[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17028-17032]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7110]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 49

[EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0296, FRL-9259-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Gila River Indian Community's Tribal
Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a Tribal implementation plan (TIP) submitted
by the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC or Tribe) on February 21,
2007, as supplemented and amended on July 11, 2007, June 22, 2009, and
July 17, 2010, and as described in our August 12, 2010 proposal. The
TIP includes general and emergency authorities, ambient air quality
standards, permitting requirements for minor sources of air pollution,
enforcement authorities, procedures for administrative appeals and
judicial review in Tribal court, requirements for area sources of
fugitive dust and fugitive particulate matter, general prohibitory
rules, and source category-specific emission limitations and standards.
These provisions establish a base TIP that is suitable for the GRIC's
reservation and regulatory capacities and that meets all applicable
minimum requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA
regulations. The effect of this action is to make the approved portions
of the GRIC TIP federally enforceable under the CAA and to further
protect air quality within the exterior boundaries of the GRIC
reservation.

DATES: This final rule is effective April 27, 2011. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by
the Director of the Federal Register as of April 27, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under EPA-R09-
OAR-2007-0296. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume reports)
and some may not be available in either location (e.g., confidential
business information (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: Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 Office, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we'',
``us'', and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 27, 2011. Under CAA
section 307(d)(7)(b), only an objection to this final action that was
raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period can
be raised during judicial review. This section also authorizes the
convening of a proceeding for reconsideration in specified
circumstances. Filing a petition requesting that the Administrator
reconsider this final rule does not affect the finality of this action

for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within
which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
CAA section 307(b)(2).)

I. Summary of the Proposed Action

    The GRIC reservation is located in south-central Arizona, adjacent
to the Phoenix Metropolitan Area, in Pinal and Maricopa Counties. On
August 12, 2010 (75 FR 48880), EPA proposed to approve a TIP submitted
by the GRIC on February 21, 2007, as supplemented and amended on July
11, 2007, June 22, 2009, and July 17, 2010, and as described in the
proposal. The TIP includes general and emergency authorities, ambient
air quality standards, permitting requirements for minor sources of air
pollution, enforcement authorities, procedures for administrative
appeals and judicial review in Tribal court, requirements for area
sources of fugitive dust and fugitive particulate matter, general
prohibitory rules, and source category-specific emission limitations
and standards.
    The TIP is one of four regulatory programs that comprise the GRIC's
Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).\1\ We proposed to approve only
those portions of the GRIC AQMP that constitute a TIP containing
severable elements of an implementation plan under section 110 of the
CAA, as discussed in this notice and in our August 12, 2010 proposal.
These severable plan elements establish a base TIP that is suitable for
the GRIC's reservation and regulatory capacities and that meets all
applicable minimum requirements of the CAA, the Tribal Authority Rule
in 40 CFR part 49 (TAR), and other applicable CAA regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The other three AQMP programs implement the New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) under CAA 111; the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) under CAA 112; and
title V operating permit requirements. We are not acting today on
these other elements of the GRIC AQMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a more detailed description of the TIP, our evaluation of the
TIP and supplemental information, and our rationale for our proposed
action, please see the August 12, 2010 proposed rule and related
Technical Support Document, both of which can be found in the docket
for today's action.

II. EPA's Response to Comments

    Our August 12, 2010 proposed rule provided for a 30-day comment
period, which ended on September 13, 2010. We received two public
comment letters expressing only support for our proposed action. The
two letters of support that we received can be found in the docket for
today's action.

III. Final Action

    Under CAA sections 110(o), 110(k)(3) and 301(d), EPA is fully
approving the TIP submitted by the GRIC DEQ on February 21, 2007, as
supplemented and amended on July 11, 2007, June 22, 2009, and July 17,
2010, and as described in our August 12, 2010 proposal (75 FR 48880).
For the reasons set forth in this document and in the August 12, 2010
proposed rule, we conclude that the TIP meets the applicable
requirements of CAA section 110, EPA's implementing regulations, CAA
section 301(d) and the TAR in 40 CFR part 49. The TIP includes the
following severable elements of an implementation plan under section
110 of the CAA:
     General authorities that satisfy the requirement in CAA
section 110(a)(2)(J) to meet applicable requirements of CAA section 121
(relating to consultation) and section 127 (relating to public
notification), and that also satisfy the requirement in CAA section
110(a)(2)(M) to provide for consultation and participation by local
political subdivisions affected by the plan;
     Emergency powers that satisfy the requirement in CAA
section 110(a)(2)(G) to provide for authority comparable to the
emergency powers in section 303 of the Act;
     Procedural requirements for preparation, adoption,
submission to EPA, and revision of the TIP that satisfy the applicable
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart F;
     Air quality standards and measurement methods that are
consistent with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in 40 CFR
50.4 through 50.8 and 50.10 through 50.12, as effective in October
2006;
     Legally enforceable procedures to regulate the
construction, modification, and operation of ``non-title V sources''
(``minor sources'') that establish a base program suitable to the
GRIC's reservation and that satisfy the minimum requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C) and 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.164;
     Requirements and procedures for enforcement consistent
with CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) that provide necessary assurances that
the Tribe will have adequate authority under Tribal law to carry out
the TIP, as required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i);
     Requirements and procedures for administrative appeals,
final administrative decisions, and judicial review of final
administrative decisions that establish adequate procedures for review
of the Director's decisions under the TIP and that satisfy the
applicable requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C) and
110(a)(2)(E)(i); and
     Area source emission limits, general prohibitory rules,
and source category-specific emission limitations that satisfy EPA's
enforceability requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).
    EPA is approving these provisions as elements of a base TIP under
CAA section 110 that is suitable to the GRIC's reservation and
regulatory capacities. We are not acting today on those elements of the
GRIC AQMP that address requirements of CAA title V or any other program
under the Act. We intend to take separate action on other CAA programs
submitted by the GRIC DEQ, as appropriate.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
approves laws of an eligible Indian tribe as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by Tribal law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601, et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements
under Tribal law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty
beyond that required by Tribal law, it 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).
    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' EPA has concluded that this
rule will have tribal implications in that it will have substantial
direct effects on the GRIC. However, it will neither impose substantial
direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law.
EPA is

approving the GRIC's TIP at the request of the Tribe. Tribal law will
not be preempted as the GRIC has already incorporated the TIP into
Tribal Law on December 13, 2006. The Tribe has applied for, and fully
supports, the approval of the TIP. This approval makes the TIP
federally enforceable.
    EPA worked and consulted with officials of the GRIC early in the
process of developing these regulations to permit them to have
meaningful and timely input into their development. In order to
administer an approved TIP, tribes must be determined eligible (40 CFR
part 49) for Treatment as State (TAS) for the purpose of administering
a TIP. During the TAS eligibility process, the Tribe and EPA worked
together to ensure that the appropriate information was submitted to
EPA. GRIC and EPA also worked together throughout the process of
development and Tribal adoption of the TIP. The Tribe and EPA also
entered into a criminal enforcement MOA.
    This action does not have Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action approves Tribal rules implementing a TIP over areas within
the exterior boundaries of the Gila River Indian Community's
reservation, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This
action does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994). This action also is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant.
    In reviewing TIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve an eligible
tribe's submission, provided that it meets the criteria of the Clean
Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing
requirement for the tribe to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS),
EPA has no authority to disapprove a TIP submission for failure to use
VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it
reviews a TIP submission, to use VCS in place of a TIP provision that
otherwise satisfies the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply. This rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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 49

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference,
Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 19, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 49 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 49--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 49 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart L--Implementation Plans for Tribes--Region IX

0
2. Subpart L of part 49 is amended by adding an undesignated center
heading and Sec.  49.5511 to read as follows:
Implementation Plan for the Gila River Indian Community

Sec.  49.5511  Identification of plan.

    (a) Purpose and scope. This section contains the approved
implementation plan for the Gila River Indian Community dated August
2008. The plan consists of programs and procedures that cover general
and emergency authorities, ambient air quality standards, permitting
requirements for minor sources of air pollution, enforcement
authorities, procedures for administrative appeals and judicial review
in Tribal court, requirements for area sources of fugitive dust and
fugitive particulate matter, general prohibitory rules, and source
category-specific emission limitations and standards.
    (b) Incorporation by reference.
    (1) Material listed in paragraph (c) of this section was approved
for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal Register
in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Material is
incorporated as it exists on the date of the approval, and notice of
any change in the material will be published in the Federal Register.
    (2) EPA Region IX certifies that the rules/regulations provided by
EPA in the TIP compilation at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated tribal
rules/regulations which have been approved as part of the Tribal
Implementation Plan as of January 19, 2011.
    (3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference may be
inspected at the Region IX Office of EPA at 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105-3901 or call<PHONE_NUMBER>; the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket
and Information Center, MC 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460 or call<PHONE_NUMBER>; and the National Archives
and Records Administration. For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (c) EPA-approved regulations.

                           EPA-Approved Gila River Indian Community Tribal Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Tribal effective
        Tribal citation            Title/subject           date           EPA approval date       Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gila River Indian Community,     Definitions,       August 20, 2008..  3/28/11 [INSERT         .................
 Tribal Implementation Plan,      General                               FEDERAL REGISTER PAGE
 Part I, General Provisions,      Authority,                            NUMBER WHERE THE
 Sections 1-3.                    Procedures for                        DOCUMENT BEGINS].
                                  Preparation,
                                  Adoption, and
                                  Submittal of the
                                  Air Quality
                                  Management
                                  Program.
Gila River Indian Community,     Adoption of        August 20, 2008..  3/28/11 [INSERT         Note: several
 Tribal Implementation Plan,      National Ambient                      FEDERAL REGISTER PAGE   revisions to the
 Part I, General Provisions,      Air Quality                           NUMBER WHERE THE        NAAQS have
 Section 4.                       Standards as                          DOCUMENT BEGINS].       occurred since
                                  Community                                                     the adoption of
                                  Standards.                                                    the TIP.
Gila River Indian Community,     Definitions,       August 20, 2008..  3/29/11 [INSERT         Title V
 Tribal Implementation Plan,      Applicability of                      FEDERAL REGISTER PAGE   regulations are
 Part II, Permit Requirements.    Permit                                NUMBER WHERE THE        not approved
                                  Requirements,                         DOCUMENT BEGINS].       into the TIP.
                                  Non-Title V
                                  Permit
                                  Requirements,
                                  Permit Revisions
                                  at a Non-Title V
                                  Source,
                                  Continuous
                                  Emissions
                                  Monitoring,
                                  Stack Height
                                  Limitation,
                                  Confidentiality
                                  of Information,
                                  Permit Fees.
Gila River Indian Community,     Civil              August 20, 2008..  3/28/11 [INSERT         .................
 Tribal Implementation Plan,      Enforcement,                          FEDERAL REGISTER PAGE
 Part III, Enforcement            Criminal                              NUMBER WHERE THE
 Ordinances.                      Enforcement,                          DOCUMENT BEGINS].
                                  Citizen Suits.
Gila River Indian Community,     General            August 20, 2008..  3/28/11 [INSERT         .................
 Tribal Implementation Plan,      Provisions,                           FEDERAL REGISTER PAGE
 Part IV, Administrative          Definitions,                          NUMBER WHERE THE
 Appeals.                         Administrative                        DOCUMENT BEGINS].
                                  Appeals
                                  Procedures,
                                  Final
                                  Administrative
                                  Decision:
                                  Review, Judicial
                                  Review of Final
                                  Administrative
                                  Decisions.
Gila River Indian Community,     Open Burning,      August 20, 2008..  3/28/11 [INSERT         .................
 Tribal Implementation Plan,      General                               FEDERAL REGISTER PAGE
 Part V, Area Source Emission     Requirements for                      NUMBER WHERE THE
 Limits, Sections 1-2.            Fugitive Dust-                        DOCUMENT BEGINS].
                                  Producing
                                  Activities.
Gila River Indian Community,     Visible            August 20, 2008..  3/28/11 [INSERT         .................
 Tribal Implementation Plan,      Emissions; VOC                        FEDERAL REGISTER PAGE
 Part VI, Generally Applicable    Usage, Storage,                       NUMBER WHERE THE
 Individual Source Requirements   and Handling;                         DOCUMENT BEGINS].
 for Existing and New Sources,    Degreasing and
 Sections 1-3.                    Solvent Metal
                                  Cleaning.
Gila River Indian Community,     Secondary          August 20, 2008..  3/28/11 [INSERT         .................
 Tribal Implementation Plan,      Aluminum                              FEDERAL REGISTER PAGE
 Part VII, Source/Category        Production,                           NUMBER WHERE THE
 Specific Emission Limits for     Aerospace                             DOCUMENT BEGINS].
 Existing and New Sources,        Manufacturing
 Sections 1-3.                    and Rework
                                  Operations,
                                  Nonmetallic
                                  Mineral Mining
                                  and Processing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (d) Nonregulatory.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name of nonregulatory TIP provision    Tribal submittal date      EPA approval date           Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gila River Indian Community, Tribal    June 22, 2009..........  3/28/11 [INSERT FEDERAL  .......................
 Implementation Plan, Introductory                               REGISTER PAGE NUMBER
 Materials.                                                      WHERE THE DOCUMENT
                                                                 BEGINS].
Technical Amendments to Part II of     June 22, 2009..........  3/28/11 [INSERT FEDERAL  Minor NSR program
 the 2006 Air Quality Management                                 REGISTER PAGE NUMBER     support documents.
 Program Plan, Title 17 Chapter 9 of                             WHERE THE DOCUMENT
 the Gila River Indian Community Law                             BEGINS].
 and Order Code.

Minor New Source Review Demonstration  June 22, 2009..........  3/28/11 [INSERT FEDERAL  Minor NSR program
                                                                 REGISTER PAGE NUMBER     support documents.
                                                                 WHERE THE DOCUMENT
                                                                 BEGINS].
Letter from Margaret Cook, Executive   July 17, 2010..........  3/28/11 [INSERT FEDERAL  Letter discussing
 Director, GRIC DEQ, to Deborah                                  REGISTER PAGE NUMBER     intent of citizen suit
 Jordan, Air Division Director, EPA                              WHERE THE DOCUMENT       provisions in Part
 Region 9, Re: Gila River Indian                                 BEGINS].                 III.
 Community Tribal Implementation Plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-7110 Filed 3-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 56)]
[Notices]
[Page 15241-15243]
[DOCID:fr21mr08-119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57507; File No. SR-ISE-2007-77]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, Relating to Complex Orders

March 14, 2008.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 24, 2007 the International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the ISE. On November
27, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\3\ The Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule
change on March 11, 2008.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 expanded the discussion in the purpose
section of the original filing, but did not change the text of the
proposed rule change.
    \4\ Amendment No. 2 modified the original filing to make
exposure of marketable complex orders voluntary. Amendment No. 2
replaced the original filing in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The ISE proposes to amend ISE Rule 722 pertaining to Complex Orders
to provide an opportunity for marketable complex orders to receive
price improvement and to provide more specificity on the mechanics of
how complex orders are executed. The text of the proposed rule change
is available at ISE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http:/
/www.iseoptions.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the ISE included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has

prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    ISE Rule 722 describes execution principles for complex orders,
including priority rules regarding the execution of complex orders when
there are Public Customer orders resting on the Exchange's limit order
book in the options series that comprise the individual leg(s) of a
complex order. The Exchange's System automatically executes complex
orders in conformance with the requirements of ISE Rule 722, and the
Exchange is not proposing any changes to these substantive
requirements. Additionally, other ISE rules, such as Rule 717(d) and
(e) that require members to expose orders to the marketplace before
executing them against proprietary or solicited orders, also apply to
the execution of complex orders. The Exchange is not proposing any
changes to the application of these other Exchange rules to the
execution of complex orders.
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend ISE Rule 722 to
provide an opportunity for marketable complex orders to receive price
improvement and to provide more specificity in the Rule on the
mechanics of how complex orders are executed by the System in
conformance with the existing requirements of Rule 722.\5\ In
particular, the Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 722 to specify that
complex orders: (1) Are executed against orders on the complex order
book in price priority and in time priority at the same price; and (2)
will be executed against the bids and offers for the individual legs in
the Exchange's options market provided the complex order can be
executed in full or in a permissible ratio by such bids and offers. The
System matches incoming complex orders against contra-side complex
orders when possible, and then executes the individual legs of a
complex order against the limit order book when possible. In each of
these circumstances, the System assures that the requirements of ISE
Rule 722 are satisfied. For example, the System will not execute two
complex orders against each other if the execution price of the options
leg(s) would be below the best price available on the ISE for the
options series, nor will it execute two complex orders at a price that
matches the best price available on the ISE when there is a Public
Customer order on the book unless the specific requirements of ISE Rule
722 are satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange also proposes to delete an outdated cross
reference from ISE Rule 722. Specifically, ISE Rule 722(b)(5)
specifies that the restrictions on order entry contained in two
paragraphs of ISE Rule 717 do not apply to Complex Orders. The
requirements contained in the two paragraphs have been removed from
ISE Rule 717, so the Exchange proposes to delete subparagraph (5)
from Rule 722(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, the Exchange also will allow members to choose
to give their marketable complex orders an opportunity for price
improvement by introducing a delay of up to one second before
automatically executing designated incoming complex orders.\6\ During
this delay, the complex order will be exposed on the complex order book
to give market participants an opportunity to enter contra-side complex
orders.\7\ While the Exchange is not proposing to conduct an actual
auction for an incoming marketable complex order (i.e., there will be
no messages sent to members specifically soliciting interest to trade
with the complex order), this short delay before executing a marketable
complex order will provide an opportunity for the order to receive
price improvement. The System will execute the incoming order against
interest on the complex order book in price time priority following the
delay, so while it is possible that the order will receive price
improvement as a result of contra-side orders being entered during the
delay, it is also possible that orders will no longer be executable at
the end of the delay. Members will be able to mark all complex orders
for price improvement, including stock-option orders.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange will determine the appropriate length of the
delay, not to exceed one second, from time to time. The initial
delay period and any subsequent changes to the delay period will be
communicated to Members via an Exchange circular.
    \7\ The complex order book is available to all ISE market
participants. However, the application of ISE Rules 717(d) and (e),
which require a three-second exposure period, will prohibit the
member that entered the complex order from entering contra-side
principal orders or orders solicited from other broker-dealers
during the proposed one-second (or less) exposure period.
    \8\ See Supplementary Material to ISE Rule 722 regarding
execution of the stock legs of stock-option orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In
particular, the proposal will provide an opportunity for marketable
complex orders to receive price improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any
unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml; or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-ISE-2007-77 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-2007-77. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-2007-77 and should be
submitted on or before April 11, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-5695 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 36 (Thursday, February 25, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11477-11478]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03661]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0751; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-051-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; AgustaWestland S.p.A. (Type Certificate
Formerly Held by Agusta S.p.A) (Agusta) Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is withdrawing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
that proposed to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-18-52,
which applies to certain Agusta Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. AD
2011-18-52 requires establishing a revised life limit for each tail
rotor blade (blade), updating the existing historical records for your
helicopter, repetitively inspecting each blade for a crack, and
replacing certain blades. The NPRM was prompted by the manufacturer
developing an improved blade using different materials and establishing
life limits for those newly-designed blades. The NPRM proposed to
require expanding the applicability to include the newly-designed
blades and establish their life limits, and proposed to retain the
requirement to inspect each blade for a crack and, if there is a crack,
replace each blade with an airworthy blade. Since issuance of the NPRM,
the FAA has determined that the NPRM does not adequately address the
identified unsafe condition. Accordingly, the NPRM is withdrawn.

DATES: The FAA is withdrawing the proposed rule published September 5,
2013 (78 FR 54596), as of February 25, 2021.

ADDRESSES:

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-
0751; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this AD action, the European Aviation Safety Agency (now European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Fuller, AD Program Manager,
Operational Safety Branch, Airworthiness Products Section, General
Aviation & Rotorcraft Unit, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX
76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD
2011-18-52, Amendment 39-17020 (77 FR 23109, April 18, 2012) (AD 2011-
18-52). AD 2011-18-52 applies to Agusta Model AB139 and AW139
helicopters with a blade part number (P/N) 3G6410A00131 or P/N
4G6410A00131 installed. AD 2011-18-52 requires establishing a revised
life limit for each blade, updating the existing historical records for
your helicopter, repetitively inspecting each blade for a crack, and
replacing certain blades. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
September 5, 2013 (78 FR 54596). The NPRM was prompted by the
manufacturer first developing two new blades with an improved design
and specified life limits and repetitive inspections for the blades.
Also, EASA issued AD No. 2012-0030, dated February 17, 2012, which
superseded EASA EAD No. 2011-0156-E, dated August 25, 2011, to add the
new blades to the required actions. The manufacturer then developed two
new blades with improved materials and specified new life limits and
inspections for the blades. EASA then issued EASA AD No. 2012-0076,
dated May 2, 2012, revised by EASA AD No. 2012-0076R1, dated July 13,
2012 (EASA AD No. 2012-0076R1), to require the repetitive inspections
and reduced life limits on the additional new blades.

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

    After issuance of the NPRM, EASA issued EASA AD No. 2012-0076R2,
dated February 20, 2014, which revises EASA AD No. 2012-0076R1, to
remove the repetitive 25 flight-hour inspections for blades P/N
3G6410A00132, P/N 4G6410A00132, P/N 3G6410A00133, and P/N 4G6410A00133
and extend the life limits for T/R blades P/N 3G6410A00133 and P/N
4G6410A00133. Additionally, EASA advised that the life limits for T/R
blades P/N 3G6410A00132 and P/N 4G6410A00132 have been incorporated in
the Chapter 4 airworthiness limitations section of the maintenance
manual. Further, since the FAA issued the NPRM, a significant amount of
time has elapsed, which would require the FAA to reopen the comment
period to allow the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed
actions. Accordingly, the FAA has determined the NPRM does not
adequately address the identified unsafe condition and has determined
to withdraw the published NPRM and proceed with a separate rulemaking
to address this unsafe condition.
    Withdrawal of the NPRM constitutes only such action and does not
preclude the FAA from further rulemaking on this issue, nor does it
commit the FAA to any course of action in the future.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to comment on the NPRM. The
FAA received comments from one commenter.
    One commenter requested the FAA adjust the life limit for certain
part-numbered blades to be more consistent with aviation standard
practices and gave the examples of ``3 years since initial
installation'' and ``5 years since manufacture.'' Since the FAA is
withdrawing the NPRM, the commenter's request to adjust the compliance
time is no longer necessary.

FAA's Conclusions

    Upon further consideration, the FAA has determined that the NPRM
does not adequately address the identified unsafe condition and the
unsafe condition will be addressed in a separate AD. Accordingly, the
NPRM is withdrawn.

Regulatory Findings

    Since this action only withdraws an NPRM, it is neither a proposed
nor a final rule. This action therefore is not covered under Executive
Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Withdrawal

0
 Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket No. FAA-2013-
0751, which was published in the Federal Register on September 5, 2013
(78 FR 54596), is withdrawn.

    Issued on January 21, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-03661 Filed 2-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Washington, D. C. 20460 MEMORANDUM July 27, 2004 Chemical: chlorsulfuron PC code: 118601 DP bar code: D292626 SUBJECT: Revised assessment of risk to non target plants associated with chlorsulfuron spray drift From: Norman Birchfield, Senior Biologist Peer Review: Kevin Costello, Risk Assessment Process Leader Thru: Elizabeth Behl, Chief Environmental Risk Branch 4 Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507C)

To: Christina Scheltema, Susan Jennings Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

Summary The following assessment is focused primarily on chlorsulfuron use on crops and is intended to accurately reflect the most important application conditions actually used in applying chlorsulfuron to assess spray drift risks to non target plants. Application parameters used by aerial applicators in Washington and Oregon were used to estimate a range of spray drift levels in this assessment. Reports of set ups for ground boom applications were not available and thus ground boom configurations were assumed to include the range of values available in the 2 AgDRIFT model.

Risks to non target plants resulting from spray drift from ground and aerial applications of chlorsulfuron are dependent upon a number of factors. This analysis suggests that most plant species are likely to be affected at low levels ( 10% reductions in shoot weight) more than 1000 feet downwind of applications conducted in winds speeds of 10 mph. Under certain conditions, 80% effect levels may occur to more sensitive species at 1000 feet or more downwind. Higher effect levels are triggered more frequently by aerial applications than with ground boom applications and more frequently with finer sprays.

Laboratory toxicity data used in this analysis were limited to effects occurring in a relatively short amount of time after a single exposure. A number of published reports suggest that chlorsulfuron, and other herbicides with the same mode of action, may result in delayed effects on crop yield and plant reproduction at levels lower than those noted to cause short term visible effects ( for a review see Ferenc 2001). If reproductive effects occur at similar or lower levels than laboratory phytotoxicity data used in this analysis, delayed effects may occur at distances substantially greater than 1000 feet from applications.

Background Mode of Action Chlorsulfuron's herbicidal effect results from its inhibition of an enzyme involved in amino acid biosynthesis. It may be absorbed either through the roots or the foliage and is mobile within the plant and binds to the acetolactate synthase enzyme. Soil moisture increases the phytotoxicity of chlorsulfuron by increasing availability and absorption by the roots. Although chlorsulfuron is herbicidal when absorbed by roots, herbicide which contacts foliage is also phytotoxic. Foliar absorption may increase when chlorsulfuron is tank mixed with an oil or surfactant. Chlorsulfuron may be applied either pre or post emergence. Phytotoxicity data show that chlorsulfuron affects plants in both seedling emergence and the vegetative vigor tests at low levels. Chlorsulfuron tolerant plants, such as grains, resist herbicidal effects by metabolizing the herbicide before it causes toxicity ( Weed Science Society 1989).

Plant Symptoms Chlorsulfuron exposure may cause visible symptoms in days or weeks or delayed effects on reproduction ( fruit and seed production) may occur weeks or months after exposure. 3 Plants that have absorbed sufficient chlorsulfuron on their foliage, in the short term, may show initial symptoms of spotting, and leaf puckering or twisting ( Felsot et al 1996). Exposed plants also may show chlorosis and discolored veins ( http:// www. psu. missouri. edu/ soydoc/ files/ weed/ aasynthesis. htm). 4 Figure 1. Signs of chlorsulfuron induced phytotoxicity. Reddish colored veins ( top) and chlorosis ( bottom) are apparent. 5 Chlorsulfuron symptoms may become more pronounced and lead to plant death or the plant may outgrow the symptoms in 1 to 2 months depending on the sensitivity of the plant and the magnitude of the exposure. Developmental/ reproductive effects of chlorsulfuron exposure may not be apparent for three or more months after exposure. Reduced seed and fruit development resulting from chlorsulfuron exposure has been documented in canola, smartweed, soybean, and sunflower ( Fletcher et al 1996). Because reproductive effects may occur in the absence of other more immediate symptoms of herbicide exposure, it is expected to be difficult to recognize delayed chlorsulfuron toxicity in the field.

Use Pattern Chlorsulfuron is used predominately on grain crops such as wheat. According to the USGS and USDA, this use accounts for more than 98% of agricultural chlorsulfuron usage ( http:// ca. water. usgs. gov/ pnsp/ use92/ chlrsulf. html). The maximum application rate for wheat on the Glean product label 0.023 lbs active ingredient/ acre. Product label rates for wheat are 0.0078 to 0.016 lbs ai / acre with application per crop ( Finesse product label). Up to 0.0625 lbs ai/ acre may be used on turf and higher application rates are allowed for industrial areas.

Chlorsulfuron is applied as a liquid spray and, for most uses, may be applied by ground or air. Directions for ground applications to wheat ( Glean label) suggest that spray volume should be at least 3 gallons/ acre for flat fan nozzles or 20 gallons/ acre for Raindrop or flood jet nozzles. The lower volume is presumably allowed for the flat fan nozzle because this commonly used nozzle can produce a fine enough spray to cover the field with the low volume of 3 gallons/ acre. With a volume of 3 gallons/ acre, a relatively coarse spray would result in too few drops per unit area to adequately distribute the herbicide and control weeds in that area. Raindrop and flood jet nozzles are two models of nozzle that can be used to produce coarser sprays. With coarser sprays, higher volumes are generally necessary to result in adequate coverage of treated fields and weeds for control. ( For information on the design of flat fan and flood jet nozzles and their relative drift levels see http:// www. hardi international. com/ Agronomy/ Education_ Material/ pdf/ 04a. pdf or http:// lancaster. unl. edu/ ag/ factsheets/ 289. htm).

DuPont conducted a small survey of aerial applicators as an indication of typical aerial application parameters ( see Appendix 1). The DuPont survey included 15 aircraft set ups for chlorsulfuron applications in Washington and Oregon. Reported in the survey is the application volume ( gallons per acre), boom length ( relative to wingspan), nozzle type, nozzle angle, aircraft speed, spray pressure, and variables that were assumed in order to calculate spray droplet size. The droplets size spectra estimated from the equipment variables ranged from ASAE medium to ASAE coarse. 6 Toxicity The standard toxicity level EFED uses for calculating risk quotients for non endangered terrestrial plants is the EC 25. For endangered plants, the EC 05 or the no observable adverse effect level ( NOAEL) is used. The EC x effect level represents an X% effect to a group of plants. The dose required to cause a 25% reduction in the average shoot height of a group of plants is an example of an EC 25 toxicity level. Reduction in the dry weight of the plant can also be used in calculating the EC x. Visual effects, such as spotting or chlorosis, are not generally assessed because of difficulty in quantifying the magnitude of the effect.

Toxicity tables for the successive plant life stages ( seedling emergence and vegetative vigor) from EFED's RED chapter ( Balluff et al 2003) are attached in Appendix 2. The most sensitive species tested were sugarbeet ( seedling emergence, EC 25 3.8 x 10 5 lbs ai/ acre) and onion ( vegetative vigor, EC 25 4.4x10 6 lbs/ ai acre). The most sensitive effects measured in these tests were reductions in shoot weight and plant height. The phytotoxicity data was limited in that the confidence in the estimated EC 05 and NOAEL was low.

Non target plants exposed to herbicides may be killed outright or weakened, reducing their fitness. Non lethal effects could cause plants to become more susceptible to plant pathogens, become less effective in competing with sympatric species, or reduce reproductive success. In instances where herbicide exposure effects fertilization or seed production, reproduction of plants in the wild would be expected to be reduced and population level changes could occur.

Selection and Representativeness of Plants used in Phytotoxicity Tests The plants used in phytotoxicity tests are chosen primarily for due to the availability of validated protocols and seed sources. Registrants routinely screen potential products using a wide variety of economically important plants to determine if phytotoxicity concerns exist. The Pesticide Assessment Guideline Subdivision J ( EPA 540/ 9 82 020) states that flexibility is allowed in choosing species in order to maximize use of "... tests that are normally performed by the developer/ registrant during screening and initial field testing...." The registrant must test corn and soybeans primarily because of their economic importance in US agricultural. A dicot root crop must also be tested along with an approximately even ratio of dicots and monocots.

The representativeness of plants used in phytotoxicity testing of non target naturally occurring plants is uncertain. The range of plants used in testing is limited to annuals despite the fact that woody plants and other perennials are commonly found in agricultural areas. Moreover, 7 homogenous crop test plant seed lots lack the variation that occurs in natural populations, so the test plants are likely to have less variation in response than would be expected from wild populations.

In some instances, specific test species may be indicative of an effect to another naturally occurring non target species. Native plants sharing species, genus or family affinity with the tested crop plant may show similar levels of sensitivity to a pesticide. For instance wild onions may show similar sensitivity to commercially grown onions to a particular herbicide. However, given the intensive breeding and selection that is used to develop commercial strains of a species, it is possible that natural and commercial plants of the same species may show very different responses.

Phytotoxicity Tests and Spray Drift Spray drift exposure to plants away from field edges is expected to result in relatively few concentrated droplets depositing on and around plants. In contrast, laboratory vegetative vigor and seedling emergence phytotoxicity tests, use relatively high volumes of spray to better cover the test plant or the soil surface. In instances where an herbicide's movement in plants or soil is limited, the test conditions of the phytotoxicity studies may result in higher measured toxicity than would result from spray drift away from the field's edge. In the instance of herbicides that are mobile within plants and soil, such as chlorsulfuron which is mobile in soil and can be transported throughout exposed plants, the volume of spray used for the exposure may not alter the magnitude of the toxic effect.

Exposure Current Label Directions This assessment focuses on the effects of spray drift on non target terrestrial plants. Exposure from chlorsulfuron runoff can also cause phytotoxicity to non target plants. Chlorsulfuron's mobility and persistence in soil suggests that runoff may be an important route of exposure to non target plants down slope of application areas. Plants in up slope areas are not affected by runoff but may be damaged by spray drift.

Chlorsulfuron product labels have very few restrictions on how and under what conditions the product may be applied. For instance there are no droplet size, wind speed, or boom height restrictions. The absence of bounds makes it more difficult to determine what conditions should be used for risk assessment. The absence of basic mandatory label language also allows 8 applicators to make unnecessarily high drift applications. Applicator common sense would prevent worst case applications but may not result in optimal applications. For instance it is unlikely that an applicator would make a ground boom application with a high boom and a fine spray because drifting spray would be visible and it would be apparent that the efficiency of the application was low. However, without proper guidance an applicator may use a low boom but a finer spray than necessary to achieve control. Under this scenario drifting spray would be less visible but still unnecessarily high. Specifying basic spray drift control measures provides applicators with the necessary information to perform an effective and low drift application and risk assessors with the necessary information to model drift.

AgDRIFT Background AgDRIFT is a computer model that can be used to estimate downwind deposition of spray drift from aerial, ground boom, and orchard and vineyard airblast applications. The model contains three tiers of increasing complexity. In Tier 1, the user can assess downwind deposition from a single application from all three application methods under default conditions. The current version of AgDRIFT only allows Tier 1 level analyses for ground and airblast application methods. In higher tiers more options are available for aerial applications. The aerial portion of the model is based on a mechanistic US Forest Service model ( AGDISP. Bilanin et al 1989). The ground boom and orchard airblast portions are empirical models based on data collected by the Spray Drift Task Force ( SDTF). The SDTF field data were used to validate the aerial portion of AgDRIFT ( Bird et al 1996a and 1996b). AgDRIFT was developed under a cooperative research and development agreement between EPA, USDA, and the SDTF.

Aerial AgDRIFT: The most important factors affecting drift from aerial applications are spray quality ( droplet size), release height, and wind speed. The aerial part of the model predicts mean values based on the inputs provided. The Tier 1 aerial results are generated using the specified droplet size spectra, 10 foot release height, and a 10 mph wind speed. When wind speed and/ or release height is lower than the modeled values the spray drift levels would be expected to be lower. Conversely, in instances where applications may be made in higher wind speeds or at a higher release height these inputs may not be adequately conservative and higher tier modeling may be necessary.

Ground boom sprayers in AgDRIFT: The most important factors affecting drift from ground boom applications are spray quality, release height, and wind speed. The ground boom part of AgDRIFT is based on field trial data from bare ground applications. The results of the model 1 Toxicity slopes are calculated from dose response relationship of chlorsulfuron on of the test plant species. Species with high ( steep) slopes show large increases in toxicity from small increases in exposure. Species with low ( shallow) slopes show small increases in toxicity from relatively large increases in exposure.

2 A log normal toxicity distribution is assumed. The following equation is used to calculate the various EC x levels: [ EC 25 / 10 0.67/ slope] x 10 a/ slope = EC x where a = 1.28, 0.84, 0.54, 0.25, 0,  0.25,  0.54,  0.84, and  1.28 for EC 10, EC 20, EC 30, EC 40, EC 50, EC 60, EC 70, EC 80, EC 90, respectively.

9 reflect the quality and conditions of the data on which it is based. The data from the field trials were grouped into categories by spray quality ( droplet size) and release height. Results from field trials conducted with different wind speeds were averaged. The average wind speed over all the trials was approximately 10 mph. AgDRIFT outputs for ground boom applications estimate the 50th and 90th percentile of data collected from field trials. For this analysis the 50th percentile data was used. The field trial data were not corrected for incomplete analytical recoveries, suggesting the true mean deposition values would be approximately 20% higher than the model's deposition results.

Phytotoxicity and Downwind Distance Using the AgDRIFT model ( version 2.01) and registrant submitted phytotoxicity data ( MRID 42587201, McKelvey and Kuratle 1992) it is possible to estimate distances downwind from application areas at which a particular toxic effect level would be experienced by a particular tested plant species. To make Figures 2 through 7 below, EC 25 values ( for vegetative vigor shoot weight) of the tested species were used with the toxicity slope1 from each species to calculate EC 10, EC 20, EC 30, to EC 90 effect levels2. These EC x values were entered into an Excel spreadsheet with Tier 1 AgDRIFT ( version 2.01) deposition distance results and the maximum chlorsulfuron application rate for pasture/ rangeland ( 0.0625 lbs ai/ acre). Excel then calculated estimated downwind deposition levels for chlorsulfuron use on pasture/ rangeland and compared the deposition values to the EC x values to identify the downwind distance at which the EC x values would be reached. Excel arranged the distances into three dimensional bar charts showing the downwind distance at which a particular toxicity level for each species is expected to occur under the Tier 1 AgDRIFT conditions with the specified application rate.

The barcharts shown in Figures 2 through 7 are specific to the maximum application rate for pasture/ rangeland ( 0.0625 lbs ai/ acre). Appendix 3 contains phytotoxicity barcharts for a middle of the range application rate from the Finesse product label for preemergent spraying to wheat ( 0.012 lbs ai/ acre). 10 11 10 30 50 70 90 wheat tomato sorghum corn pea sugarbeet soybean rape onion 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Percent Effect No Spray Zone ( ft) Aerial: Coarse Spray Figure 2. Predicted phytotoxicity levels and associated downwind distances from an aerial application conducted with a coarse spray in a 10 mph wind with a 10 foot release height at an application rate of 0.0625 lbs chlorsulfuron per acre. The plant species listed on the bottom right axis are test species for which the registrant submitted phytotoxicity data ( the toxicity slope for cucumber was unavailable so cucumber results are not shown). 12 10 30 50 70 90 wheat tomato sorghum corn pea sugarbeet soybean rape onion 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Percent Effect No Spray Zone ( ft) Aerial: Medium Spray Figure 3. Predicted phytotoxicity levels and associated downwind distances from an aerial application conducted with a medium spray in a 10 mph wind with a 10 foot release height at an application rate of 0.0625 lbs chlorsulfuron per acre. The toxicity slope for cucumber was unavailable. 13 10 30 50 70 90 wheat tomato sorghum corn pea sugarbeet soybean rape onion 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Percent Effect No Spray Zone ( ft) Ground: Low Boom, Medium Coarse Spray Figure 4. Predicted phytotoxicity levels and associated downwind distances from a ground boom application conducted with a medium/ coarse spray in an approximate 10 mph wind with a 2 foot release height at an application rate of 0.0625 lbs chlorsulfuron per acre. The toxicity slope for cucumber was unavailable. 14 10 30 50 70 90 w heat t omato so rg hum co rn p ea sug arb eet so yb ean rap e o nion 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Percent Effect No Spray Zone ( ft) Ground: HIgh Boom, M e d ium Coarse Spray Figure 5. Predicted phytotoxicity levels and associated downwind distances from a ground boom application conducted with a medium/ coarse spray in an approximate 10 mph wind with a 4 foot release height at an application rate of 0.0625 lbs chlorsulfuron per acre. The toxicity slope for cucumber was unavailable. 15 10 30 50 70 90 wheat tomato sorghum corn pea sugarbeet soybean rape onion 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Percent Effect No Spray Zone ( ft) Ground: Low Boom, Medium Spray Figure 6. Predicted phytotoxicity levels and associated downwind distances from a ground boom application conducted with a medium spray in an approximate 10 mph wind with a 2 foot release height at an application rate of 0.0625 lbs chlorsulfuron per acre. The toxicity slope for cucumber was unavailable. 16 10 30 50 70 90 wheat tomato sorghum corn pea sugarbeet soybean rape onion 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Percent Effect No Spray Zone ( ft) Ground: HIgh Boom, Medium Spray Figure 7. Predicted phytotoxicity levels and associated downwind distances from a ground boom application conducted with a medium spray in an approximate 10 mph wind with a 4 foot release height at an application rate of 0.0625 lbs chlorsulfuron per acre. The toxicity slope for cucumber was unavailable. 17 Discussion Based on the phytotoxicity study results for wheat and chlorsulfuron use sites such as pasture/ range land, certain grass species appear to be tolerant to acute chlorsulfuron effects. Some tolerant species apparently are susceptible to reproductive effects from single exposures based on product claims of inhibiting seed head formation described on some product labels. Because of lack of data, reproductive effects cannot be evaluated at this time. Available data suggest that it is unlikely that field edges and areas downwind comprised of grass would be greatly affect by acute effects of chlorsulfuron.

Figures 2 through 7 above show the phytotoxicity downwind of chlorsulfuron applications is expected to vary based on a number of parameter including application method ( ground boom versus aerial), the droplet size spectrum, and the release height.

Figures 2 through 7 show effects ( EC x effect levels) by distance, but do not show at what distance plants are likely to be killed outright. When plants are tested by pesticide companies for efficacy generally a 70% effect level is considered to be a threshold for lethal effects to a healthy weed ( Pallett 2003). Thus the EC 70 effect level can serve as estimate of when non target plants are expected to have a high likelihood of rapid death similar to the desired effect for weed species.

Aerial For aerial applications, medium and coarse sprays are apparently the most commonly used sprays by aerial applicators in Washington and Oregon  see Appendix 1. Medium spray is expected to produce higher drift levels than coarse sprays resulting in greater phytotoxicity at greater downwind distances. Using the EC 70 as an estimate for an exposure that would lead to rapid death, Figure 3 shows that 3 of the 9 tested species downwind of an application with a medium spray would be expected to be killed soon after application in an area stretching from the edge of the treated field to a distance exceeding 1000 feet downwind from the treatment area. Using a coarse spray, Figure 2 shows that 2 of the 9 tested species would be expected to be killed from the edge of the field to a distance exceeding 1000 feet downwind from the treatment area. Aerial applications with a medium spray are expected to affect at least 8 of the 9 species tested at the EC 20 level or above for shoot weight greater than 1000 feet downwind of applications. In other words, a 20% or more reduction in shoot weight would be expected for at least 8 of 9 tested species for over 1000 feet downwind of applications under the assumed conditions. With a coarse spray, under the same conditions, at least 8 of the 9 tested species are expected to be affected at the EC 10 level 1000 feet or more downwind ( i. e. a 10% reduction in shoot weight in an areas stretching for more than 1000 feet downwind). 18 Ground boom In all instances the ground boom applications modeled resulted in lower drift deposition levels and downwind phytotoxicity than modeled aerial applications. Ground boom deposition values were affected by both droplet size and release height. Spray drift and predicted off target effects can be reduced by lowering the release height and/ or increasing spray droplet size.

Under the lowest ground boom drift conditions allowed by AgDRIFT 2.01 ( 2 foot boom height and medium/ coarse spray), 5 of 9 tested species would be expected to be rapidly killed from 10 to 85 feet downwind the treated area ( Fig. 4). Under the same conditions, 5 of the 9 tested species would be affected at the EC 10 level in the area stretching for the edge of the field to beyond 1000 feet downwind.

Under the highest ground boom drift conditions ( 4 foot boom and medium spray), plant species would be expected to be killed in the area that stretches from 0 to 10 feet ( for 8 of 9 tested plants) and 0 to 500 feet ( for the most sensitive tested plant) downwind of the treated field ( Fig. 7). Under the same conditions, 6 7 of the 10 tested species are expected to be affected at the EC 10 level at distances from 0 to beyond 1000 feet downwind. Tested species are expected to be affected at the 90% effect level at 10 feet ( 5 of 9 species) to 150 feet ( 1 of 9 species) downwind.

Labeling The results of this analysis suggest that mandatory product labeling placing restrictions on droplet size for aerial applications and droplet size and boom height for ground boom application may reduce risks associated with chlorsulfuron applications.

An example of potential mandatory product labeling that would be expected to result in average non target plant risks equal to or less than those presented in Figures 2 though 7 above is:

For ground boom applications, apply with nozzle height no more than 2 feet above the ground or crop canopy and when wind speed is 10 mph or less at the application site as measured by an anemometer. Use " very coarse" or coarser spray according to ASAE 572 definition for standard nozzles.

For aerial applications, the boom width must not exceed 75% of the wingspan or 90% of the rotary blade. Use upwind swath displacement and apply only when wind speed is between 3 and 10 mph. Use " coarse" or coarser spray according to ASAE 572 definition for standard nozzles. 19 Typical values for both wind speed and release height are likely to vary geographically. Aerial applicators balance low release heights with flight safety. Aerial applicators will generally use higher release heights in hilly areas or fields with tall windbreaks at their boundaries. For ground boom applications, high release heights are used to avoid having the ends of the spray boom hitting the ground in uneven fields or when relatively high sprayer speed is desired. Gorund boom relaease height can vary from less than 2 feet to more than 6 feet above the ground or crop camopy. Average wind speed for chlorsulfuron use areas vary with location with higher wind speed occurring in plains states. Table 1 shows wind speeds ranges for some representative areas.

Table 1. Wind speeds during the windiest month of the year for cities in high agricultural chlorsulfuron use areas.

City, State Approximate location in state Month Wind speed ( mph)

75th Percentile 50th Percentile 25th Percentile Yakima, WA south central April 10 6 4.5 Pendleton, OR northwestern April 10.5 6 4.5 North Platte, NE central southwestern April 14 11 7 More wind speed data for the locations in Table 1 are shown in Appendix 4.

Ecological Implications Chlorsulfuron is a selective herbicide. Some species, such as certain grasses, are relatively tolerant to chlorsulfuron while other species are sensitive to acute effects and reproductive effects. If certain plants in a plant community consisting of many species are consistently selected against through inhibiting growth, reducing reproductive success, or being killed, the sensitive plant species are likely to be removed from the community. Plants under selective pressure are not able to compete as successfully with other plants for resources such as light and water. Thus with pressure on a particular group of species other species would be likely displace the sensitive species and become more common. Changes in the species composition in the boundaries of herbicide treated fields have been noted in the literature ( Kleijn and Snoeijing 1997, Jobin et al 1997). Given the selectivity of chlorsulfuron and the drift potential associated with spray application methods, it is expected that chlorsulfuron is applying selective pressure against certain species downwind of application areas. The magnitude of the selective pressure is expected to 20 depend on the level of drift as well as the sensitivity of exposed species.

Uncertainty and Potential Refinement of Risk Estimates A number of uncertainties exist in this assessment of potential effects of chlorsulfuron spray drift to plants. With additional information addressing uncertainties it may be possible to further refine this assessment. Some uncertainties underlying this assessment exist in:

1) The representativeness of tested species for non target plant species in chlorsulfuron use areas. In chlorsulfuron use areas woody and other perennial species are exposed to spray drift but their sensitivity to chlorsulfuron is uncertain. Toxicity data on a wider range of plants could be used to reduce uncertainty as to the potential effects of chlorsulfuron on perennial and woody species at field edges and farther downwind. 2) The duration of exposure. Laboratory data is based on single exposures to plants with observation continuing for two weeks after dosing. Non target plants in chlorsulfuron use areas may be exposed to multiple pulses of chlorsulfuron. Data on the effect of repeat exposures at environmentally relevant levels could be used to determine the potential impacts to plants that are exposed to drift from multiple applications. 3) The toxic endpoint measured. Some chlorsulfuron product labels and research on nontarget plants show chlorsulfuron negatively affects plant reproduction. Data defining what exposure levels at various developmental stages result in impaired plant reproduction could be used for assessing potential impacts of spray drift on plant reproduction. 4) The adequacy of laboratory spraying treatments in representing spray drift far from field boundaries. Plants in laboratory studies are exposed to herbicide in volumes of carrier that are adequate to cover the test plants. Plants exposed to spray drift away from field boundaries would contact the same amounts of herbicides tested in the laboratory but in much lower volumes of carrier. Plants are exposed to spray drift away far away from the field edge in discrete spots where droplets impact the plant foliage opposed to the diffuse coating used in lab studies. The effect of small concentrated exposures relative to diffuse exposure is uncertain. Data on the effect of exposure volume on phytotoxicity could be used to refine effect level estimates.

Data addressing the uncertainties above could be used to improve estimates of effects to nontarget plants in chlorsulfuron use areas. 21 References Balluff, D, and D. Young. 2003. EFED Risk Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision on Chlorsulfuron. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency.

Felsot, AS, MA Bhatti, GI Mink, and G Reisenauer. 1996. Biomonitoring with Sentinel Plants to Assess Exposure of Nontarget Crops to Atmospheric Deposition of Herbicides. Environmental Toxicology and Chemisty.. 15( 4): 452 459.

Ferenc, SA. ( Editor). Impacts of Low Dose High Potency Herbicides on Nontarget and Unintended Plant Species. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 2001.

Fletcher, JS, TG Pfleeger, HC Ratsch, and R Hayes. 1996. Potential impact of low levels of chlorsulfuron and other herbicides on growth and yield of nontarget plants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 15( 7): 1189 11 96.

Jobin, B., C Boutin, and JL DesGranges. 1997. Effects of agricultural practices on the flora of hedgerows and woodland edges in southern Quebec. Can J Plant Sci 77: 293 299.

Kleijn, D., and GI Snoeijing. 1997. Field boundary vegetation and the effects of agrochemical drift: botanical change caused by low levels of herbicide and fertilizer. Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 1413 1425.

Pallett, K. Efficacy testing processes in Industry: releveance for NTTP assessment. Efficacy Data Workshop. August 20, 2003. Office of Pesticide Programs, Crystal City, Arlington, VA.

Weed Science Society of America. 1989. Herbicide Handbook. Published by the Weed Science Society of America. Champaign, IL. 22 Appendix 1 Attachment from 5/ 12/ 2003 email from Jake Vukich ( DuPont) to Tyler Lane ( Chemical Review Manager, Special Review and Reregistration Division, OPP, EPA):

Non Confidential Version of Attachment A to DuPont Letter to USEPA Dated May 2, 2003 In previous correspondence with EPA regarding the droplet size spectrum expected for typical aerial applications of chlorsulfuron products, we proposed a small, informal survey of aerial applicators to determine typical aircraft setups. To that end, we have obtained descriptions of the spray setups used on fifteen aircraft from fourteen applicators in Washington and Oregon.

To minimize drift, the Glean FC and Finesse labels specify the use of solid stream nozzles oriented straight back when the product is applied by air in the vicinity of sensitive crops. As shown in the attached table, most of the aircraft were fitted with solid stream nozzles with a nozzle angle of 0, as recommended on the label.

The drop size distribution was determined by the USDA   ARS model implemented in AgDRIFT

version 2.04. The model provides a drop size spectrum for a spray solution of water containing 0.25% Triton X 100. In general, we expect the drop size distribution from the model to be shifted toward the fine size distribution as compared to the size distribution for typical agricultural products. The inputs to the model  nozzle type, orientation angle, air speed, and pressure  were supplied by the applicators or representative values were selected as indicated in the attached table.

The drop size distributions were evenly split between ASAE medium, medium to coarse, and coarse. The intent of the label recommendations is to produce a drop size spectrum that will minimize drift, and we anticipated that most of the solid stream nozzles and spray settings would produce a coarse size distribution. We attribute the difference between our expectations and the model results primarily to the higher than expected air speed used for applications. We expected that air speeds would be in the range of 100 110 mph, as it was for aircraft 14 and 15 in the attached table. In contrast, 10 of the 15 applicators fly at a speed of 120 mph or higher. The droplet size distribution shifts toward the fine distribution at higher speeds. For example, aircraft 4 flown at 135 mph produces a medium to coarse size distribution, while at 100 mph would produce a very coarse to extremely coarse size distribution, according to the USDA model. 23 Since the USDA model simulates drop size distributions for a spray solution with low surface tension, those distributions are likely to show a greater volume of fine droplets than would be expected for typical products. Our experience in the Pacific Northwest suggests that the label recommendations have been successful in reducing drift, as compared to the potential indicated by the drop size distributions predicted by the USDA model. 24 Aircraft Setups for Application of Chlorsulfuron Products in Washington and Oregon Aircraft Setup GPA Boomlength Nozzle type Angle Speed Aircraft Pressure Assumed Variables Droplet spectrum ( ASAE)

1 7 65% CP 30 deg plate 0 90 110 188 Cessna 15 psi all orifices, 20 40psi, 90

110 mph Medium 2 5 75% CP 30 deg plate 0 110 120 Airtractor AT 400 & 502 all orifices, 20 40psi, 110

120 mph Medium 3 5 75% D 8 0 115 Thrush S2R 6 DC46 core, 40 psi Coarse 4 3 68% Lund multi tip 8 0 135 Turbine Thrush 40 psi Medium to coarse 5 3 70% CP 0 deg 0 125 130 Super Doer Thrush all orifices, 40 psi Medium to coarse 6 3 68% Lund multi tip  8 0 130 502 & 802 Air Tractor 40 psi Medium to coarse 7 5 68% D 8 0,10 100 110 Agcat G164 Super B 40 psi Coarse 8 3 68% CP Straight Stream 0 135 Super Doer 1200 Wright 1820 40 psi Medium to coarse 9 3 68% Spray Systems D

7 no core 0 120 125 Cessna Husky 20 psi Medium 10 3 to 5 68% D8, 10, or 12 35 120 Airtractor AT502

turbine DC46 core, 40 psi Medium 25 11 5 67% CP .171 15deg plate 15 120 Agcat 25 psi used 5 ° plate, 15 not in model Medium 12 5 67% D10/ 46 0 120 Airtractor AT502

turbine 30 psi Medium to coarse 13 5 67% D10 0 120 Airtractor AT502

turbine DC46 core, 40 psi Coarse 14 3 68% CP solid stream,

no plate 0 115 Air tractor 40 psi Coarse 15 7.5 60% CP solid stream,

no plate 0 105 115 Turbo Agcat 22 psi Coarse 26 Appendix 2 Non target Terrestrial Plant Seedling Emergence Toxicity ( Tier II) for 98.2% Chlorsulfuron with buffer and Valent X 77 surfactant in some solutions.

Species % ai Endpoints NOAEL / EC25 ( lbs ai/ A) MRID No.

Author/ Year Study Classification Cucumber 98.2 Plant height Emergence 0.000035 / 0.00025 > 0.00439 / ND 42587201 McKelvey, R. A.,

and Kuratle, H.

1992 Supplemental Pea Plant height Emergence 0.000035 / 0.000113 0.000176 / 0.000281 Rape Plant height Emergence 0.000035 / 0.000113 > 0.00439 / ND Soybean Plant height Emergence 0.000875 / 0.0015 > 0.00439 / ND Sugarbeet * Plant height Emergence 0.0000068 / 0.000038 0.000176 / 0.000281 Tomato Plant height Emergence 0.0000351 / 0.000169 > 0.02194 / ND Corn Plant height Emergence < 0.00035 / 0.0003 0.00439 / 0.05 Onion Plant height Emergence 0.000035 / 0.000163 0.000035 / 0.000413 Sorgum Plant height Emergence 0.000163 / 0.00138 > 0.0219 / ND * Used in RQ calculations 27 Non target Terrestrial Plant Vegetative Vigor Toxicity ( Tier II) for 98.2% Chlorsulfuron with buffer and Valent X 77 surfactant in some solutions.

Species % ai Endpoints NOAEL / EC25 ( lbs ai/ A) MRID No.

Author/ Year Study Classification Cucumber 98.2 Plant height Shoot weight 0.000225 / 0.001875 0.001125 / 0.006125 42587201 McKelvey, R. A.,

and Kuratle, H.

1992 Supplemental Pea Plant height Shoot weight 00.00045 / 0.00025 0.000045 / 0.000181 Rape Plant height Shoot weight 0.000045 / 0.0001 0.0000087 / 0.0002 Soybean Plant height Shoot weight 0.000045 / 0.0000443 0.0000087 / 0.0000193 Sugarbeet Plant height Shoot weight 0.0000087 / 0.0002062 0.0000087 / 0.0000268 Tomato Plant height Shoot weight 0.000045 / 0.002 0.000045 / 0.0005562 Corn Plant height Shoot weight 0.000225 / 0.000625 0.000225 / 0.0001937 Onion Plant height Shoot weight * 0.0000087 / 0.0000368 0.0000087 / 0.0000044 Sorgum Plant height Shoot weight 0.000225 / 0.002625 < 0.000720 / 0.0001562 Wheat Plant height Shoot weight 0.001125 / 0.05563 0.02813 / 0.005813 Non target Terrestrial Plant Vegetative Vigor Toxicity ( Tier II) for 98.2% Chlorsulfuron with buffer and Valent X 77 surfactant in some solutions.

Species % ai Endpoints NOAEL / EC25 ( lbs ai/ A) MRID No.

Author/ Year Study Classification 28 * The most sensitive parameter in the vegetative vigor toxicity study was the sugarbeet root weight ( EC05 =

0.000000019375 lbs ai/ acre ). However, the EC05 for onion shoot weight ( 0.000000045625 lbs ai/ acre) was used in the risk assessment for endangered species because this endpoint provided stronger results. 29 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 wheat tomato sorghum corn pea sugarbeet soybean rape onion 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Percent Effect No Spray Zone ( ft) Aerial: Coarse Spray Appendix 3.

Phytotoxicity resulting from spray drift during a medium application rate Finesse product applications to preemergent wheat. The application ranges from 0.0078 to 0.016 lbs ai/ acre. The mean of the high and low values was used for these graphs.

Figure 8. Predicted phytotoxicity levels and associated downwind distances from an aerial application conducted with a coarse spray in a 10 mph wind with a 10 foot release height at an application rate of 0.012 lbs chlorsulfuron per acre. The plant species listed on the bottom right axis are test species for which the registrant submitted phytotoxicity data ( the toxicity slope for cucumber was unavailable so cucumber results are not shown). 30 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 wheat tomato sorghum corn pea sugarbeet soybean rape onion 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Percent Effect No Spray Zone ( ft) Aerial: Medium Spray Figure 9. Predicted phytotoxicity levels and associated downwind distances from an aerial application conducted with a medium spray in a 10 mph wind with a 10 foot release height at an application rate of 0.012 lbs chlorsulfuron per acre. The toxicity slope for cucumber was unavailable. 31 10 30 50 70 90 wheat tomato sorghum corn pea sugarbeet soybean rape onion 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Percent Effect No Spray Zone ( ft) Ground: Low Boom, Medium Coarse Spray Figure 10. Predicted phytotoxicity levels and associated downwind distances from a ground boom application conducted with a medium/ coarse spray in an approximate 10 mph wind with a 2 foot release height at an application rate of 0.012 lbs chlorsulfuron per acre. The toxicity slope for cucumber was unavailable. 32 10 30 50 70 90 w heat tomato sorghum corn pea sugarbeet soybean rape onion 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Percent Effect No Spray Zone ( ft) Ground: HIgh Boom, Medium Coarse Spray Figure 11. Predicted phytotoxicity levels and associated downwind distances from a ground boom application conducted with a medium/ coarse spray in an approximate 10 mph wind with a 4 foot release height at an application rate of 0.012 lbs chlorsulfuron per acre. The toxicity slope for cucumber was unavailable. 33 10 30 50 70 90 wheat tomato sorghum corn pea sugarbeet soybean rape onion 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Percent Effect No Spray Zone ( ft) Ground: Low Boom, Medium Spray Figure 12. Predicted phytotoxicity levels and associated downwind distances from a ground boom application conducted with a medium spray in an approximate 10 mph wind with a 2 foot release height at an application rate of 0.012 lbs chlorsulfuron per acre. The toxicity slope for cucumber was unavailable. 34 10 30 50 70 90 wheat tomato sorghum corn pea sugarbeet soybean rape onion 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Percent Effect No Spray Zone ( ft) Ground: HIgh Boom, Medium Spray Figure 13. Predicted phytotoxicity levels and associated downwind distances from a ground boom application conducted with a medium spray in an approximate 10 mph wind with a 4 foot release height at an application rate of 0.012 lbs chlorsulfuron per acre. The toxicity slope for cucumber was unavailable. 35 Appendix 4.

Estimated agricultural usage of chlorsulfuron from the US Geological Survey ( http:// ca. water. usgs. gov/ pnsp/ use92/ chlrsulf. html):

Wind speed data for three representative cities in areas where chlorsulfuron is used agriculturally. Graphs show 75th, 50th, and 25th percentile wind speeds for each month. Wind speed data is from SAMSON weather monitoring stations.

Yakima, south central Washington: 36 Pendleton, northwestern Oregon:

North Platte, central southwestern Nebraska:


[Federal Register: January 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 10)]
[Notices]
[Page 2481-2482]
[DOCID:fr15ja08-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2535-110]

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company; Notice of Application for
Amendment of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Protests

December 18, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Request for increase in water withdrawal
for municipal use.
    b. Project No.: 2535-110.
    c. Date Filed: October 26, 2007.
    d. Applicant: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
    e. Name of Project: Stevens Creek.
    f. Location: At the confluence of the Savannah River and Stevens
Creek, in Edgefield and McCormick Counties, South Carolina and Columbia
County, Georgia.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Raymond Ammarell, South Carolina Electric &
Gas Company, 111 Research Drive, Columbia, SC 29203<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: John K. Novak<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-6076.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene and protests:
January 22, 2008.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission

to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on
the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor
files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits
of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular
resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that
resource agency. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served
upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    k. Description of Request: The South Carolina Electric & Gas
Company is requesting authorization to allow an increase in water
withdrawn from the Stevens Creek Project reservoir from the current
withdrawal of 10 million gallons per day (mgd) to a maximum of 47.1 mgd
for municipal use by the Columbia County Water and Sewerage System of
Columbia County, Georgia. The existing facilities will not need
modification to accommodate the increased water withdrawal.
    l. Location of the Application: The filing 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>, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may
also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://ferc.gov using

the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docsfiling/esubscription.asp to

be notified vial e-mail or new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(I)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-500 Filed 1-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 28)]
[Notices]
[Page 6559-6560]
[DOCID:fr12fe07-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2413-081-GA]

Georgia Power Company; Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment

February 5, 2007.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed an application for non-project use of
project lands and waters at the Wallace Dam Project (FERC No. 2413),
and has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the proposal. The
proposed non-project use would be located on Lake Oconee in Putnam
County, Georgia.
    In the application, Georgia Power (licensee) requests Commission
authorization to issue a commercial lease to Place Properties (Place)
1.92 acres of project land and water for continued use as a public and
commercial/residential marina. Place would reconfigure and expand the
existing marina (formerly, Branley's Marina) on the shoreline of Lake
Oconee near the confluence of Lick Creek and the Oconee River, near
Eatonton, Georgia. The marina's docks would serve the public and
residents of a community adjoining the project boundary, known as
``Southbay at Lake Oconee''.
    The EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental
impacts of the proposal and concludes that approval of the proposal
would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is attached to a Commission Order entitled ``Order
Modifying and Approving Non-Project Use Of Project Lands And Waters''
issued on February 2, 2007 (115 FERC ] 62,014) which is available for
review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, or it may be
viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

eLibrary link. Enter the docket number (prefaced by

P-2413) and excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field
to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-2271 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P