth Revised Sheet
7.01 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 03/27/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090330-0015.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 08, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP00-426-042.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC submits Original Sheet No
77 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No 1, to be
effective 4/1/09.
    Filed Date: 03/27/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090330-0020.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 08, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP04-274-018.
    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Kern River Gas Transmission Company submits First
Revised Sheet 5.01 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume
1, to be effective 1/1/09.
    Filed Date: 03/27/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090330-0014.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 08, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-260-002.
    Applicants: Tres Palacios Gas Storage, LLC.
    Description: Tres Palacios Gas Storage LLC's submission of
additional information and revised tariff sheets in response to the
Commission 2/24/09 Order.
    Filed Date: 03/26/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090327-0029.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 07, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-306-002.
    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Kern River Gas Transmission Company submits Substitute
Third Revised Sheet 143 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume
1, to be effective 7/30/08.
    Filed Date: 03/27/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090330-0018.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 08, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-465-002.
    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Kern River Gas Transmission Company submits Fourth
Revised Sheet 301 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume
1, to be effective 4/20/09.
    Filed Date: 03/27/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090330-0019.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 08, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-469-000.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc submits Second
Revised Sheet 150 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No 1, to
be effective 5/1/09.
    Filed Date: 03/27/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090330-0021.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 08, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-470-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC submits First Revised
Sheet 2000 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 5/1/09.
    Filed Date: 03/27/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090330-0013.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 08, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-471-000.
    Applicants: White River Hub, LLC.
    Description: White River Hub, LLC submits Second Revised Sheet 7 et
al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be effective 4/28/08.
    Filed Date: 03/27/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090330-0012.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 08, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-472-000.
    Applicants: Southern LNG Inc.
    Description: Southern LNG, Inc submits Second Revised Sheet 75 et
al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be effective 7/30/08
pursuant to Order 712.
    Filed Date: 03/27/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090330-0011.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 08, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-473-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Midcontinent Express Pipeline submits First Revised
Sheet 6 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be
effective 4/1/09.
    Filed Date: 03/27/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090330-0010.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 08, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be

listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an
eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling
link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-8036 Filed 4-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 126)]
[Notices]
[Page 36875-36878]
[DOCID:fr30jn08-79]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0360]

Cooperative Agreement to Establish and Support the Western Center
for Food Safety (U01)

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a Request
for Application (RFA) Number RFA-FD-08-004 and its intention to receive
and consider a new sole source application for the award of a
cooperative agreement in fiscal year 2008 (FY 2008) to establish and
support the Western Center for Food Safety (WCFS). The WCFS will be
located at the Western Institute for Food Safety and Security (WIFSS)
on the University of California, Davis (UCD) campus in Davis, CA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Scientific/Programmatic Contact: Steven Gendel, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-006), Food and Drug Administration,
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Financial or Grants Management Contact: Gladys M. Bohler, Division
of Acquisition Support and Grants (HFA-500), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 2105, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-
827-7168, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail: gladys.melendez-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Funding Opportunity Description

A. Background

    FDA intends to establish a cooperative agreement to create the WCFS
to address these issues through the development of approaches and data
critical to understanding the risks associated with the interface
between production agriculture and food protection. Such knowledge is
critical to the development of scientifically validated ``best
practices'' for mitigating those risks at the production (versus
processing) level. In establishing this cooperative agreement, FDA
recognizes the importance of agricultural practices in the Western
states, an increasingly important food producing region for fruits,
vegetables, specialty crops, and dairy products; and a key point of
entry for imported foods. The development of an integrated
collaborative food protection research/education/outreach program in
this region will benefit both consumers and producers nationwide.

B. Program Research Goals

    A proposal is being solicited to establish and operate a
collaborative center that is designed to meet the objectives of the
RFA. The proposal should include information on both the structure and
administration of the center and the approaches that will be used to
establish robust and sustainable regional, national, and international
research and outreach collaborations (including collaborations with the
agency's other Centers of Excellence; other Centers at UCD, such as the
Center for Produce Safety; and other components of the University of
California system), as well as strategies for cultivating additional
base support for the center.

1. Concept
    FDA faces an increasing number of critical and complex food
protection and public health challenges. FDA believes that these
challenges can be addressed most efficiently by expanding the available
science base through collaborative partnerships. Collaborative
partnerships stimulate the integration of applied research, education,
and outreach programs to enhance food protection and public health and
address new and emerging issues. Collaborative partnerships provide
opportunities to leverage resources and to stimulate interest among
academics in solving pressing national food protection challenges.
Accordingly, access to scientists and facilities associated with
agriculture within the Western United States increases FDA's
understanding of the unique challenges and practices that must be
considered when developing risk management measures that are pertinent
to agricultural production in this region.
2. Project Emphasis
    The collaborative partnership with WCFS will focus on the interface
between food protection and the agricultural production of commodities
such as produce and dairy foods. This will include studies in areas
such as pre- and post-harvest practices and environmental contamination
(both from point sources and from distributed sources, e.g.,
perchlorate in ground water) for both domestic and imported
commodities. WCFS will address ``real-world'' problems (such as the
development of technologies and practices for food safety-related
sampling of fresh produce or the impact of field practices on
subsequent processing) and develop knowledge leading to practical
solutions and approaches that are both feasible and protective of
public health. WCFS will also generate and analyze data needed to
provide a scientific basis for optimizing the interactions between
potentially competing national concerns, e.g., safety of food
production environments versus the protection of wildlife habitats in
agricultural communities. The education and outreach components of the
partnership will ensure that this knowledge is available for, and
useful to, all stakeholders.
3. Summary of Objectives
    The cooperative research, education, and outreach programs
developed through the WCFS will address scientific issues related to
the interface between food protection and agriculture for commodities
such as produce, dairy foods, and seafood. These programs will include
partnerships with academia, industry, non-governmental organizations,
and international organizations. These partnerships will also promote
and sustain collaborative domestic and international outreach and
education.
    The objectives of this cooperative agreement are to:
    1. Carry out multidisciplinary applied research projects that
address ``real world'' issues related to food protection, agricultural
practices, and the impact of agricultural practices on subsequent food
processing associated with FDA-regulated products;
    2. Develop and implement outreach and communication programs with
stakeholders to identify research needs and to facilitate utilization
of the knowledge produced by the research program; and
    3. Develop and implement education programs that address food
protection problems and increase awareness of the role of science in
food protection.

II. Award Information

A. Award Instrument/Mechanism of Support

    This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) will use the
cooperative agreement award mechanism (U01). Support will be in the
form of a cooperative agreement. Accordingly, FDA will have substantial
involvement in the program activities of the project. FDA will support
the collaboration covered by this notice under the authority of section
301 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 241).

B. Award Amount and Length of Support

    The estimated amount of support in FY 2008 will be for up to $1.5
million (direct plus indirect costs), with the possibility of 4
additional years of support for up to $2.6 million, subject to the
availability of funds. This award will improve public health by
creating an applied research, education, and outreach program related
to the interface between food protection (i.e., food safety and food
defense) and agriculture.

C. Funding Plan

    The estimated amount of support in FY 2008 will be for up to $1.5
million (direct plus indirect costs), with the possibility of 4
additional years of support for up to $2.6 million, subject to the
availability of funds.

D. Delineation of Substantive Involvement

    A cooperative agreement involves substantial FDA programmatic
involvement with the awardees is anticipated during the performance of
the activities. Under the cooperative agreement, FDA's purpose is to
support and stimulate the recipients' activities by involvement in and
otherwise working jointly with the award recipients in a partnership
role; it is not to assume direction, prime responsibility, or a
dominant role in the activities. Consistent with this concept, the
dominant role and prime responsibility resides with the awardees for
the project as a whole, although specific tasks and activities may be
shared among the awardees and FDA. Additional information on the role
and responsibility of the grantee and FDA can be found in the full text
announcement of the FOA posted on FDA's Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) Web site: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/list.html.

III. Eligibility Information

A. Eligible Institutions/Organizations

    Competition is limited to the University of California. FDA
believes that establishing the WCFS at WIFSS is appropriate because
WIFSS is uniquely qualified to fulfill the objectives of the proposed
cooperative agreement. It is an established partnership between
academia, state and Federal agencies, and private industry focused on
enhancing food protection using a variety of approaches that include
basic and applied research; communication and connectivity with public
and private partners; outreach programs that extend from farm to fork;
and modern information management. WIFSS's location at the UCD
facilitates interaction with numerous Centers and Departments within
the School of Veterinary Medicine, School of Medicine, College of
Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, and College of Engineering.
The existing administrative structure at WIFSS can be readily leveraged
for developing new food protection programs and fostering new
partnerships. Existing collaborations with agricultural producers will
promote the conduct of on-farm, pre-, and post-harvest food protection
research. Such field-scale research is critical both for understanding
how agricultural practice impacts food safety and for ensuring that new
technologies are practical and effective.
    Collaboration between the public and the private sectors has proven
to be an efficient means for both FDA and

academia to remain current with scientific and technical advances
associated with FDA-regulated products (e.g., foods, animal drugs and
feed additives). The degree to which FDA nurtures, develops, and builds
on these collaborations directly affects FDA's ability to enhance
public health. The information and expertise that will be obtained
through this partnership between FDA and WIFSS can be leveraged by all
segments of the food protection and nutrition community, as well as by
public health organizations, other Federal agencies, and academic
institutions in the performance of their roles.

B. Cost Sharing

    This cooperative agreement program requires that the applicant
substantially share in the project costs if an award is made,
including, but not limited to, partial salary support for
administrative staff and in-kind support (e.g., faculty salaries and
facilities costs).

IV. Application and Submission

A. Form and Content of Applications

    Applications must be prepared using the most current PHS 398
research grant application instructions and forms. Applications must
have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number
as the universal identifier when applying for Federal grants or
cooperative agreements. The DUNS number can be obtained by calling 866-
705-5711 or through the Web site at http://www.dnb.com/us/.\1\ The DUNS
number should be entered on line 11 of the face page of the PHS 398
form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ (FDA has verified the Web site addresses throughout this
document, but we are not responsible for any subsequent changes to
the Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal
Register.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PHS 398 application instructions are available at http://
grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html in an interactive
format. Applicants must use the currently approved version of the PHS
398. For further assistance, contact Gladys M. Bohler,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Hearing Impaired--
Telecommunications for the hearing impaired are available at: TTY 301-
451-0088.

B. Address to Submit Application

    Applications must be prepared using the forms found in the PHS 398
instructions for preparing a non-modular research grant application.
Submit a signed, typewritten original of the paper application,
including the checklist, three signed photocopies, and appendix
material in one package to: Gladys M. Bohler, Grants Management
Specialist, Division of Acquisition Support and Grants (HFA-500), Food
and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 2105, Rockville, MD
20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
C. Key Dates

    The application is due within 30 days after publication of the
Funding Opportunity Announcement in the Federal Register. On-time
submission requires that the application be successfully submitted to
http://www.grants.gov no later than 5 p.m. local time (of the applicant
institution/organization).

D. Other Submission Requirements

    The total project period for an application submitted in response
to this funding opportunity may not exceed 5 years.
    Applicant may submit only one application. Resubmission
applications are not permitted in response to this FOA. Renewal
applications are not permitted in response to this FOA.
    Consent forms, assent forms, and any other information given to a
subject are part of the grant application and must be provided, even if
in a draft form. The applicant is referred to the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) regulations at 45 CFR 46.116 and 21 CFR 50.25
for details.
    Awardee(s) must agree to the ``Cooperative Agreement Terms and
Conditions of Award'' in section VI.2.A. of the full text of the FOA
posted on the CFSAN Web site: (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov).

V. Application Review

    Applications that are complete and responsive to the FOA will be
evaluated for scientific and technical merit by an appropriate peer
review group convened by FDA, CFSAN, and in accordance with FDA peer
review procedures, using the review criteria stated in the following
paragraph.
    As part of the scientific peer review, a responsive complete
application will: (1) Undergo a review process to determine their
scientific and technical merit; (2) be assigned a priority score; (3)
receive a written critique; and (4) receive a second level of review by
the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute National
Cancer Advisory Board.

VI. Award Administrative Information

A. Reporting

    Substantive involvement by the awarding agency is inherent in the
cooperative agreement award. Accordingly, FDA will have substantial
involvement in the program funded by the cooperative agreement.
Substantive involvement includes, but is not limited to, the following:
    1. FDA will have prior approval of the appointment of all key
administrative and scientific personnel proposed by the grantee.
    2. FDA will be directly involved in the guidance and development of
the program.
    3. FDA scientists will participate, with the grantee, in
determining and carrying out scientific and technical activities.
Collaboration will also include data analysis, interpretation of
findings and, where appropriate, co-authorship of publications.
    4. The original and two copies of the annual Financial Status
Report (FSR) (SF-269) must be sent to FDA's Grants Management
Specialist within 90 days of each budget period end date.
    5. A final progress report, invention statement, and Financial
Status Report are required when an award is relinquished when a
recipient changes institutions or when an award is terminated and/or at
the end of the project period.

B. Administrative Requirements

    This agreement will be subject to all policies and requirements
that govern the research grant programs of the PHS, including
provisions of 42 CFR part 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92. All grants are
subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other
considerations described in the HHS Grants Policy Statement (GPS),
dated January 2007, which supersedes in its entirety the PHS GPS, dated
April 1, 1994, and addendum dated January 24, 1995.
    An award is subject to the requirements of the HHS GPS that are
applicable based on the recipient type and the purpose of this award.
This includes any requirements in Parts I and II of the HHS GPS
(available at http://www.hhs.gov/grantsnet/adminis/gpd/index.htm) that
apply to an award.
    Although consistent with the HHS GPS, any applicable statutory or
regulatory requirements, including 45 CFR parts 74 or 92, directly
apply to this award apart from any coverage in the HHS GPS.

C. Other Information

    Awardees will be required to submit the Non-Competing Continuation
Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590) annually and financial statements, as
required in the HHS GPS.

    Dated: June 24, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-14749 Filed 6-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: July 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 133)]
[Notices]
[Page 39744-39746]
[DOCID:fr10jy08-108]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58086; File No. SR-Amex-2008-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange, LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to an Extension of the Linkage Fee Pilot Program

July 2, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 26, 2008, the American Stock Exchange, LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared substantially by the
Exchange. The Commission is

publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to extend for one (1) year through July 31,
2009, the current pilot program (``Pilot Program'') regarding
transaction fees for trades executed through the intermarket options
linkage (``Linkage''). The text of the proposed rule change is
available at www.amex.com, the Exchange, and the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Amex is proposing to extend for one (1) year through July 31,
2009, the current Pilot Program establishing Exchange fees for
Principal Orders (``P Orders'') and Principal Acting As Agent Orders
(``P/A Orders'') submitted through the Linkage. This proposal does not
make any substantive changes to the existing Pilot Program, other than
to extend its operation through July 31, 2009. The fees in connection
with the Pilot Program are scheduled to expire on July 31, 2008.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56102 (July 19,
2007), 72 FR 40908 (July 25, 2007) (SR-Amex-2007-64).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current fees applicable to P Orders and P/A Orders executed on
the Exchange are as follows: (i) $0.10 per contract side options
transaction fee for equity options, exchange traded fund share
(``ETF'') options and trust issued receipt (HOLDR) options, (ii) $0.21
per contract side options transaction fee for index options, (iii)
$0.05 per contract side options comparison fee, (iv) $0.05 per contract
side options floor brokerage fee, and (v) an options licensing fee for
certain ETF and index option products ranging from $0.16 per contract
side to $0.05 per contract side depending on the particular ETF or
index option.\4\ These are the same fees charged to specialists and
registered option traders (``ROTs'') for transactions executed on the
Exchange. The Exchange does not charge for the execution of
Satisfaction Orders sent through the Linkage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See the Options Licensing Fee section of the Amex Options
Fee Schedule available at www.amex.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Options Fee Schedule also provides that automatically executed
Linkage Orders (except Satisfaction Orders) are subject to the ``BD
Auto-Ex Fee'' set forth in Section VII of the Fee Schedule.\5\ As a
result, the Linkage Orders (except Satisfaction Orders) received by the
Exchange from a non-member market maker (i.e. an away market maker)
that are automatically executed are charged (i) a $0.50 per contract
side options transaction fee, (ii) a $0.05 per contract side options
comparison fee and (iii) a $0.05 per contract side options floor
brokerage fee. Accordingly, the total transaction fee for Linkage
Orders received by a non-member market maker that is automatically
executed is $0.60 per contract side.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The BD Auto-Ex Fee provides that broker-dealer orders that
are automatically executed on the Exchange are subject to (i) a
$0.50 per contract side options transaction fee for equity options,
ETF share options, trust issued receipt (HOLDR) options and index
options, (ii) $0.05 per contract side options comparison fee and
(iii) $0.05 per contract side options floor brokerage fee.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57589 (April 1,
2008), 73 FR 18827 (April 7, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As was the case in the original Pilot Program and subsequent
extensions, the Exchange believes that the existing fees currently
charged to Exchange specialists and ROTs should also apply to Linkage
executions resulting from P/A and P Orders.
    Based on experience to date, the Exchange believes that an
extension of the Pilot Program for one (1) year through July 31, 2009
is appropriate.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed fee change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act \7\ regarding the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among Exchange members and other persons using Exchange
facilities. The Exchange believes that an extension of the existing
Linkage fee Pilot Program is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) and
equitably allocates fees to those non-member market makers executing
orders on the Exchange through the Linkage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The proposed rule change will impose no burden on competition that
is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder
\9\ because: (i) It does not significantly affect the protection of
investors or the public interest; (ii) it does not impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms, it does not
become operative for 30 days after the date of filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest; provided that the self-regulatory
organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to
file the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the
date of filing of the proposed rule change.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ The Exchange satisfied this pre-filing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Amex-2008-52 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2008-52. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
Amex-2008-52 and should be submitted on or before July 31, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-15638 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: May 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 90)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 26183-26184]
[DOCID:fr11my10-36]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 40

[Docket OST-2008-0088]
RIN OST 2105-AE01

Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing
Programs

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is proposing only to extend
the date for the mandatory use of our recently updated Alcohol Testing
Form (ATF) to January 1, 2011. The revised ATF went into effect on
February 25, 2010 with a mandatory use date of August 1, 2010. After
publishing the February 25 revisions, we learned that vendors and users
of the ATF will not be able to deplete their current supply of ATFs by
August 1, 2010. Therefore, in order to assist the transportation
industries and their service agents in their efforts to be economically
efficient and more environmentally ``green,'' we are seeking public
comment to extend the mandatory use date to January 1, 2011.

DATES: Comments to the notice of proposed rulemaking should be
submitted by May 26, 2010. Late-filed comments will be considered to
the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions,
please submit them by only one of the following means:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket number
DOT- OST--or the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for the
rulemaking at the beginning of your comments. All comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For program issues, Bohdan Baczara,
Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590;<PHONE_NUMBER> (voice), (202) 366-
3897 (fax), or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(e-mail).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    On February 25, 2010, the Department published a final rule [75 FR
8528] which updated the Alcohol Testing Form (ATF). The Department
anticipated that employers and alcohol testing technicians may
currently have a large supply of old ATFs and to avoid unnecessarily
wasting these forms, the Department permitted the use of the old ATF
until August 1, 2010. Employers were authorized to begin using the
updated ATF immediately.
    Since the final rule was published, the Department became aware
that some vendors of the ATF might not be able to deplete their current
supply of the ATFs before the August 1, 2010 implementation date. In
light of this new information and so as not to have the industry waste
forms, the Department is proposing to extend the implementation date to
January 1, 2011. The Department seeks your comments only about this new
implementation date.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

    The statutory authority for this proposed rule derives from the
Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 102,
301, 322, 5331, 20140, 31306, and 45101 et seq.) and the Department of
Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 322).
    This proposed rule is a non-significant rule both for purposes of
Executive Order 12886 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory
Policies and Procedures. The Department certifies that it will not have
a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities, for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The
Department makes these statements on the basis that by extending the
implementation date of the new form, this rule will not impose any
significant costs on anyone. The costs of the underlying Part 40 final
rule were analyzed in connection with its issuance in December 2000.
Therefore, it has not been necessary for the Department to conduct a
regulatory evaluation or Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this
proposed rule. The alcohol testing form complies with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. It has no Federalism impacts that would warrant a
Federalism assessment.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 40

    Administrative practice and procedures, Alcohol abuse, Alcohol
testing, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Laboratories, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.

    Issued April 28, 2010, at Washington DC.
Jim L. Swart,
Director.
    For reasons discussed in the preamble, the Department of
Transportation proposes to amend 49 CFR part 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:

PART 40--PROCEDURES FOR TRANSPORTATION WORKPLACE DRUG AND ALCOHOL
TESTING PROGRAMS

    1. The authority citation for 49 CFR part 40 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 102, 301, 322, 5331, 20140, 31306, and
45101 et seq.

    2. In Appendix G to Part 40--Alcohol Testing Form, the paragraph is
being revised by removing the text ``August 1, 2010'' and replacing it
with ``January 1, 2011''.
[FR Doc. 2010-10488 Filed 5-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


SENSITIVITY OF ANNUAL PM2.5 IN ATLANTA TO SO2 EMISSION REDUCTIONS RESULTING FROM Georgia’s Multipollutant Rule [391-3-1-.02(2)(sss)]

GA EPD performed photochemical grid modeling to determine the sensitivity of PM2.5 concentrations in the Atlanta nonattainment area to reductions in SO2 emissions due to the installation and operation of scrubbers at three large coal-fired power plants in Georgia.  The analysis was based off of the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) modeling, using the emissions inventories for both 2002 and 2009, and CMAQ version 4.5 with the CB-IV chemical mechanism.  Full annual SO2 sensitivities were conducted by GA EPD, based on 2002 meteorology and 2009 emissions, using a 12-km modeling grid, covering the state of Georgia and parts of the neighboring states (boundary conditions were obtained from simulations using a larger domain).

Cases Modeled

Sensitivities were modeled relative to 2009 emissions, to evaluate the efficiency of various control strategies to be implemented by 2009.  Three large coal-fired power plants in Georgia were modeled to simulate actual expected reductions from the installation of scrubbers for SO2 removal (assuming a 95% control efficiency for SO2).  Note that Plant Hammond Units 1-4, Plant Bowen Units 3-4, Plant Wansley Unit 1, and Plant Yates Unit 1 were not included in the analysis since they were required to already have scrubbers installed by December 31, 2008. The following is a detailed list of the three facilities that were modeled:

Scrubbers at Bowen: Installation of scrubbers on Plant Bowen Units 1-2 (average reduction of 218 tons-per-day of SO2 compared to pre-installation emissions; assuming a 95% control efficiency for SO2).

Scrubbers at Wansley: Installation of scrubbers on Plant Wansley Unit 2 (average reduction of 104 tons-per-day of SO2 compared to pre-installation emissions; assuming a 95% control efficiency for SO2).

Scrubbers at Yates: Installation of scrubbers on Plant Yates Units 2-7 (average reduction of 137 tons-per-day of SO2 compared to pre-installation emissions; assuming a 95% control efficiency for SO2).

Modeling Results

The results of the sensitivity analysis are reported in terms of the average reduction in annual PM2.5 in the 3x3 matrix centered around the grid-cell containing the monitoring site. Both absolute reductions ((g/m3) and reductions normalized per ton-per-day of precursor controlled (ng/m3/TPD) are reported. Modeled reductions at each site were scaled relative to the observed speciated 5-year PM2.5 design value (weighted for 2000-2004), following the approach recommended in the EPA modeling guidance (EPA, Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007).  Sensitivity analysis results for SO2 emission controls at Plant Wansley (Table 1), Plant Bowen (Table 2), and Plant Yates (Table 3) at monitors in Atlanta are summarized below.  The monitor with the highest sensitivity in each Table is highlighted in bold red.

g/m3)” is equal to the difference between the 2009 future design value with 2009 uncontrolled emissions (2009_TPD) and the 2009 future design value with 2009 controlled emissions (2009_TPD * 0.05).  The “Normalized annual reduction in PM2.5 (ng/m3/TPD)” is calculated by dividing the “Annual Reduction in PM2.5 (g/m3)” by the “TPD reduction”.

The Powder Springs-Macland Aquatic Center PM2.5 monitor (13-067-0004) did not start operating until February 5, 2003.  As a result, this monitor was not included in the sensitivity analysis because it did not have a valid 5-year weighted 2002 design value (based on 2000-2004 data) since more than 2 years of data was missing.  Without a valid 2002 design value, it is not possible to follow the EPA modeling guidance to calculate a 2009 future design value or the sensitivity impacts.  Since 2003, this monitor has measures annual PM2.5 concentrations below most of the other PM2.5 monitors in Atlanta.  Therefore, leaving it out of the analysis should not have any impact on the conclusions.

Table 1: Summary of sensitivity analysis results for SO2 emission controls at Plant Wansley.

Site Name	TPD reduction	Annual Reduction1 in PM2.5 ((g/m3)	Normalized annual reduction in PM2.5 (ng/m3/TPD)

Doraville (13-089-2001)	103.88	0.0858	0.826

E. Rivers School (13-121-0032)	103.88	0.0902	0.868

Fire Station No. 8 (13-121-0039)	103.88	0.0906	0.872

Forest Park-Georgia DOT (13-063-0091)	103.88	0.0976	0.940

Gainesville-Fair Street School (13-139-0003)	103.88	0.0612	0.589

Gwinnett Tech (13-135-0002)	103.88	0.0714	0.687

Kennesaw-National Guard (13-067-0003)	103.88	0.0839	0.807

South DeKalb (13-089-0002)	103.88	0.0928	0.893

Yorkville (13-223-0003)	103.88	0.0983	0.947

1Scaled relative to the observed speciated 5-year PM2.5 concentrations (weighted for 2000-2004).

Table 2: Summary of sensitivity analysis results for SO2 emission controls at Plant Bowen.

Site Name	TPD reduction	Annual Reduction1 in PM2.5 ((g/m3)	Normalized annual reduction in PM2.5 (ng/m3/TPD)

Doraville (13-089-2001)	217.72	0.1682	0.772

E. Rivers School (13-121-0032)	217.72	0.1564	0.718

Fire Station No. 8 (13-121-0039)	217.72	0.1553	0.713

Forest Park-Georgia DOT (13-063-0091)	217.72	0.1417	0.651

Gainesville-Fair Street School (13-139-0003)	217.72	0.1692	0.777

Gwinnett Tech (13-135-0002)	217.72	0.1717	0.788

Kennesaw-National Guard (13-067-0003)	217.72	0.2117	0.973

South DeKalb (13-089-0002)	217.72	0.1411	0.648

Yorkville (13-223-0003)	217.72	0.1549	0.711

1Scaled relative to the observed speciated 5-year PM2.5 concentrations (weighted for 2000-2004).

Table 3: Summary of sensitivity analysis results for SO2 emission controls at Plant Yates.

Site Name	TPD reduction	Annual Reduction1 in PM2.5 ((g/m3)	Normalized annual reduction in PM2.5 (ng/m3/TPD)

Doraville (13-089-2001)	137.20	0.1530	1.115

E. Rivers School (13-121-0032)	137.20	0.1673	1.220

Fire Station No. 8 (13-121-0039)	137.20	0.1680	1.224

Forest Park-Georgia DOT (13-063-0091)	137.20	0.1795	1.308

Gainesville-Fair Street School (13-139-0003)	137.20	0.0988	0.720

Gwinnett Tech (13-135-0002)	137.20	0.1207	0.880

Kennesaw-National Guard (13-067-0003)	137.20	0.1589	1.158

South DeKalb (13-089-0002)	137.20	0.1641	1.196

Yorkville (13-223-0003)	137.20	0.1579	1.151

1Scaled relative to the observed speciated 5-year PM2.5 concentrations (weighted for 2000-2004).

Clean Data Determination

On December 8, 2011, EPA promulgated its determination (76 FR 76620) that the Atlanta nonattainment area had attained the 1997 annual average PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).  This determination was based upon quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2008-2010 period that showed design values below 15.0 µg/m3 as indicated in Table 4.

Table 4.  Annual and Three-year Average Ambient PM2.5 Concentrations.

Ambient PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3)

Site Name	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2008-2010 w/out data substitution	2008-2010 with data substitution

Forest Park-Georgia DOT (13-063-0091)	16.0	16.8	16.6	16.7	15.3	13.7	11.5 13.4	12.9	N/A

Kennesaw-National Guard (13-067-0003)	16.0	15.8	16.3	16.5	15.3	13.5	11.2 12.2	12.3	N/A

Powder Springs-Macland Aquatic Center (13-067-0004)	15.2	15.2	15.5	15.8 14.5	13.1	10.3	12.1	11.9	12.3

South DeKalb (13-089-0002)	15.0	16.1	15.5	15.4	14.8	12.7	11.4	12.3	12.1 N/A

Doraville (13-089-2001)	15.4	15.5	15.8	14.5	15.1	13.1	11.7	12.2	12.3	N/A

E. Rivers School (13-121-0032)	16.1	16.1	15.9	15.4	15.7	13.0	11.6	12.2 12.3	13.0

Fire Station No. 8 (13-121-0039)	17.7	17.6	17.0	18.4	--	7.6	12.1	14.5 11.4	13.6

Georgia Tech (13-121-0048)*	--	--	--	15.1	15.5	14.3	--	--	--	--

Gwinnett Tech (13-135-0002)	16.2	16.1	16.1	16.9	14.2	12.4	11.6	12.3	12.1 12.5

Gainesville-Fair Street School (13-139-0003)	14.7	14.0	14.5	13.8	13.4 11.8	10.2	11.4	11.2	11.9

Yorkville (13-223-0003)	13.8	13.4	14.6	13.9	14.3	11.9	9.9	11.2	11.0	11.6

*The Georgia Tech monitor stopped operation on December 29, 2008.

Discussion

The Atlanta PM2.5 nonattainment area redesignation request and maintenance plan accounted for controls from Georgia’s Multipollutant Rule [391-3-1-.02(2)(sss)].  This rule requires flue gas desulfurization (FGD) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) controls on the majority of coal-fired EGUs in Georgia.  The required FGD control implementation date varies by EGU, starting on December 31, 2008.  SO2 controls were operating for the entire year of 2010 as follows:

Plant Hammond – controls on 4 of 4 units;

Plant Bowen – controls on 3 of 4 units;

Plant Wansley – controls on 2 of 2 units;

Plant Yates – controls on 1 of 7 units.

Table 5 shows the annual SO2 emissions for Plant Hammond, Plant Bowen, and Plant Wansley for the period 2003 through 2010.  Also, the table includes the electrical generation, SO2 emissions per 106 MWh generation, the average SO2 emissions per 106 MWh generation for 2003-2007, the uncontrolled SO2 in 2008-2010 (assuming average SO2 emissions per 106 MWh generation for 2003-2007 x generation in 2008, 2009, 2010), and the controlled SO2 in 2008-2010 (difference between uncontrolled and actual SO2 emissions).

In addition, Table 5 shows the annual SO2 emissions for Plant Yates (Unit 1) for the period 2008 through 2010.  Also, the table includes the uncontrolled SO2 in 2008-2010 (SO2 emissions in 2008, 2009, 2010 divided by 0.05), and the controlled SO2 in 2008-2010 (difference between uncontrolled and actual SO2 emissions).

The “AVG 08-10 Controlled” value in Table 5 is the amount of SO2 emission reductions that can be attributed to Georgia’s Multipollutant Rule [391-3-1-.02(2)(sss)] between 2008 and 2010.  By multiplying the controlled SO2 emissions for each facility by the normalized annual sensitivity in Tables 1 - 3 will quantify the impact of SO2 emission controls from each facility on annual PM2.5 concentrations.

Table 5.  Controlled SO2 emissions from Plant Hammond, Plant Bowen, Plant Wansley, and Plant Yates (Unit 1) in 2008 - 2010.

Facility

2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008*	2009*	2010*

Hammond	SO2 (tpy)	35,900	37,700	39,500	40,600	47,800	12,500	900	2,427

	generation 	4.79	4.11	4.64	4.27	5.09	4.32	3.73	3.23

	SO2/gen	7,494.8	9,172.7	8,512.9	9,508.2	9,391.0	2,893.5	241.3	751.4

	AVG 03-07

	8,815.9

Uncontrolled

38,084.8	32,883.4	28,475.4

	Controlled

25,584.8	31,983.4	26,048.4

	AVG 08-10

27,872.2

	Bowen	SO2 (tpy)	164,900	165,900	186,500	206,400	196,800	148,100	54,800 7,618

	generation 	21.9	21.9	23.3	23.7	24	23.4	22.9	24.7

	SO2/gen	7,529.7	7,575.3	8,004.3	8,708.9	8,200.0	6,329.1	2,393.0	308.4

	AVG 03-07

	8,003.6

Uncontrolled

187,285.1	183,283.2	197,689.8

	Controlled

39,185.1	128,483.2	190,071.8

	AVG 08-10

119,246.7

	Wansley**	SO2 (tpy)	94,000	99,000	101,500	96200	93,900	74,300	7400 2,343

	generation 	13.7	14	15.1	14.8	16.1	15.5	11.8	9.8

	SO2/gen	6,861.3	7,071.4	6,721.9	6,500.0	5,832.3	4,793.5	627.1	239.1

	AVG 03-07

	6,597.4

Uncontrolled

102,259.4	77,849.1	64,654.3

	Controlled

27,959.4	70,449.1	62,311.3

	AVG 08-10

53,573.3

	Yates, Unit 1	SO2 (tpy)

352	175.9	286

	Uncontrolled

7,040.0	3,518.0	5,726.0

	Controlled

6,688.0	3,342.1	5,439.7

	AVG 08-10

5,156.6

Source: EPA Clean Air Markets Division

* SO2 control, required by Georgia Rule (sss), was operational on one or more EGUs for partial or full year

** does not include emissions from facility’s gas-fired units

Figure 1.  Map of Plant Hammond, Plant Bowen, and Plant Wansley relative to the ten Atlanta PM2.5 monitors.

The location of Plant Hammond, Plant Bowen, Plant Wansley and Plant Yates relative to the ten Atlanta PM2.5 monitors is shown in Figure 1.  The Yorkville monitor (13-223-0003) has the highest normalized sensitivity to SO2 emissions from Plant Wansley when compared to all the other Atlanta monitors (see Table 1).  Therefore, a conservative approach would be to use the SO2 normalized sensitivity at the Yorkville monitor for all the monitors in Atlanta.

The Kennesaw-National Guard monitor (13-067-0003) has the highest normalized sensitivity to SO2 emissions from Plant Bowen when compared to the other Atlanta monitors (see Table 2).   Therefore, a conservative approach would be to use the SO2 normalized sensitivity at the Kennesaw-National Guard monitor for all the monitors in Atlanta.

Since we did not perform SO2 emission sensitivities from Plant Hammond and Plant Hammond is located farther away from all the Atlanta monitors when compared to Plant Bowen, a conservative approach would be to use the Plant Bowen SO2 normalized sensitivities from the Kennesaw-National Guard monitor to represent the impact from Plant Hammond at all the Atlanta monitors.

The Forest Park monitor (13-063-0091) has the highest normalized sensitivity to SO2 emissions from Plant Yates when compared to all the other Atlanta monitors (see Table 3).  Therefore, a conservative approach would be to use the SO2 normalized sensitivity at the Forest Park monitor for all the monitors in Atlanta.

The maximum impact on annual PM2.5 concentrations at each Atlanta PM2.5 monitors due to SO2 emission reductions that can be attributed to Georgia’s Multipollutant Rule [391-3-1-.02(2)(sss)] controls at Plant Bowen, Plant Hammond, Plant Wansley, and Plant Yates is calculated in Table 6.

g/m3)

Plant Bowen	119,246.70	326.70	0.973	0.318

Plant Hammond	27,872.21	76.36	0.973	0.074

Plant Wansley	53,573.25	146.78	0.947	0.139

Plant Yates	5,156.60	14.13	1.308	0.018

TOTAL

0.550

Table 7.  Three-year Average Ambient PM2.5 Concentrations with/without data substitution and with/without Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(sss).

Ambient PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3)

Site Name	2008-2010 without data substitution and with Rule

391-3-1-.02(2)(sss)	2008-2010 with data substitution and with Rule

k

Š

Œ

š

Œ

š

!

"

K

~

Ž

³

Ä

î

ó

 h¼f

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

 h¼f

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

摧⡳ 欀㽤

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

摧⡳ 欀

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

摧⡳ 欀塤

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

h

	N/A

Powder Springs-Macland Aquatic Center (13-067-0004)	11.9	12.3	12.5	12.9

South DeKalb (13-089-0002)	12.1	N/A	12.7	N/A

Doraville (13-089-2001)	12.3	N/A	12.9	N/A

E. Rivers School (13-121-0032)	12.3	13.0	12.9	13.6

Fire Station No. 8 (13-121-0039)	11.4	13.6	12.0	14.2

Gwinnett Tech (13-135-0002)	12.1	12.5	12.7	13.1

Gainesville-Fair Street School (13-139-0003)	11.2	11.9	11.8	12.5

Yorkville (13-223-0003)	11.0	11.6	11.6	12.2

Conclusion

 PM2.5 design values that are all well below the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 g/m3 (see Table 7).  Therefore, removal of these controls would not have resulted in 2008-2010 annual PM2.5 design value over the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.