FERTILIER APPLICATOR HEALTH RISK EVALUATION FOR NON NUTRITIVE ELEMENTS IN INORGANIC FERTILIZERS: RISK BASED CONCENTRATIONS ( RBCs) COMPARED TO MEASURED LEVELS OF NON NUTRITIVE ELEMENTS IN PRODUCTS Prepared for THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE Washington, D. C.

February 24, 1999 THE WEINBERG GROUP INC.

WASHINGTON, D. C. NEW YORK BRUSSELS PARIS SAN FRANCISCO 1220 Nineteenth St, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 2400 e mail science@ weinberggroup. com i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE RISK BASED CONCENTRATIONS ( RBCs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 INORGANIC FERTILIZER DATABASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 SCREENING: COMPARISON OF RBCS WITH METAL OF POTENTIAL CONCERN ( MOPC) CONCENTRATION IN PRODUCT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 SOURCES OF MONITORING DATA FOR NON NUTRIENT ELEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 TABLES ( presented at the end of this document)

Table 1 Risk Based Concentrations ( RBCs) for Screening Table 2 Example Health Risk Evaluation for Non Nutritive Elements in Phosphate Fertilizers: Compare Risk Based Concentrations ( RBCs) to Level of Metal of Potential Concern ( MOPC) in Product Table 3 Example Health Risk Evaluation for Non Nutritive Elements in Micronutrient Fertilizers: Compare Risk Based Concentrations ( RBCs) to Level of Metal of Potential Concern ( MOPC) in Product Table 4 Comparison of Fraction of Nutrient Adjusted RBCs to Metal of Potential Concern ( MOPC) Concentrations for Individual Micronutrient Products 1 INTRODUCTION The following is a screening level, health risk evaluation for fertilizer applicators exposed to non nutritive elements in inorganic commercial fertilizers. The assessment is for four nonnutritive elements ( arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury, referred to as metals of potential concern [ MOPC]) that are components of phosphate fertilizers and micronutrient fertilizers. The basis for selecting the four non nutritive elements and the two classes of fertilizers is that these metals and fertilizers are generally considered to represent the greatest potential health concern. A more detailed justification is presented in The Weinberg Group ( 1999) report on RBCs. The purpose of this screening level evaluation is to determine if the levels of the non nutritive elements typically found in inorganic fertilizers could pose a health risk to fertilizer applicators during application. The applicators would include home owners, farmers, nursery workers, golf course applicators and lawn care professionals.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE RISK BASED CONCENTRATIONS ( RBCs)

Risk Based Concentrations ( RBCs) were derived in The Weinberg Group ( 1999) report for phosphate and micronutrient fertilizers. RBCs are the amount or concentration of a non nutrient element in a fertilizer that is considered health protective at a given level and a particular type of exposure. RBCs were developed for two fertilizer applicator scenarios. The first is a lawn care professional who is considered to have the highest exposure potential among all applicators. The second is a farm worker who is considered to be representative of applicators, including nursery workers, golf course workers and home applicators, whose overall exposure is significantly less than the lawn care professional. In general, the RBCs were derived using standard USEPA guidance and equations, and exposure parameters that would yield high end estimates. The standard direct pathways of exposure included incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation. Acceptable target cancer risks of 1 in 100,000 ( or 1 X10 5) for occupational setting and an acceptable non cancer hazard index of 1 were used to develop the RBCs. Therefore, the RBCs are considered to be conservatively derived to ensure that health risks are not underestimated, and provide some degree of initial flexibility in evaluating products that are used only in lawn or in crop applications. The RBCs are presented in Table 1.

In addition, as described in The Weinberg Group ( 1999), the MOPC concentration in a blended fertilizer correlates primarily with the phosphate or micronutrient fraction of the fertilizer. While the fraction of the fertilizer that is phosphate or micronutrient varies among products, for the purpose of calculating conservative, screening level RBCs, the assumption was made that the fertilizer product being applied is 100% phosphate or 100% micronutrient. 2 INORGANIC FERTILIZER DATABASE Numerous sources were used to gather measurements of the four non nutritive elements in phosphate and micronutrient fertilizers. These sources included industry databases, published literature, monitoring programs underway in individual states, and data summaries reported by the USEPA. The data are reported as milligrams of metal per kilogram of fertilizer product ( mg/ kg); this equates to part per million ( ppm) concentrations. The current database contains approximately 3,200 total analyses for arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury ( see column " sample size" in Table 2). The industry and the states continue to monitor fertilizer products and therefore the database will change with time.

SCREENING: COMPARISON OF RBCS WITH MOPC CONCENTRATION IN PRODUCT An initial step in the screening level evaluation of potential health risks to fertilizer applicators is made by comparing the lawn care professional RBCs, for a particular MOPC, to the measured concentration of the particular MOPC in fertilizers. The comparison can be made on a single product sample or by product categories. When evaluating a product category, a representative high end MOPC concentration is used as the screening concentration. In this evaluation, the products were evaluated by category and the maximum detected MOPC concentration was compared with the RBC. If the MOPC screening concentration is less than the RBC, there is no health risk to applicators from exposure during application of that product or product category. If the MOPC concentration is greater than the RBC value, a further, more refined, comparison may be desirable.

Specifically, further refinement on the assumptions that go into deriving the screening level RBC values and/ or MOPC concentrations would include:

 adjustment of the RBC to reflect the actual fraction of the nutrient in the fertilizer ( or product). As indicated above, the screening level RBCs are based on the assumption that the MOPC is 100% of the fertilizer, when in fact, the MOPC is associated with a fraction of the fertilizer. For macronutrient fertilizers, the MOPC is associated with the phosphate portion of the fertilizer. If the product is a 5 15 15 blend ( i. e., N P K), then the phosphate is only 15 % of the product. The screening level RBC value is divided by 0.15 to derive a product specific RBC. The same adjustment can be done for micronutrient fertilizers using the actual percent nutrient in the product in place of the assumed 100% nutrient ( e. g., Zn) content.

 adjustment of the RBC to reflect the actual conditions surrounding the use of the product such as the intended vegetation, application frequency, and likely exposure conditions for a specific product. RBC values assume high end use scenarios, application frequencies, and exposure conditions that may overestimate those of the actual products. 3 < The initial screening is based on the lawn care professional scenario; however, the fertilizer may be intended for crops not grass. In this case, the farm worker RBCs would be more appropriate RBCs for screening.

< Both sets of RBCs are based on high end exposure parameters, which may be changed to be more reflective of the actual scenario ( e. g., the number of days the fertilizer is applied may be less, the applicators may ware gloves during application, thereby, decreasing the exposed skin surface area).

 adjustment of the MOPC concentration to account for the range of measured levels in a specific product category rather than the maximum reported concentration for that product in the available database, which is compiled from across the United States ( US). The maximum detected concentration may not be applicable to a particular use or geographic scenario. A closer analysis of the MOPC concentrations may indicate the presence of " outliers".

Results This section presents and summarizes the results of the screening level comparison separately for phosphate fertilizers and micronutrient fertilizers. As noted above, the lawn care professional RBCs were used for the initial screening and are the RBCs presented in the comparison tables. In the instance where an exceedence of the RBC occurs in the initial screening, some further refinement was conducted and is described in the following paragraphs and in Table 4.

 Phosphate Fertilizers ( Table 2)

Arsenic  There is one exceedence of the RBC for arsenic. This exceedence is the maximum concentration out of 104 samples labeled " Ag Blend". In addition, the exceedence is marginal, 75 ppm compared to the RBC of 72 ppm. If the RBC is adjusted to account for the percent of phosphate that is actually in this particular product, ( unknown, but not likely above 30 50%) the RBC value will increase, and there will no longer be any exceedences among the phosphate fertilizer samples for arsenic.

Cadmium  There are no exceedences of the RBC for cadmium in any products.

Mercury  There are no exceedences of the RBC for mercury in any products.

Lead  There are two exceedences of the RBC for lead. Both are the maximum measured concentration, one among 100 samples labeled " Ag Blend" and the other among 189 samples of " triplesuperphosphate ( TSP)". Both exceedences are less than a factor of two higher than the 4 RBC. Therefore, an adjustment of the RBC using the actual percent of phosphate in the product ( i. e., 44% for TSP and unknown for Ag Blend but not likely above 30 50%) will eliminate the exceedences. Also, the 1860 ppm maximum value for TSP is ten times higher than the next highest measured level of lead in the remaining 188 TSP samples, calling into question the accuracy of the 1860 ppm measurement.

 Micronutrient Fertilizers ( Table 3)

Arsenic  Two micronutrient product categories have exceedences including: 2 of 8 boron fertilizer samples and 11 of 33 iron fertilizer samples. A further evaluation of these exceedences is presented in Table 4. The RBC values are adjusted by the actual percentage of micronutrient that is in each specific product. There remain some exceedences in iron fertilizer samples. More information than is available in the data base is needed to further adjust the RBCs to better reflect the actual intended use of the products.

Cadmium  There are no exceedences of the RBC for cadmium in any products.

Mercury  There are no exceedences of the RBC for mercury in any products.

Lead  There are exceedences in 15 of 64 zinc fertilizer samples, in 4 of 32 iron fertilizer samples and in 4 of 25 samples labeled " micronutrient". A further evaluation of these exceedences is presented in Table 4. The RBC values are adjusted by the actual percentage of micronutrient that is in each specific product. All of the exceedences for the four samples labeled " micronutrient" and for three of the four iron samples are eliminated. One half of the zinc sample exceedences are eliminated. More information on the remaining zinc samples, than is currently available, is needed to further adjust the RBC values to better reflect the actual intended use of the products.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Of the approximately 2600 phosphate fertilizer samples ( the current data base) for which there are measured concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, lead or mercury, there are no exceedences of fraction of nutrient adjusted RBC values for lawn care applicators. Because ( 1) the lawn care applicators are expected to have the highest potential exposures ( more so than farm workers, golf course applicators nursery workers or home resident applicators), ( 2) phosphate fertilizers contain higher levels of the non nutrient elements than other NPK fertilizers, and ( 3) the four metals evaluated in this assessment pose the highest potential health risks, the current data support the conclusion that NPK fertilizers do not pose a health risk to applicators from exposure to its non nutrient elements.

Of the approximately 600 micronutrient fertilizer samples ( the current data base) for which there 5 are measured concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, lead or mercury, there are 15 exceedences of fraction of nutrient adjusted RBC values for lawn care applicators. There are exceedences only for iron and zinc products, and the exceedences are " marginal" ( less than a factor of 2) for all but 2 of the 15 samples. Because the RBCs are derived using very conservative assumptions, no health risks are associated with 99.7 percent of the samples in the data base. More detailed information than is in the data bases, regarding product use, would be needed to do conduct a further refinement for these two remaining iron samples. Because the RBC values for other applicators ( i. e., farm workers, golf course workers, nursery workers and home residents) are considerably above the RBCs for lawn care applicators ( see Table 1), there are no exceedences and no health risks expected for these applicator groups.

This evaluation can be updated as additional monitoring data become available on concentrations of MOPCs in phosphate and micronutrient products.

REFERENCES The Weinberg Group. 1999. Health risk based concentrations for fertilizer products and fertilizer applicators. Prepared for The Fertilizer Institute. February 23, 1999.

SOURCES OF MONITORING DATA FOR NON NUTRIENT ELEMENTS The Weinberg Group. 1998. Industry and literature survey of nutritive and non nutritive elements in inorganic fertilizer materials. Prepared for The Fertilizer Institute. December 16, 1998.

Monitoring Data ( generally 1996 1998) from California, Florida, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington TFI Member Companies reporting data for their blended and micronutrient products in 1998. Risk Based Concentration Farm Worker Lawn Care Professional Metal of Potential Concern ( MOPC) Micronutrient Fertilizer Phosphate Fertilizer Micronutrient Fertilizer Phosphate Fertilizer Arsenic 3,200 1,600 140 72 Cadmium 140,000 69,000 6,100 3,000 Lead 71,000 35,000 3,200 1,600 Mercury 7,300 3,700 320 160 ( a) All RBCs expressed as mg MOPC/ kg fertilizer.

( b) Developed in The Weinberg Group ( 1999). Health risk based concentrations for fertilizer products and fertilizer applicators. ( Table 7)

TABLE 1 RISK BASED CONCENTRATIONS ( RBCs) FOR SCREENING ( RBC) ( a) ( b) Fertlizer Category Sample Size Average ( ppm) Minimum ( ppm) Maximum ( ppm) RBC ( ppm) ( a) Exceed RBC? Number of Samples that Exceed RBC Ag Blend 104 5.4 0.15 75.2 72 Yes 1 Phosphate Rock 50 13 4 40 72 No 0 Superphosphoric Acid 9 12 0.2 31 72 No 0 Monoammonium Phosphate 62 12 0.05 25 72 No 0 Phosphate 5 9.2 0.2 24.5 72 No 0 Triple Superphosphate 56 12 0.05 21 72 No 0 Superphosphate 4 12 7 21 72 No 0 Orthophosphate 2 20.5 20.5 20.5 72 No 0 Diammonium Phosphate 76 11.1 0.05 20.5 72 No 0 Ammonium Polyphosphate 7 12 0.6 20.5 72 No 0 Phosphoric Acid 12 11 0.5 19 72 No 0 Urea  Ammonium Polyphosphate  KCl 4 6.8 5.2 7.8 72 No 0 Prilled Blend 1 7.5 7.5 7.5 72 No 0 Nitrophosphate 5 6.2 3.6 7.4 72 No 0 Urea Diammonium Phosphate  KCl 2 4.8 4.7 4.9 72 No 0 Ammonium Phosphate Sulfate 2 4.2 4.1 4.2 72 No 0 Ammonium Sulfate  Ammonium Phosphate  KCl 1 4.1 4.1 4.1 72 No 0 Ammonium Polyphosphate  Potash Mix 1 2.13 2.13 2.13 72 No 0 Suspension Phosphate 1 1.5 ( 1) 1.5 ( 1) 1.5 ( 1) 72 No 0 Liquid Ammonium Phosphate 1 1.5 ( 1) 1.5 ( 1) 1.5 ( 1) 72 No 0 Urea Ammonium Phosphate 1 1 1 1 72 No 0 Monoammonium Phosphate 211 9.3 0.15 205 3000 No 0 Diammonium Phosphate 311 8.0 0.25 188 3000 No 0 Triple Superphosphate 191 12 1.8 180 3000 No 0 Phosphoric Acid 8 92 0.15 163 3000 No 0 Superphosphoric Acid 9 85 0.5 160 3000 No 0 Ag Blend 105 10 0.01 160 3000 No 0 Ammonium Phosphate Sulfate 2 148 145 151 3000 No 0 Phosphate Rock 90 27 2.4 122 3000 No 0 Urea Ammonium Phosphate 1 106 106 106 3000 No 0 Phosphate 4 23 3 69 3000 No 0 Ammonium Polyphosphate 11 19 4 56 3000 No 0 Urea  Ammonium Polyphosphate  KCl 5 7.2 1.6 24.35 3000 No 0 Orthophosphate 2 19.5 19.5 19.5 3000 No 0 Ammonium Polyphosphate  Potash Mix 1 7.7 7.7 7.7 3000 No 0 Superphosphate 4 4 2 4.88 3000 No 0 Nitrophosphate 5 3.3 2.6 4.3 3000 No 0 Urea phosphate 1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3000 No 0 Urea Diammonium Phosphate  KCl 2 2.1 2 2.1 3000 No 0 Ammonium Sulfate  Ammonium Phosphate  KCl 1 1.8 1.8 1.8 3000 No 0 Suspension Phosphate 1 1.6 1.6 1.6 3000 No 0 Prilled Blend 1 0.75 ( 1) 0.75 ( 1) 0.75 ( 1) 3000 No 0 Liquid Ammonium Phosphate 1 0.63 0.63 0.63 3000 No 0 TABLE 2 APPLICATOR HEALTH RISK EVALUATION FOR NON NUTRITIVE ELEMENTS IN PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS: COMPARE RISK BASED CONCENTRATIONS ( RBCs) TO LEVEL OF METAL OF POTENTIAL CONCERN ( MOPC) IN PRODUCT ARSENIC CADMIUM Fertlizer Category Sample Size Average ( ppm) Minimum ( ppm) Maximum ( ppm) RBC ( ppm) ( a) Exceed RBC? Number of Samples that Exceed RBC Monoammonium Phosphate 76 0.15 0.002 1.5 160 No 0 Triple Superphosphate 73 0.14 0.0025 ( 1) 1.3 160 No 0 Ag Blend 65 0.12 0.0025 ( 1) 1.13 160 No 0 Phosphate Rock 29 0.2 0.0025 ( 1) 0.5 160 No 0 Diammonium Phosphate 129 0.1 0.001 0.5 160 No 0 Nitrophosphate 1 0.38 0.38 0.38 160 No 0 Ammonium Phosphate Sulfate 2 0.02 0.01 0.024 160 No 0 Ammonium Polyphosphate 1 0.0025 ( 1) 0.0025 ( 1) 0.0025 ( 1) 160 No 0 Urea Ammonium Phosphate 1 0.0025 ( 1) 0.0025 ( 1) 0.0025 ( 1) 160 No 0 Superphosphate 1 0.0025 ( 1) 0.0025 ( 1) 0.0025 ( 1) 160 No 0 Prilled Blend 1 0.0025 ( 1) 0.0025 ( 1) 0.0025 ( 1) 160 No 0 Phosphoric Acid 1 0.0025 ( 1) 0.0025 ( 1) 0.0025 ( 1) 160 No 0 Liquid Ammonium Phosphate 1 0.0025 ( 1) 0.0025 ( 1) 0.0025 ( 1) 160 No 0 Suspension Phosphate 1 0.0025 ( 1) 0.0025 ( 1) 0.0025 ( 1) 160 No 0 Ag Blend 100 52 0.1 1940 1600 Yes 1 Triple Superphosphate 189 20 1 1860 1600 Yes 1 Monoammonium Phosphate 209 8 0.05 150 1600 No 0 Orthophosphate 2 150 150 150 1600 No 0 Diammonium Phosphate 306 5.8 0.75 150 1600 No 0 Ammonium Polyphosphate 10 31 0.17 150 1600 No 0 Phosphate 3 40 1 108 1600 No 0 Phosphate Rock 57 13 0.5 55 1600 No 0 Nitrophosphate 5 6.5 2.5 20 1600 No 0 Superphosphate 4 9 1 17 1600 No 0 Phosphoric Acid 8 3 1 10 1600 No 0 Superphosphoric Acid 5 3 0.05 8.5 1600 No 0 Urea Phosphate 1 8.1 8.1 8.1 1600 No 0 Prilled Blend 1 5 5 5 1600 No 0 Ammonium Phosphate Sulfate 2 3.3 2.1 4.4 1600 No 0 Urea  Ammonium Polyphosphate  KCl 5 2.4 1.1 3.8 1600 No 0 Ammonium Sulfate  Ammonium Phosphate  KCl 1 3.6 3.6 3.6 1600 No 0 Urea Ammonium Phosphate 1 3.19 3.19 3.19 1600 No 0 Urea Diammonium Phosphate  KCl 2 2.0 1.8 2.1 1600 No 0 Liquid Ammonium Phosphate 1 1 ( 1) 1 ( 1) 1 ( 1) 1600 No 0 Suspension Phosphate 1 1 ( 1) 1 ( 1) 1 ( 1) 1600 No 0 Ammonium Polyphosphate  Potash Mix 1 0.13 0.13 0.13 1600 No 0 Note: Highlighted rows identify fertilizers with maximum detect values that exceed the RBC. ( a) Based on a lawn care professional scenario, developed in The Weinberg Group ( 1999). ( 1) The reported values are one half of the detection limit. LEAD MERCURY TABLE 2 ( cont.) Fertlizer Category Sample Size Average ( ppm) Minimum ( ppm) Maximum ( ppm) RBC ( ppm) ( a) Exceed RBC? Number of Samples that Exceed RBC ARSENIC Fe 33 1299 0.6 6190 140 Yes 11 B 8 273 1.83 1040 140 Yes 2 Zn 51 18 1 130 140 No 0 Micronutrient 22 13 0.15 83 140 No 0 Ferrous Sulfate 1 50 ( 1) 50 ( 1) 50 ( 1) 140 Yes 0 Mn 5 8.7 0.1 20.5 140 No 0 S 3 14.3 2 20.5 140 No 0 Mg 5 13.8 1.99 20.5 140 No 0 Ca 1 20.5 ( 1) 20.5 ( 1) 20.5 ( 1) 140 No 0 Al 1 20.5 ( 1) 20.5 ( 1) 20.5 ( 1) 140 No 0 Cu 4 17.6 8.92 20.5 140 No 0 Ag Blend w/ Micros 14 8.4 2.1 19.4 140 No 0 Specialty w/ Micros 5 4 3.7 6 140 No 0 Ag Ammoniated w/ Micros 5 4.0 3.4 5.9 140 No 0 Sodium Molybdate 1 4.95 4.95 4.95 140 No 0 Fe 29 159 1 3900 6100 No 0 Zn 66 96.3 0.095 1020 6100 No 0 Micronutrient 25 40.5 0.015 400 6100 No 0 Cu 5 16.4 0.41 23.3 6100 No 0 Al 1 19.5 ( 1) 19.5 ( 1) 19.5 ( 1) 6100 No 0 S 3 13.1 0.25 19.5 6100 No 0 Mn 4 10.9 2 19.5 6100 No 0 B 5 15.8 0.75 19.5 6100 No 0 Ca 1 19.5 ( 1) 19.5 ( 1) 19.5 ( 1) 6100 No 0 Mg 5 13.0 0.47 19.5 6100 No 0 Specialty w/ Micros 7 6.1 1.7 11.9 6100 No 0 Ag Ammoniated w/ Micros 6 8.3 6.6 10.6 6100 No 0 Ag Blend w/ Micros 14 4.6 0.6 9.7 6100 No 0 Manganese Sulfate 1 4.4 4.37 4.37 6100 No 0 Ferrous Sulfate 1 2.1 2.1 2.1 6100 No 0 Fe 1 13.7 13.7 13.7 320 No 0 Micronutrient 19 1.2 0.0025 11.9 320 No 0 Zn 12 0.5 0.0025 3.36 320 No 0 Ag Blend w/ Micros 5 0.3 0.14 0.53 320 No 0 Mn 1 0.0025 ( 1) 0.0025 ( 1) 0.0025 ( 1) 320 No 0 Ferrous Sulfate 1 0.0025 ( 1) 0.0025 ( 1) 0.0025 ( 1) 320 No 0 B 10.0025 ( 1) 0.0025 ( 1) 0.0025 ( 1) 320 No 0 S 10.0025 ( 1) 0.0025 ( 1) 0.0025 ( 1) 320 No 0 Zn 64 3135 0.32 27700 3200 Yes 15 Fe 32 1833 70 17950 3200 Yes 4 Micronutrient 25 1476 0.1 17500 3200 Yes 4 Cu 8 203 3.08 1160 3200 No 0 Mg 5 206 27.7 550 3200 No 0 Ag Blend w/ Micros 14 110 1.5 337 3200 No 0 Ca 1 150 ( 1) 150 ( 1) 150 ( 1) 3200 No 0 B 7 86 1 150 3200 No 0 Al 1 150 ( 1) 150 ( 1) 150 ( 1) 3200 No 0 Mn 4 75 1 150 3200 No 0 S 3 101 3.5 150 3200 No 0 Ag Ammoniated w/ Micros 6 36 7.9 59.1 3200 No 0 Specialty w/ Micros 9 8.5 0.8 49.2 3200 No 0 Ferrous Sulfate 1 23.1 23.1 23.1 3200 No 0 Manganese Sulfate 1 0.94 0.94 0.94 3200 No 0 Note: Highlighted rows identify fertilizers with maximum detect values that exceed the RBC. ( a) Based on a lawn care professional scenario, developed in The Weinberg Group ( 1999). ( 1) The reported values are one half of the detection limit. LEAD APPLICATOR HEALTH RISK EVALUATION FOR NON NUTRITIVE ELEMENTS IN MICRONUTRIENT FERTILIZERS: COMPARE RISK BASED CONCENTRATIONS ( RBCs) TO LEVEL OF METAL OF POTENTIAL CONCERN ( MOPC) IN PRODUCT TABLE 3 CADMIUM MERCURY TABLE 4 COMPARISON OF FRACTION OF NUTRIENT ADJUSTED RBCS TO MOPC CONCENTRATIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MICRONUTRIENT PRODUCTS Fertilizer Applicator Health Risk Evaluation Fertilizer Source: MOPC Adjusted RBC Fertilizer Category Name/ Type State Concentration ( ppm) ppm ( a) Arsenic ( 140 ppm) ( b) B Boron Fertilizer Washington 1,040  B 10% B Florida 1,030 1,400 Fe ( 2 0 0) 4.25% Fe Minnesota 6,190 3,300 Fe ( 1 0 0) 4.5% Fe Minnesota 6,020 3,100 Fe 12% Fe California 5,900 1,200 Fe 18% Fe California 5,090 780 Fe ( 1 0 0) 4.5% Fe Minnesota 3,600 3,100 Fe ( 1 0 0) 4.5% Fe Minnesota 3,600 3,100 Fe ( 1 0 0) 4.5% Fe Minnesota 3,540 3,100 Fe ( 1 0 0) 4.5% Fe Minnesota 3,540 3,100 Fe 10% Fe Minnesota 248 1,400 Fe 50% Fe California 220 280 Fe  Washington 4,460  Lead ( 3,200 ppm) Fe 28% Fe California 17,950 11,000 Fe 12% Fe California 3,400 27,000 Fe ( 1 0 0) 4.5% Fe Minnesota 3,400 71,000 Fe ( 1 0 0) 4.5% Fe Minnesota 3,400 71,000 Micronutrient 18% Zn Nebraska 17,500 18,000 Micronutrient 20% Zn Washington 9,490 16,000 Micronutrient mix No. 2 ( c) Washington 3,590  Micronutrient 5.6% Zn Washington 3,490 57,000 Zn 12% Zn California 27,700 27,000 Zn 20% Zn oxysulfate ( K061) Nebraska 21,000 16,000 Zn 18% Zn California 17,400 18,000 Zn 18% Zn California 16,750 18,000 Zn 18% Zn California 13,025 18,000 Zn Zinc Oxide/ Sulfate 20% Zn Florida 12,260 16,000 Zn Zinc Oxide/ Sulfate 20% Zn Florida 12,070 16,000 Zn 36% Zn Minnesota 11,600 8,900 Zn 36% Zn Minnesota 11,600 8,900 Zn Granular Zn No. 1 Washington 11,300  Zn 36% Zn Minnesota 9,350 8,900 Zn 36% Zn Alabama 9,350 8,900 Zn 20% Zn oxysulfate ( K061) Nebraska 5,800 16,000 Zn 20% Zn oxysulfate ( K061) Nebraska 5,600 16,000 Zn 20% Zn oxysulfate ( K061) Nebraska 4,800 16,000 SHADE Indicates the MOPC concentration exceeds the adjusted RBC. Bold Indicates the MOPC concentration exceeds the adjusted RBC by more than a factor of two.  Fraction of Nutrient not reported MOPC Metal of Potential Concern RBC Risk Based Concentration ( a) Adjusted RBC = Lawn Care Professional RBC divided by the Fraction of Nutrient ( e. g., 140 ppm As divided b 0.10B = 1400 ppm As) ( b) RBCs used in initial screening ( presented in Table 1 of this document). ( c) for B, Cu, Co, Fe, Mn, Mo, Zn.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 52711]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21443]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 739-033]

Appalachian Power; Notice of Temporary Variance of License and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Temporary Variance of License.
    b. Project No: 739-033.
    c. Date Filed: August 7, 2012.
    d. Applicant: Appalachian Power.
    e. Name of Project: Claytor Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the New River in the Pulaski
County, Virginia.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a--825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Teresa Rogers, Appalachian Power, PO Box
2021, Roanoke, VA 24022,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: September 24, 2012
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be
filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and seven copies should be mailed to: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters,
without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and
contact information at the end of your comments. Please include the
project number (P-739-033) on any comments or motions filed.
    k. Description of Application: The licensee requests a temporary
variance to allow for a non-emergency impoundment drawdown that will
begin at 8 a.m. on November 7, 2012. The drawdown will proceed at a
rate of 1.0 foot per day for three days until the impoundment is at an
elevation of 1843 feet, or three feet below its normal elevation of
1846 feet. The impoundment will then be held at an elevation of 1843
feet until the evening of November 18, 2012, when reservoir refilling
will begin. The target date to complete reservoir refilling is November
21, 2012.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field (P-739) to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-
208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call (202) 502-
8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the
address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
Bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the amendment application.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

    Dated: August 23, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-21443 Filed 8-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 10, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69002-69005]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28257]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0740; FRL-9221-6]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial
County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the Imperial County
Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were proposed in the Federal
Register on May 19, 2010 and concern particulate matter (PM) emissions
from beef feedlots. We are approving a local rule that regulates these
emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
Act).

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on December 10, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0740 for
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4115<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On May 19, 2010 (75 FR 27975), EPA proposed to approve the
following rule into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Local agency                   Rule No.             Rule title             Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAPCD....................................          420  Beef Feedlots................     10/10/06     08/24/07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it
complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received one set of comments from Jose Luis
Olmedo, Comite Civico Del Valle, and Jane Williams, Desert Citizens
Against Pollution (collectively ``commentors''); letter dated June 18,
2010 and received June 18, 2010. A copy of the video referenced in the
letter was separately provided on the same day.
    In addition, several letters were received after the comment period
from local business owners in support of approving Rule 420; letters
dated July 27, 2010 thru August 2, 2010 and received August 2, 2010. We
do not address these letters below because: (1) They were submitted
significantly after the comment deadline; (2) they do not request
change to our proposal; and (3) they do not provide new information
helpful to address the comments listed above.
    The comments and our responses are summarized below.
    Comment #1: There is a lack of documentation to substantiate the
District's claim that beef feedlots are a de minimis source based on a
purported 50% emissions reduction that is assumed in 2002. This 50%
reduction assumption is not adequately explained, verified or supported
with background data.
    Response #1: Our proposed action (75 FR 27976) and the associated
TSD (pages 2-3) both refer to two ICAPCD analyses as the basis for the
District's claim that beef feedlots are a de minimis source of PM-10.
The TSD specifically references page 15 of Environ's ``Draft Final
Technical Memorandum Regulation VIII BACM Analysis'' (October 2005);
and page III.A-2 \1\ of Environ's ``2009 Imperial County State
Implementation Plan for Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns in
Aerodynamic Diameter'' (August 11, 2009). These documents in turn
reference CARB's inventory analysis to support the 50% reduction
assumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Printed in error as III-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to this comment, ICAPCD provided additional
clarification on the 50% assumption.\2\ Specifically, ICAPCD reiterates
that the 50% assumption was developed through CARB's normal review
procedure for inventories, and clarifies that it relies on three
studies: (1) USEPA, Fugitive Dust Document and Technical Information
Document for Best Available Control Measures, EPA-450/2-92-004,
September 1992; Sections 3.3.3 and 3.4.2; (2) Western Regional Air
Partnership (WRAP), WRAP Fugitive Dust Handbook, September 2006, Table
9-4; and (3) E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., Documentation Report,
Version 4.1, Pechan Report No. 06.05.003/9011.002, May 2006; Section
III, p. 645. We generally defer to District and CARB analysis on most
emission inventory details, and we have no obvious basis to question
this particular assumption at this time. However, if Imperial continues
to exceed the PM-10 standard in the future despite implementation of
BACM on all sources identified as significant, it would be appropriate
to subject inventory assumptions for de minimis sources such as this to
more scrutiny.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Provided by e-mail from Reyes Romero, ICAPCD, to Christine
Vineyard, EPA, October 5, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #2: How does the tons per day analysis provided by the
District relate to the 5 [micro]g/m\3\ standard set forth in 59 FR
41998 (August 16, 1994).
    Response #2: 2-3% of Imperial County's annual PM-10 inventory is
calculated to result in a 5 [micro]g/m\3\ contribution, which equates
to about 6-8 ton/day emissions. See 75 FR 39371 (July 8, 2010).
    Comment #3: ICAPCD Rule 420 relies on the permitting scheme in
ICAPCD Rule 217, but Rule 217 has not been approved by EPA. How do Rule
217, 420 and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
(SJVUAPCD) Rule 4570 interrelate?
    Response #3: ICAPCD Rule 420 sections A and B reference
requirements in Rule 217, which have not been approved by EPA into the
SIP. However, the substantive requirements of Rule 420 do not rely on
Rule 217 and are enforceable independent of Rule 217. Specifically,
Rule 420 section A requires all Large Confined Animal Facilities (LCAF,
defined in ICAPCD Rule 101) to acquire and maintain a LCAF permit. Rule
420 section B further requires all facilities that apply for an LCAF
permit to have a dust control plan (DCP) which describes compliance
with the substantive requirements of Rule 420 in paragraphs B.1 and
B.2.
    SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 limits emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) from LCAFs in SJVUAPCD, and is analogous to ICAPCD Rule 217.
ICAPCD Rule 420 and Rule 217 are related in that they both impose air
pollution controls on LCAFs in Imperial County. Many of the controls
will differ, however, because Rule 420 is designed to limit PM
emissions while Rule 217 targets VOC emissions. SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 and
ICAPCD Rule 420 are less directly related as they address both
different geographic areas and different pollutants.
    Comment #4: There should be an established maximum inch of manure
stockpile in feedlot pens and a standardized method of dust control
with an enforceable menu or list of applicable options.
    Response #4: We agree that the rule could be improved by more
specific and standardized requirements. However, we have no basis to
require such improvements without determining that additional emission
reductions are needed for BACM, attainment or other CAA requirements.
However, particularly if Imperial continues to exceed the PM-10
standard despite implementation of BACM on all sources identified as
significant, Rule 420 improvements that ICAPCD should consider include:
    a. Applying control requirements to smaller sources. South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1127(j)(1), for example,
only exempts farms with fewer than 50 cows from analogous requirements.
    b. Restructuring sections A, B and C to more clearly establish
control requirements independent of Rule 217

permit requirements. This is consistent with the structure of most or
all other ICAPCD prohibitory rules.
    c. Establishing more specific control requirements in section B
regarding manure moisture and disposal such as, for example, described
in SCAQMD Rule 1127.
    d. Further restricting the APCO discretion provided in section D.
    e. Clarifying sampling procedures in section E.2. to reflect
ICAPCD's inspection procedures which we understand to be that ten (10)
random samples are taken throughout each selected corral. Those ten
random samples are then averaged to determine compliance.
    Comment #5: The commentors question whether ICAPCD is adequately
enforcing Rule 420, and reference the video identified in the letter.
They ask if there are other enforcement mechanisms that EPA can
consider as BACM such as random inspections, increased funding or
verification of the District's enforcement program.
    Response #5: According to ICAPCD, the video shows land that was
formerly part of a LCAF subject to ICAPCD Rule 420, but that has not
operated at this location since the winter of 2009 due to heavy rains
and flooding. ICAPCD also stated that the Imperial County Environmental
Health Department and the Regional Water Control Board have
investigated this site as a potential health issue.
    Regarding enforcement mechanisms, ICAPCD staff explained that
ICAPCD permits issued to all cattle feedlots contain conditions to
ensure that required Rule 420 mitigation measures are fully enforced.
ICAPCD also explained that all permitted sources are routinely
inspected (including unannounced inspections at least annually and in
response to citizen complaints) to determine compliance with Rule 420
and other regulations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like all air quality agencies, Imperial is required to periodically
inspect all major stationary sources within its jurisdiction and
reports the results of those inspections to EPA's national data system,
AIRS/AFS, which is publically available. We have included a report
generated from AIRS/AFS in the docket for this action which shows the
inspections and enforcement actions taken by ICAPCD for the past ten
years.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA AIRS Facility Subsystem Quick Look Report generated
October 4, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the
submitted rule complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore,
as authorized in section 110(k) (3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving
this rule into the California SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Will not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or Tribal
populations because it maintains or increases the level of
environmental protection for all affected populations without having
any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income
population as described in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: October 25, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(351)(i)(A)(2) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (351) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *

    (2) Rule 420, ``Beef Feedlots,'' adopted on October 10, 2006.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-28257 Filed 11-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 46 (Thursday, March 8, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9882-9883]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04689]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property
at the Arapahoe County Public Airport, Englewood, CO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the
release of land at the Arapahoe County Public Airport, Englewood, CO.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 9, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or deliveredto
the FAA at the following address: Mr. John P. Bauer, Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Airports Division,
Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E 68th Avenue, Suite 224,
Denver, CO 80249-6361.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. Robert Olislagers, Arapahoe County Public
Airport, Englewood, CO, at the following address:
    Mr. Robert Olislagers, Chief Executive Officer, Arapahoe County
Public Airport, 7800 South Peoria Street, Unit G1, Englewood, CO 80112

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mr. Marc Miller, Colorado Engineer/
Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest
Mountain Region, Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E 68th Avenue,
Suite 224, Denver, CO 80249-6361.
    The request to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in
person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release property at the Arapahoe County Public Airport under
the provisions of the AIR 21 (49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2)).
    On February 27, 2018, the FAA determined that the request to
release property at the Arapahoe County Public Airport submitted by the
Arapahoe County Public Airport meets the procedural requirements of the
Federal Aviation Administration.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The Arapahoe County Public Airport is proposing the release from
the terms, conditions, reservations, and restrictions on approximately
27.766 acres of federally obligated land at the Arapahoe County Public
Airport. This land was originally purchased in 2007 as part of a larger
deal to obtain a restrictive covenant over several tracts of
developable land near the airport that were slated for residential use.
The 27.766 acres being proposed for release was never intended for
aeronautical development and has been advertised for lease since the
original purchase without any success. However, several buyers have
approached the airport with interest in purchasing the land for
compatible uses. The property will be sold at fair market value and the
sponsor will reinvest the revenue into the airport. The property
release conveyance will include appropriate continuing right of flight
and continuing restriction clauses that will prohibit any activity on
the land that would interfere with or be a hazard to the flight of
aircraft over the land or to and from the airport, or that interferes
with air navigation and communications facilities serving the airport.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect
the application, notice and other documents germane to the application
in person at the Arapahoe County Public Airport.

    Issued in Denver, CO, on February 27, 2018.
John P. Bauer,
Manager, Denver Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2018-04689 Filed 3-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P