[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 23935]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10587]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80719; File No. SR-BOX-2016-48]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, To Adopt Rules for an Open-
Outcry Trading Floor

May 18, 2017.
    On November 16, 2016, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
adopt rules for an open-outcry trading floor. The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on December 05,
2016.\3\ The Commission received three comment letters in response to
the publication of the Notice.\4\ On January 10, 2017, the Commission
extended the time period within which to approve the proposed rule
change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change
to March 05, 2017.\5\ On February 21, 2017, the Commission received a
response letter from the Exchange, as well as Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\6\ On March 1, 2017, the Commission instituted
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.\7\ In response to the OIP,
the Commission received five additional comment letters.\8\ On May 17,
2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change,
which replaced and superseded the original filing, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, in its entirety.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79421 (November 29,
2016), 81 FR 87607 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letters to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from
Angelo Evangelou, Deputy General Counsel, The Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE''), dated January 10, 2017; Steve
Crutchfield, Head of Market Structure, CTC Trading Group, LLC (``CTC
Trading''), dated December 31, 2016; and Joan C. Conley, Senior Vice
President and Corporate Secretary, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq''), dated December 22, 2016.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79768, 82 FR 4956
(January 17, 2017).
    \6\ See letter to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from
Lisa J. Fall, President, Exchange, received February 21, 2017, and
Amendment No. 1, dated February 21, 2017.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80134, 82 FR 12864
(March 7, 2017) (``OIP'').
    \8\ See letters to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from
Angelo Evangelou, Deputy General Counsel, CBOE, dated April 21,
2017; Steve Crutchfield, Head of Market Structure, CTC Trading,
dated April 13, 2017; John Kinahan, CEO, Group One Trading, LP,
dated April 11, 2017; Elizabeth King, General Counsel and Corporate
Secretary, New York Stock Exchange, dated March 28, 2017; and Joan
C. Conley, Senior Vice President and Corporate Secretary, Nasdaq,
dated March 27, 2017.
    \9\ See Amendment No. 2, dated May 17, 2017, which is being
published for notice and comment. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 80720 (May 18, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \10\ provides that, after initiating
proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving or
disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after the
date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule change.
The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order approving or
disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not more than 60
days if the Commission determines that a longer period is appropriate
and publishes the reasons for such determination. The proposed rule
change was published for notice and comment in the Federal Register on
December 05, 2016.\11\ June 3, 2017 is 180 days from that date, and
August 2, 2017 is 240 days from that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \11\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed
rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, the issues raised
in the comment letters that have been submitted in connection
therewith, and the Exchange's Response to comments. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\12\ designates
August 2, 2017 as the date by which the Commission should either
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 (File No SR-BOX-2016-48).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-10587 Filed 5-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33658-33660]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14348]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0564; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-021-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19
(Regional Jet Series 100 & 440); Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series
700, 701, & 702); Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705); and
Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    There have been several in-service reports of airspeed mismatch
between the pilot and co-pilot's airspeed indicators. It was
discovered that during or after heavy rain, the pitot-static tubing
may become partially or completely blocked by water, which fails to
enter the drain bottles. Investigation revealed that drain bottles
used in the primary pitot-static system include check valves, which
impede the entry of water into the drain bottle. This condition, if
not corrected, may result in erroneous airspeed and altitude
indications.

* * * * *
The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 25, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.bombardier.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Alfano, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe & Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, New York
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 516-794-
5531.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-0564;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-021-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2010-37, dated October 28, 2010 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    There have been several in-service reports of airspeed mismatch
between the pilot and co-pilot's airspeed indicators. It was
discovered that during or after heavy rain, the pitot-static tubing
may become partially or completely blocked by water, which fails to
enter the drain bottles. Investigation revealed that drain bottles
used in the primary pitot-static system include check valves, which
impede the entry of water into the drain bottle. This condition, if
not corrected, may result in erroneous airspeed and altitude
indications.
    This directive mandates replacement of the [certain] Water
Accumulator Assemblies [with new water accumulator assemblies] to
improve drainage of the pitot-static tubing.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier Inc., has issued Service Bulletin 601R-34-147, Revision
B, dated March 8, 2011; and Service Bulletin 670BA-34-030, Revision B,
dated March 23, 2010. The actions described in this service information
are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified

of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information
referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all
pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 1,041 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate
that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the
basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85
per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,200 per product.
Where the service information lists required parts costs that are
covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge
for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected
parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based
on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S.
operators to be $1,426,170, or $1,370 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2011-0564; Directorate Identifier
2011-NM-021-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by July 25, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19
(Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, serial numbers 7003 thru
7067, 7069 thru 7990, 8000 thru 8107, and subsequent; Model CL-600-
2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes; Model CL-600-
2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes; and Model CL-600-2D24
(Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes; certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34:
Navigation.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    There have been several in-service reports of airspeed mismatch
between the pilot and co-pilot's airspeed indicators. It was
discovered that during or after heavy rain, the pitot-static tubing
may become partially or completely blocked by water, which fails to
enter the drain bottles. Investigation revealed that drain bottles
used in the primary pitot-static system include check valves, which
impede the entry of water into the drain bottle. This condition, if
not corrected, may result in erroneous airspeed and altitude
indications.
* * * * *

Compliance

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

Actions

    (g) Within 9 months after the effective date of this AD, do the
actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, as
applicable.
    (1) For Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440)
airplanes identified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-34-147,
Revision B, dated March 8, 2011: Replace water accumulator
assemblies having part numbers (P/N) 50029-001, 9435015, 50030-001,
and 9435014 installed on the pitot and static lines of the air data
computer (ADC) with new or serviceable water accumulator assemblies
having P/N 50036-001, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-34-147, Revision B,
dated March 8, 2011.
    (2) For Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702),
CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet
Series 900) airplanes: Replace water accumulator assemblies having
P/N 50033-001 installed on the pitot and static lines of the ADC
with new or serviceable water accumulator assemblies having P/N
50036-001, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-34-030, Revision B, dated March
23, 2010.

Parts Installation

    (h) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
water accumulator assembly P/N 50029-001, 9435015, 50030-001, or
9435014 for Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440)
airplanes, or P/N 50033-001 for Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet
Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series
705), and

Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes on the pitot
and static lines of the ADC, on any airplane.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (i) Replacing water accumulator assemblies in accordance with
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-34-147, dated April 1, 2009; or
Revision A, dated November 3, 2009; before the effective date of
this AD is acceptable for compliance with the corresponding
replacement required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
    (j) Replacing water accumulator assemblies in accordance with
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-34-030, dated April 1, 2009; or
Revision A, dated November 3, 2009; (for Model CL-600-2C10, CL-600-
2D15, and CL-600-2D24 airplanes), before the effective date of this
AD, is acceptable for compliance with the corresponding replacement
required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (k) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program
Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone: 516-
228-7300; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC, notify
your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district
office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter
must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

Related Information

    (l) Refer to MCAI Transport Canada Civil Aviation Airworthiness
Directive CF-2010-37, dated October 28, 2010; Bombardier Service
Bulletin 601R-34-147, Revision B, dated March 8, 2011; and
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-34-030, Revision B, dated March
23, 2010; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 31, 2011.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-14348 Filed 6-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 145)]
[Notices]
[Page 43735-43736]
[DOCID:fr28jy08-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13248-000]

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power; Notice of Preliminary
Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions
To Intervene, and Competing Applications

July 21, 2008.
    On June 27, 2008, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
(LADWP) filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal
Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Tinemaha
Hydroelectric Project, which would be located near the town of Big Pine
on the Owens River at the existing Tinemaha Reservoir in Inyo County,
California.
    The proposed Tinemaha Hydroelectric Project would include an
existing dam owned by the LADWP, and its existing impoundment, Tinemaha
Reservoir, which has a surface area of 2,098 acres at an elevation of
3,873.5 feet above mean sea level. The proposed project would also
consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 215-foot-long, 8-foot-
wide steel penstock, (2) a powerhouse containing one generating unit
with a total installed capacity of 1.2 MW, (3) a 1-mile-long, 34.5 kV
transmission line, connecting to an existing power line, and (4)
appurtenant facilities. The project would have an annual generation of
5 GWh, which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Randy S. Howard, Director of Resource
Planning,

Procurement, and Development, Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power, Suite 921, 111 North Hope St., Los Angeles, CA 90012; phone:
(213) 367-0381. FERC Contact: Tom Papsidero,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13248) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-17143 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

	OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDE

	AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 MEMORANDUM

Date:  1/7/2009

SUBJECT:	Cyhalofop-butyl.  Tolerance Petition for use on Wild Rice.  Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data

PC Code:  082583	DP Barcode:  D352156

Decision No.:  391343	Registration No.:  62719-356

Petition No.:  8E7341	Regulatory Action:  Section 3

Risk Assessment Type:  NA	Case No.:  NA

TXR No.:  NA	CAS No.:  122008-85-9

MRID No.:  N/A	40 CFR:  §180.576

FROM:	Douglas Dotson, Ph.D., Chemist

		Registration Action Branch II

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

			  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

THROUGH:	Michael Doherty, Ph.D., Chemist

		Richard Loranger, Ph.D., Senior Scientist

		Registration Action Branch II

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO:		Sidney Jackson/Dan Rosenblatt, RM Team 05

		RIMUERB

		Registration Division (7505P)		  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

Executive Summary

Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), on behalf of the state of California, has submitted a tolerance petition for the use of the herbicide cyhalofop-butyl (R-(+)-n-butyl-2-(4-(4-cyano-2-fluorophenoxy)-phenoxy)propionate) on wild rice.  Tolerances have been established for cyhalofop-butyl and its acid and diacid metabolites in/on two commodities only:  rice grain at 0.03 ppm and rice straw at 8.0 ppm (40CFR §180.576).  These tolerances were time-limited and expired on 6/1/2007.  HED reviewed the residue data and recommended in favor of these time-limited tolerances in 2002 (Memo, D267558, M. Nelson, 11/13/2001 and Memo, D277695, D. Davis, 4/10/2002).  The tolerances were time-limited because of deficiencies in the toxicology database.  IR-4 has requested that the rice field trial data be translated to wild rice, and that a tolerance be established for residues of cyhalofop-butyl and its acid and diacid metabolites in/on rice, wild, grain, at 0.03 ppm.  Wild rice straw is not a regulated commodity; therefore, a tolerance was not proposed for this commodity.  The end-use product proposed for use on wild rice is Clincher CA (EPA Registration Number 62719-356).

HED’s Chemistry Science Advisory Council (ChemSAC) decided that rice grain residue data could be translated to wild rice because similar cultural practices are used for the two crops (ChemSAC, Meeting Minutes, 7/18/2007).  For cyhalofop-butyl, the proposed use directions are the same for wild rice as they are for rice.  Clincher CA is proposed for a maximum of two postemergence applications to wild rice, with a 10-day retreatment interval, at up to 0.28 lb ai/A per application.  The maximum allowable seasonal application rate is 0.46 lb ai/A.  The proposed preharvest interval (PHI) is 60 days.

The residue chemistry aspects of the use of cyhalofop-butyl on rice were discussed in detail in the residue chemistry review prepared for the request (Memo, D267558, M. Nelson, 11/13/2001).  This memo discusses all of the following topics:  the nature of the residue in rice, the nature of the residue in ruminants and poultry, the residue analytical methods, storage stability of residues in rice commodities, water/fish/irrigated crops, field trial studies, rice processing data, residues in meat/milk/poultry/eggs, and confined and field accumulation in rotational crops.  HED is translating this information to wild rice.  As a result, the rice residue chemistry review may be consulted for a discussion of all topics relevant to wild rice.

GC/MS Method GRM 99.06 is the enforcement method for determining cyhalofop-butyl residues of concern in/on rice commodities.  The method has been subjected to a successful ILV and it has also undergone a successful petition method validation by the Analytical Chemistry Branch of the Biological and Economic Analysis Divison (ACB/BEAD).  Method GRM 99.06 was also the residue analytical method used in the analysis of rice commodities collected from the field trial, processing, and storage stability studies.  The concurrent method recoveries indicate that the method is adequate for data collection.

Rice grain field trial residues ranged from below the LOQ of 0.01 ppm to a maximum of 0.0253 ppm.  Of the 42 field trial samples analyzed, 35 of them had residue levels that were below the LOQ (i.e., 83% of them).  For this reason, HED’s Tolerance Generator for NAFTA-Harmonized Tolerances cannot be used to determine the recommended tolerance for wild rice grain.  HED recommends in favor of the establishment of a tolerance of 0.03 ppm for rice, wild, grain.  This tolerance is equivalent to that established for rice, grain.  No Codex, Canadian, or Mexican MRLs have been established for cyhalofop-butyl.  As a result, the translation of the 0.03 ppm tolerance to wild rice grain will not create international MRL harmonization issues.

Analytical reference standards for cyhalofop-butyl, cyhalofop-acid, and cyhalofop-diacid are available at the EPA National Pesticide Standards Repository.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Regulatory Recommendations and Residue Chemistry Deficiencies

There are no residue chemistry deficiencies that would preclude the granting of tolerances for rice, grain and rice, wild, grain.  The submitted data support the following tolerance for residues of cyhalofop-butyl and its acid and diacid metabolites in/on:

Rice, grain	0.03 ppm

Rice, wild, grain	0.03 ppm

Although a time-limited tolerance was in effect for rice straw, the Agency no longer establishes tolerances for this commodity.  As a result, HED is not recommending in favor of a tolerance for rice straw.

Background

The chemical structure and nomenclature of cyhalofop-butyl are provided in Table 1, below.  The physicochemical properties of the technical grade of cyhalofop-butyl are presented in Table 2.

Table 1.   Cyhalofop-butyl Nomenclature.

Compound

Common name	Cyhalofop-butyl

IUPAC name	2-(4-(4-cyano-2-fluorophenoxy)phenoxy)propanoic acid, butyl ester (R)

CAS name	R-(+)-n-butyl-2-(4-(4-cyano-2-fluorophenoxy)-phenoxy)propionate

CAS registry number	122008-85-9

End-use product (EPs) requested for registration	Clincher® CA Herbicide (29.6% Emulsifiable Concentrate)

TABLE 2	Physicochemical Properties of Cyhalofop-butyl.

Parameter	Value	References

Melting point/range	45.5-49.5ºC	Memo, D277695, D. Davis, 4/10/2002

pH	9.0

	Relative Density (20ºC)	1.172 g/cm3

	Water solubility (20ºC)	0.44 mg/L at pH 7

	Solvent solubility (g/L)	n-heptane           6.06

n-octanol          16.0

methoanol     >250

acetone          >250

ethyl acetate  >250

acetonitrile    >250

	Vapor pressure (25ºC)	5.3 x 10-8 kPa (4.0 x 10-7 mmHg)

	Octanol/water partition coefficient, Log(KOW) (25ºC)	3.32

860.1200  Directions for Use

The proposed use directions for wild rice are very comparable to those in effect for rice.  The use directions for rice and wild rice are outlined in Table 3, below.

Table 3.	Summary of Directions for Use of Cyhalofop-butyl on Wild Rice.

Applic. Timing, Type, and Equip.	Formulation	Applic. Rate

(lb ai/A)

	Max. No. Applic. per Season

Max. Seasonal Applic. Rate

(lb ai/A)

	PHI

(days)	Use Directions and Limitations

Rice and Wild Rice

Broadcast foliar

Ground or aerial	29.6% Emulsifiable Concentrate

(2.38 lb ai/gallon)	0.24-0.28	2

0.46

	60

Applications are to be made with crop oil concentrate at a rate of 2.5% v/v.  A spray volume of 10-15 gallons per acre should be used.  Sequential applications must be made at least 10 days apart.  Do not apply through any type of irrigation system.  Do not allow discharge of paddy water from treated areas for a minimum of 7 days after the most recent application.

Conclusions.  The proposed use directions for rice and wild rice are adequately described and sufficient to allow evaluation of the rice residue data relative to the proposed uses.

860.1300 Nature of the Residue - Plants

Residue Chemistry Memo D267558, 11/13/01, M. Nelson, (PP# 0F6089)

HED MARC Decision Memo DP# 277192, 11/13/2001

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The nature of cyhalofop-butyl residues in rice is adequately understood based upon acceptable 14C metabolism studies conducted on rice (Memo, D267558, M. Nelson, 11/13/2001).  HED assumes that the metabolism in wild rice is the same as that in rice.  The HED MARC concluded that the combined residue of parent and its acid and diacid metabolites should be regulated and used for risk assessment purposes (Memo, D277192, Y. Donovan, 11/13/2001).  These conclusions apply to wild rice as well.

860.1300 Nature of the Residue – Livestock

Residue Chemistry Memo D267558, 11/13/01, M. Nelson, (PP# 0F6089)

For a discussion of the nature of the residue in livestock, see the previous residue chemistry review prepared for cyhalofop-butyl (Memo, D267558, M. Nelson, 11/13/2001).  In that document, the following conclusion was made:  “For the purpose of this petition only, there is no reasonable expectation of finite cyhalofop-butyl residues of concern in egg, milk and edible livestock tissues [Category 3, 40 CFR §180.6(a)] as a result of the proposed uses on rice.  Therefore, the requirements for tolerances, analytical methods, and data depicting magnitude of the residue in eggs, milk and edible livestock tissues are not required.  The Category 3 situation may not remain applicable if additional livestock feed items are proposed for tolerances in the future.”  The proposed use on wild rice does not result in an increase in residues that are expected to occur in animal commodities.  As a result, the conclusion that there is no reasonable expectation of finite cyhalofop-butyl residues of concern in egg, milk and edible livestock tissues [Category 3, 40 CFR §180.6(a)] continues to be in effect.

860.1340 Residue Analytical Methods

Residue Chemistry Memo D267558, 11/13/01, M. Nelson, (PP# 0F6089)

GC/MS Method GRM 99.06 is the enforcement method for determining cyhalofop-butyl residues of concern in/on rice commodities.  Method GRM 99.06 quantitates residues of cyhalofop-butyl and cyhalofop-acid as the acid equivalent, and residues of cyhalofop-diacid and cyhalofop-amide as the diacid equivalent.  The validated method LOQ for cyhalofop-acid and cyhalofop-diacid is 0.01 ppm each in all rice matrices, except in straw, where the LOQ for cyhalofop-diacid is 0.05 ppm.

Method GRM 99.06 has been subjected to a successful ILV.  It has also undergone a successful petition method validation by ACB/BEAD (Memo, D272679, E. Kolbe, 3/18/2002).  The method can be obtained from ACB/BEAD.

Method GRM 99.06 was also the residue analytical method used in the analysis of rice commodities collected from the field trial, processing, and storage stability studies.  The concurrent method recoveries indicate that the method is adequate for data collection.

860.1360 Multiresidue Methods

Residue Chemistry Memo D278385, 8/15/03, M. Nelson, (PP# 1F06313)

The results of m  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 ultiresidue methods testing can be found in the residue chemistry summary document prepared for rice (Memo, D267558, M. Nelson, 11/13/2001).  Complete recovery of cyhalofop-butyl was achieved through Protocol D (without Florisil cleanup and using NPD detection), and through Protocol E.  The acid and diacid metabolites do not appear to be recovered by any of the FDA multiresidue methods.

860.1380 Storage Stability

The results of storage stability testing for cyhalofop-butyl, cyhalofop-acid, and cyhalofop-diacid   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1  can be found in the residue chemistry summary document prepared for rice (Memo, D267558, M. Nelson, 11/13/2001).  The storage stability data are adequate to support the submitted field trial and metabolism studies for cyhalofop-butyl.

860.1400 Water, Fish and Irrigated Crops

The proposed label prohibits use of cyhalofop-butyl through irrigation systems.  It also prohibits fishing or the commercial growing of fish, shellfish, or crustaceans on treated acres during the year of treatment.  Based on these label restrictions, residue data pertaining to the magnitude of cyhalofop-butyl residues of concern in water, fish, and irrigated crops are not required.

860.1480 Meat, Milk, Poultry, and Eggs

The residue chemistry review for rice stated the following with respect to the need for tolerances for animal commodities:  “For the purpose of this petition only, the data requirements for magnitude of cyhalofop-butyl residues of concern in eggs, milk, and edible tissues of animals are waived, based on low levels of radioactive residues observed from the animal metabolism studies.  This is considered to be Category 3 of 40 CFR §180.6(a) with respect to the need for cyhalofop-butyl tolerances in animal commodities.  In the event that tolerances are proposed on additional livestock feed items in the future, the Agency will recalculate the maximum dietary burdens and reassess the need for animal feeding studies and tolerances.”

As part of the residue chemistry review, a maximum theoretical dietary burden (MTDB) was calculated for cyhalofop-butyl.  This diet was based on rice grain, straw, hulls, and bran.  Although wild rice grain and straw are potential animal feed items, wild rice straw is not a significant feed item, and HED is not recommending in favor of a tolerance for this commodity.  Wild rice grain could replace rice grain in the MTDB; however, the tolerance is the same as the rice tolerance that was used in the calculation of the MTDB.  As a result, the inclusion of wild rice grain in the MTDB calculation will have no effect on it.  Rice straw is no longer considered to be a significant animal feed item and could be removed from the MTDB calculation.  Removing rice straw from the calculation would result in a decrease in the MTDB.  As a result, the use of cyhalofop-butyl on rice and wild rice is still considered to fall under Category 3 of 40 CFR §180.6(a) with respect to the need for cyhalofop-butyl tolerances in animal commodities.

860.1500 Crop Field Trials

The results of the magnitude of the residue studies for cyhalofop-butyl   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 can be found in the residue chemistry summary document prepared for rice (Memo, D267558, M. Nelson, 11/13/2001).  Rice grain field trial residues ranged from below the combined LOQ of 0.01 ppm to a maximum of 0.0253 ppm.  Of the 42 field trial samples analyzed, 35 of them had residue levels that were below the combined LOQ (0.01 ppm).

860.1520 Processed Food and Feed

The residue chemistry review for rice stated the following with respect to processed rice commodities:  “The rice processing study is adequate for the purpose of this petition.  Residues of cyhalofop (cyhalofop-butyl and cyhalofop-acid, determined as the acid equivalent) and cyhalofop-diacid were each less than the method LOQ (<0.010 ppm) in/on rice grain treated with Clincher( (2.38 lb/gal EC formulation) at 1.40 lb ai/A (5x the maximum proposed single application rate and 3x the maximum proposed seasonal rate).  Following processing of treated rice grain according to simulated commercial practices, residues did not concentrate in bran and polished rice; residues concentrated marginally (1.1-1.2x) in hulls.  Based on the results of the current processing study, tolerances for cyhalofop-butyl residues of concern in the processed commodities of rice are not required.”

There are no processed commodities associated with the use of cyhalofop-butyl on wild rice for which residue data are required.  As a result, this guideline topic is not relevant to the proposed use on wild rice.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 860.1650 Submittal of Analytical Reference Standards

Analytical standards for cyhalofop-butyl, cyhalofop-acid, and cyhalofop-diacid are currently available in the EPA National Pesticide Standards Repository (electronic communication, D. Wright, ACB/BEAD, 11/14/2008).  The expiration dates of the standards are as follows:  cyhalofop-butyl (6-14-2010), cyhalofop-acid (3-31-2012), and cyhalofop-diacid (3-17-2012).  The analytical reference standards must be recertified or replenished as requested by the Repository.  The reference standards should be sent to the Analytical Chemistry Lab, which is located at Fort Meade, to the attention of Theresa Cole at the following address:

	USEPA

	National Pesticide Standards Repository/Analytical Chemistry Branch/OPP

	701 Mapes Road

	Fort George G. Meade, MD  20755-5350

(Note that the mail will be returned if the extended zip code is not used.)

860.1850 and 860.1900 Confined and Field Accumulation in Rotational Crops

The same cultural practices are followed for rice and wild rice.  For this reason, the rotational crops would be the same for the two commodities.  The results of a confined rotational crop study using spring wheat, leaf lettuce, and radishes were discussed in the residue chemistry summary document prepared for rice (Memo, D267558, M. Nelson, 11/13/2001).  The confined rotational crop study was deemed adequate for the purposes of characterizing the nature of the cyhalofop-butyl residues in rotational crops.  HED concluded that the proposed 3-month plantback interval for crops other than rice was adequate.  HED further concluded that field rotational crop studies were not required.  The proposed label for wild rice specifies a plantback interval of 3 months for crops other than rice.  HED’s conclusions concerning the rotational crop studies and the plantback interval apply to the current petition for wild rice.

860.1550 Proposed Tolerances

The residue of concern in plants is cyhalofop-butyl, cyhalofop-acid, and cyhalofop-diacid for the purposes of risk assessment and tolerance expression.  The rice tolerance is listed in 40 CFR §180.576.  There are no residue chemistry data deficiencies that would preclude the establishment of a tolerance of 0.03 ppm for both rice, grain and rice, wild, grain.

No Codex, Canadian, or Mexican MRLs have been established for cyhalofop-butyl.  As a result, the translation of the 0.03 ppm tolerance to wild rice grain will not create international MRL harmonization issues.

A tolerance summary is presented below in Table 4.

Table 4.   Tolerance Summary for Cyhalofop-butyl.

Commodity	Proposed

Tolerance (ppm)	Expired

Tolerance (ppm)	Recommended Tolerance (ppm)	Comments;

Correct Commodity Definition

Rice, wild, grain	0.03	NA	0.03

	Rice, grain	None	0.03	0.03	Rice, grain

Rice, straw	None	8.0	none	Rice straw is no longer a regulated commodity.  As a result, a tolerance is not needed.

References

PP#0F06089.  NEW CHEMICAL:  Cyhalofop-Butyl in/on Rice.  Review of Residue Chemistry, D267558, M. Nelson, 11/13/2008

Cyhalofop-butyl:  Human Health Risk Assessment for Use on Rice, D277695, D. Davis, 4/10/2002

PP# 0F06089.   NEW CHEMICAL:   Cyhalofop-Butyl in/on Rice, Decision Memorandum of the HED Metabolism Assessment Review Committee, D277192, Y. Donovan, 11/13/2008

INTERNATIONAL RESIDUE LIMIT STATUS

Chemical Name:  R-(+)-n-butyl-2-(4(4-cyano-2-fluorophenoxy)-phenoxy)propionate

	Common Name:

Cyhalofop-butyl	X Proposed tolerance

 Reevaluated tolerance

s Other	Date:   11/12/08

Codex Status (Maximum Residue Limits)	U. S. Tolerances

√No Codex proposal step 6 or above

□  No Codex proposal step 6 or above for the crops requested	Petition Numbers:  PP#8E7341

DP#:  D351856

Other Identifier:

Residue definition (step 8/CXL): N/A	Reviewer/Branch:  Doug Dotson/RAB2

	Residue definition:  cyhalofop-butyl, cyhalofop acid, and cyhalofop diacid

Crop (s)	MRL (mg/kg)	Crop(s) 	Tolerance (ppm)

None

Wild rice	0.03

	Limits for Canada	Limits for Mexico

√  No Limits

ഀࣆȀỰ⒐싁摧䔮æ	̀Ĥ␱愁Ĥ摧烴¥

-

;

]

^

_

b

d

<

^

_

Ž

˜

æ

é

ê

ë

ý

þ

萏֠萑褐葞֠葠褐摧䔮æᜀd

s

‹

Ž

—

˜

·

¹

º

Î

Ð

ä

å

é

ë

ü

þ

*

N

›

¬

¯

ì

h

h

ഀ׆Ā褐㄀Ĥ摧የ

H*

h

h

	ԀĤ␆㄁Ĥ摧《A

㄀Ĥ摧圢

h

 h

h

h

Ä

Ä

Ä

 h$

 h$

 h$

 h$

 h$

 h$

 the crops requested	√ No Limits

□ No Limits for the crops requested

Residue definition:  N/A

	Residue definition:  N/A

Crop(s)	MRL (mg/kg)	Crop(s)	MRL (mg/kg)

None

None

	Notes/Special Instructions:  S.Funk, 11/13/2008.

$

Ёฃ愀϶e瑹উఀummary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data DP#: 352156

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  10


SES Qualified Source Testing Individual Exams

Frequently Asked Questions

(Updated August 2007)

Why has SES implemented a QSTI Program?

Some of the end users of stack test results, federal and State
regulatory agencies in particular, are considering source testing
company accreditation programs to help ensure the quality of emissions
measurement data.  Anticipating that such programs will rely on
verifying the abilities of individuals involved in source testing, the
SES membership approved and developed the SES QSTI program as a
voluntary program for our members to demonstrate knowledge and
experience with test procedures.

Is SES Qualification Required?

We are not aware of any regulatory agencies who have required the SES
QSTI exams, specifically; although, proposed revisions to part 75
(August 22, 2006, 71 FR 49300), if finalized, would require that a
qualified individual oversee certain stack tests, including mercury and
non-mercury RATAs.  Additionally, the ASTM Standard D7036-04 specifies
that accredited testing organizations have on staff individuals who are
qualified through exams that demonstrate knowledge of methods and basic
field testing principles.  We believe that the SES QSTI program is one
way to satisfy that standard, and potentially new EPA regulations, as
the SES QSTI exams are designed to cover the areas of competence and
basic methods described in the ASTM standard.

Why should I become qualified now?

To advance your professional credentials in emissions testing and
address potential future individual certification and company
accreditation needs.

Do I have to pass more than one exam to receive an SES QSTI certificate?

No.  The SES QSTI review committee will issue you a certificate for each
exam you pass and upon review and approval of your completed
application.  There was discussion during development of the program to
require successful completion of a basics exam plus a specific methods
group exam before SES would issue a certificate.  This step was
considered as a way to address company accreditation needs; however, the
scope of the SES QSTI program should be limited to demonstrating
individual qualifications and not try to anticipate or define company
accreditation requirements.  In addition, the SES QSTI exams include
questions on basic source testing procedures in each exam.  As future
accreditation programs develop and needs are more clearly defined,
individuals can always provide SES QSTI certificates for the multiple
exams in verifying the qualifications needed for any specific
accreditation program.

How much will the exam cost?

We are initially offering the exam as follows:

Initial exam (basic methods):  $140 for SES members (add $15 for
non-members*).

*Includes 1-year SES membership.

ALWAYS check with Eastern Technical Associates for current exam fees.

Where will the exam be offered?

At any of Eastern Technical Associates( national smoke school locations.
 See www.eta-is-opacity.com for further information.

Who developed and validated the questions?

The SES solicited questions from the SES members and from U.S. EPA and
the SES QSTI review committee continually reviews and vets questions for
the exams.

Does SES Qualification satisfy the NELAC accreditation program?

There is no NELAC accreditation program for source emissions testing at
this point.  SES is encouraging NELAC to accept SES QSTI program for
individual knowledge requirements that may be included a national
accreditation program.

Does SES satisfy any State accreditation programs?

Not at this point.  SES is encouraging states to accept SES QSTI program
for individual knowledge requirements that may be included a national
accreditation program.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Would someone who was already certified for QSTI
for the first three modules be automatically qualified for certification
as QSTO for those modules?

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Our current direction is that a QSTI certificate
will suffice in demonstrating that the QSTI is also qualified as an
observer or a QSTO. We believe that the experience necessary to lead a
test program that we expect from a QSTI would also qualify that person
to observe and assess the abilities of a third party conducting a test.

On the other hand, the person experienced only as an observer, having
received a QSTO, is not necessarily qualified to operate sampling
trains, conduct the QA/QC protocols, write a test report, or demonstrate
the other skills we expect from a QSTI. We, the SES QSTI/QSTO review
board, will be looking for a different set of qualities from the QSTO
applicant who has only testing observer experience. Such qualities would
complement those of a field test team leader but would necessarily be
limited. At least, that is our direction at this time. As we put this
program into place more completely, we will probably issue some guidance
on this and related points.

I reside and work outside the United States.  The SES Qualification
Application requires my signature to be notarized.  Is it OK to have it
notarized by a notary from my country?

You may use a notary from within your country.  Please be sure your
notary provide his or her license number and expiration date along with
the appropriate stamp or seal.

Instead of a notary, you may have your signature to an application
witnessed (in person) by a current Officer or Member of the Board of
Directors of SES.

I am filling out the Official Application for SES Emission Tester
Qualification Examination. In the Professional Development section, how
should I list conferences and workshops that I attended and/or was a
speaker, instructor or co-author?

For conferences and workshops you attended, provide a short list of
those you feel are most relevant to stack testing qualification (name of
conference/workshop, city, state/province, country, date).

For those occasions where you served as a presenter, instructor or
co-author, list these like a publication citation (i.e.,
authors/coauthors, title of the presentation or course,
conference/workshop name, city, state/province, date).  This would be
the appropriate format also for any published papers (i.e., in
conference proceedings or in a journal).  List as many as you think are
relevant.

I have a resume which lists my employment history and summarizes
experience.  Can I just attach that to my application to support the
experience requirement?

You need to complete all of the application forms and we strongly
recommend that you not attach resumes or test reports in lieu of
entering information on application.  Generally, personnel or proposal
resumes do not contain the specific details needed to demonstrate
experience in each of the experience areas.  Further, the SES QSTI
review board is not equipped to handle sensitive and potentially
confidential business information as might be contained in test reports.
 Simply attaching your resume outlining your years of employment and
experience or site-specific test reports will not satisfy this
application requirement.  Instead, you need to write information on your
application that clearly demonstrates your experience in each of the
applicable areas as listed on the second page of the application plus
those listed under Demonstrated Skills (see checklist below).

Simply saying you have experience is generally not sufficient.  For
example, to demonstrate experience in Procedures Compliance, you should
provide specific examples, such as internal or external technical
systems audits, external performance audits, or State observed tests,
which demonstrate that you followed the procedures required in the test
methods and protocols.  Those descriptions should clearly identify your
roles in those activities, your abilities to solve problems, and the
quality of the results.  Since reports may be accepted by agencies
without tests being observed, simply saying many reports were accepted
by agencies does not necessarily demonstrate that procedures were
followed.

Experience checklist (give specific examples to clearly demonstrate your
level of experience in each area; be sure to indicate your direct role,
why you chose specific approaches, how you accomplished activities,
etc.):

	Test Methods (methods with which you have experience)

	Calibration/preparation/packing (calibration equipment, procedures,
pre-test activities)

	Set-up at test site (logistics, challenges, best practices)

	Sample Analysis (lab interface, analytical equipment, sample
preparation, selection of methods for purpose, interferences, detection
limits vs. sampling times, validation, etc.)

	Procedure Compliance (test protocols, SSTPs, TSAs, SOPs, external
audits, etc.)

	Data Reduction (calculations, special corrections, nondetects,
QA/data quality objectives, etc.)

	Troubleshooting (equipment malfunction, delays, sampling locations,
interferences, calibration, data acquisition, etc.)

	Training (education, classes, seminars, workshops, conferences,
committees, professional societies; experience as instructor)

	Equipment Operation/Data Recording (types of equipment, meter boxes,
CEMS, data logging/acquisition, etc.)

	Sample Recovery/handling/custody (procedures, reagents, storage,
shipping, DOT, hold times, sign-off, etc.)

	QA/QC (QAPPs, SOPs, QA/QC samples, planning, audits, organization,
validation)

	Reporting (types of reports, scope and purpose, use of templates,
publications, etc.)

	Safety Training (safety seminars, PPE, workshops, tailgate meetings,
certifications, application to adverse situations, HAZWOPR, refinery
safety, confined spaces, DOT shipping, EHS compliance, site-specific
safety orientations, etc.)

¾

ƒ

„

…

¨

¾

ƒ

„

…

¨

å

Depretation, engineering analysis, etc.)

	Verbal & written communication skills (publications, reports, oral
presentations, negotiations, etc.)

	Technical/science skills (math, engineering, chemistry, mechanics,
electrical, electronics, etc.)

	Selection and knowledge of test methods and their application and
limitations (regulations, deviations, modifications, detection limits,
interferences, etc.)

	Selection, calibration, setup, use and operation of testing
equipment for different applications and conditions (test objectives,
measurements, location elevation/access, stack gas characteristics,
weather, safety, etc.)

ity, etc.)

	Sample analysis and special considerations for different
applications (lab interface, analytical equipment, sample preparation,
selection of methods for purpose, interferences, detection limits vs.
sampling times, validation, etc.).

	Test method modifications and deviations needed for different
applications (high or low concentrations, interferences, pressure,
etc.).

.).

	EXAMPLES OF THE PROJECT EXPERIENCE PORTION OF THE APPLICATION ARE
AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE.  PLEASE REFER TO THESE EXAMPLES FOR HELP IN
THIS AREA.