ii. Surface Water Conclusions Based on a combined monitoring and modeling approach, it is concluded that the range of acute values at the national level is expected to be between 0.1 ppb and 25.2 ppb. The highest value in this national level range can be reduced, at the regional level, to 13.9 ppb. Both the chronic/ non cancer and the chronic cancer values were set conservatively at the 0.1 ppb; the detection limit of ETU.

The maximum value at both the national and regional levels are based on the currently approved version of PRZM which is only capable of simulating pesticide metabolites through such simplified assumption giving a relatively high uncertainty. The assigned acute 25.2 and 13.9 ppb values could be as low as 2 and 1 ppb, respectively. These low values are based on the assumption that PRZM/ EXAMS acute estimates can be corrected proportionally based on a correction factor so that the maximum chronic value for monitored sites is equal to 0.1 ppb. 90 0 700 148 511 Days ( 0 = July 10/ 2001) 0.1 0.18 0.12 0.16 0.2 ETU in Raw Ground Water ( ppb) FL 0166 ( 3 detections of 8) FL 0176 ( 1 detection of 8) Estimating Drinking Water Exposure from Ground Water Sources i. Monitoring Approach 1. Community Ground Water Systems A monitoring program was conducted by the EBDC Task Force from 2001 2003. In this program, raw and associated treated ground water were sampled quarterly for a period of two years ( 8 sampling events). A total of 84 sites were chosen to represent high historic EBDC use sites in the states of Maine ( 7 sites/ potato crop), New York ( 2 sites/ apples), Michigan ( total= 6 sites: 1 sites/ apples, 4 sites mixed grapes & apples, and 1 sites/ mixed potato & apples), Minnesota ( 3 sites/ potatoes), Washington ( 6 sites/ apples), California ( total= 25 sites: 19 sites/ almonds, 4 sites/ walnuts, 1 site/ almonds & walnuts, 1 site/ almonds & grapes), and Florida ( total= 35 sites: 13 sites/ tomatoes & watermelon, 10 sites/ nursery plants & peppers, 6 sites/ tomatoes & peppers, 3 sites/ tomatoes, 2 sites/ potatoes & tomatoes, and 1 site/ potatoes). The results from this targeted monitoring program were used to assign the Groundwater Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations ( EDWC's) for the EBDC fungicides.

ETU was detected above the detection limit intermittently in only the raw water from two ground water sites ( Figure 2). No detection was observed for treated water in any of the 84 community water sites; including those two where ETU was detected in the raw water.

Figure 2. Detected concentrations of ETU in two out of 84 community ground water sites.

Data indicate that ETU was detected only a few times with the highest detected concentration of 0.21 ppb which was measured for the raw water at FL0176 in Lee County, Florida. No detection was observed over the detection limit of 0.1 ppb for this or any other potable water sample. 91 0 700 148 511 Days ( Monitoring started May 15 for NY, June 5 for ME and June 18 for IL; 0 = July 10/ 2001) 0.05 0.25 0.12 ETU Concentration in Raw Ground Water ( ppb)

FL 0021 ( 23 detections of 24) FL 0022 ( 24 detections of 24) FL 0023 ( 12 detections of 24) FL0010 ( 4 detections of 24) NY 0011 ( 9 detections of 24) IL 0004 ( 2 detections of 24) ME 0007 ( 1 detection of 24) FL 0009 ( 1 detection of 24) 2. Rural Ground Water Wells ( Private Wells) A monitoring program was conducted by the EBDC Task Force from 2001 2003. In this program, raw ground water was sampled monthly for a period of two years ( 24 sampling events). A total of 125 sites were chosen to represent high historic EBDC use sites in the states of Maine ( 9 sites/ potato crop), New York ( 9 sites/ apples), Michigan ( 10 sites/ apples), Minnesota ( 9 sites/ potatoes), Washington ( 7 sites/ apples), California ( total= 38 sites: 21 sites/ almonds, 16 sites/ walnuts, 1 site/ apples), Illinois and Iowa ( total 5 sites: 2 sites/ corn & soybeans, 1 site/ soybeans and 1 site/ corn) and Florida ( total= 35 sites: 16 sites/ potatoes, 4 sites/ tomatoes, 4 sites/ squash, 3 sites peppers, and 8 sites mixed).

ETU was detected in the range of 0.10 to 0.25 ppb continuously at 2 sites in Florida and intermittently at six sites: three in Florida and one each in New York, Illinois and Maine ( Figure 3). The highest detected ETU concentration of 0.57 ppb was measured for a private well near an EBDC treated field was 0.57 ppb in an apple growing region of New York. No detection of ETU was observed in all the other 117 sites.

Figure 3. Detected concentrations of ETU in eight out of 125 rural ground water sites.

Data indicates that ETU concentrations in the range of 0.1 to 0.25 can occur in shallow ground water sources located within and/ or adjacent to field treated with EBDCs; especially when highly permeable materials overlay the water such as the case in Florida. However, in the one well in Illinois, no reason was given to the observed 3 detections within the eight sampling events because EBDCs are not applied at fields at the well location ( corn and soybeans). The report did not give any reason to such detections although the source may be related to recharge areas where EBDCs are applied.

It is important to note that the use of home filters containing stages for water softening and particulate removal was reported to be ineffective at removing ETU. This was reported by the 92 registrant based on collecting additional filtered samples from only two sites in Florida ( FL 0021 and FL 0022).

ii. Modeling Check for Groundwater ETU/ EDWCs The assigned value of 0.21 ppb for ETU/ EDWC from ground water, was evaluated for reasonableness by checking it against the high exposure tier one model SCIGROW, which is described in Attachment 2. Maximum application amounts used were: for almonds ( 4 applications of 6.4 lb a. i/ acre EBDC= 4 applications of 0.6144 lb/ acre ETU; conversion rate of 0.096) and for papayas ( 12 applications of 2.0 lb a. i/ acre EBDC= 12 applications of 0.192 lb/ acre ETU; conversion rate of 0.096). Results indicate that the maximum modeling value of 0.006 ppb is orders of magnitude less than the assigned value of 0.21 ppb which was based on monitoring ( Table 6).

Table 6. SCIGROW inputs/ outputs based on maximum application rates ( almonds and papayas); the average aerobic soil half lives and lowest Koc value for ETU.

Papaya SCIGROW VERSION 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND EFFECTS DIVISION OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SCREENING MODEL FOR AQUATIC PESTICIDE EXPOSURE SciGrow version 2.3 chemical: ETU time is 8/ 25/ 2004 13: 22: 4  Application Number of Total Use Koc Soil Aerobic rate ( lb/ acre) applications ( lb/ acre/ yr) ( ml/ g) metabolism ( days)  0.192 14.0 2.688 3.40E+ 01 2.1  groundwater screening cond ( ppb) = 5.49E 03 Almonds SciGrow version 2.3 chemical: ETU time is 8/ 25/ 2004 13: 23: 34  Application Number of Total Use Koc Soil Aerobic rate ( lb/ acre) applications ( lb/ acre/ yr) ( ml/ g) metabolism ( days)  0.614 4.0 2.458 3.40E+ 01 2.1  groundwater screening cond ( ppb) = 5.02E 03 23 Beitz H et al 1994. In: Chem Plant Prot. Borner H, ed. Germany: Springer Verlag. ( Pest Surf Ground Water): 2 56.

93 iii. Ground Water Conclusions In the targeted monitoring study carried out by the EBDC Task Force from 2001 through 2003 the highest measured value in a public drinking water well was 0.210 ppb in Lee County, Florida and is used as the maximum value for this assessment. ETU was not detected over the detection limit of 0.1 in any potable water from all ground water samples suggesting possible effects of water treatment.

In rural areas, the highest value measured by the EBDC Task Force was 0.574 ppb and was for ground water from a private well near an EBDC treated field in an apple growing region of New York. ETU concentrations in the range of 0.1 to 0.25 were also measured in 8 out of 125 rural wells. Simple home filtration method was found to be ineffective at removing ETU.

Therefore, exposure to higher ETU concentrations ( over the assigned 0.21 ppb) may occur in localities using ground water wells located in proximity or at areas with heavy use of the EBDC fungicides. In this respect, higher groundwater concentration values have been measured but are very rare and are unlikely to represent ground water ETU concentrations expected in drinking water relevant for use in a national assessment. A value of 16 ppb was recorded beneath an Iowa apple orchard which had been treated with an EBDC fungicide. This value far exceeds any values monitored by the task force on the most vulnerable sites nationally and is therefore not believed to represent a true level of risk by the Agency. In 25 years of monitoring in California, there has been only one ETU detection ( 0.75 ppb). Additionally, ground water monitoring in Holland, resulted in only 8 positive samples with a maximum concentration of 1.5 µ g/ l ( ppb) 23. 94 Attachment 1: GIS mapping The objective of the targeted monitoring study was to assess the extent to which historic and concurrent EBDCs use resulted in ETU contamination of drinking water from surface/ ground water sources. EFED used GIS maps to confirm relevance of selected surface/ ground water sites to EBDCs use patterns ( crops and high historical use areas) and vulnerability.

For surface water, the five areas selected for surface water monitoring were associated with maximum historical use level of EBDCs in the Northern States and at least two of these areas ( areas 4 to 5) are associated with clusters of surface water intakes ( Map 1). All of these areas were cropped with a range of crops representing major crops associated with EBDCs use ( Map 2). Examination of the run off potential for the sites chosen for surface water monitoring reveals that most of these sites were located in run off vulnerable areas ( Map 3). Other potential areas for surface water monitoring are indicated in the map ( Map 3, white circles designated by the letters A to L). However, it should be pointed out that the highly vulnerable areas in the states of MS, AR and TN ( Map3, designated by the letter J) may not be of concern giving the fact that cotton use will be dropped. Deficiencies in the study include:

( 1) Sampling of community surface water sites in large lakes ( MI sites from Lake Michigan and NY sites from Lake Ontario); dilution effect.

( 2) No surface water sites were monitored in other highly vulnerable and high EBDCs use areas in California and Florida. Predicted PRZM/ EXAMS ETU/ EDWCs for these un monitored areas were compared to results obtained for monitored areas. Although values for few scenarios ( representing un monitored crops/ areas) were slightly higher than those associated with monitored areas, nondetection of ETU in any of the monitored areas suggests similar results may have been obtained for these un monitored sites.

For ground water, 209 sites ( community and rural ground water wells) were selected for the targeted monitoring study. As shown in Map 1, most of these sites were associated with a relatively high number of ground water intakes and were located in high historic EBDCs use areas. Additionally, all of the major EBDCs use crops were represented ( Map 2). Association of ground water use ( represented by intakes) and EBDCs use pattern ( crops in Acers/ total EBDCs use in lbs) were examined for all monitored sites ( Map 4 is an example). Examination reveals that the monitoring program can be used as a basis for this assessment for ground water ETU/ EDWCs. However, spatial analysis could have been improved if longitudes/ latitudes were given for each well rather than for the nearest city. As shown in Map 4, a single point was used to represent all of the sites near a city. 95 Map1. A GIS map showing the nine targeted monitoring areas in relation to historic EBDCs use and national surface/ ground water intakes. 96 Map 2. A GIS map showing total and individual distribution for the major crops and crop groups associated with EBDCs use. 97 Map 3. A GIS map showing monitored/ un monitored areas, run off vulnerability, and locations for PRZM/ EXAMS scenarios used to compare modeled ETU/ EDWCs of monitored with un monitored areas.

Note: Monitored areas are represented by red boxes and un monitored areas by white circles. 98 Map 4. A GIS map for area 9 shown as an example illustrating examined details ( e. g. surface/ groundwater sites and county level EBDCs use patterns ( Note: many sites share the same point in the map because sites longitudes/ latitudes were given to the nearest city). 99 Attachment 2: Modeling 1. PRZM/ EXAMS Model inputs/ Outputs a. Summary of additional inputs for various scenarios; other than those listed in Table 2 of the MEMO PRZM/ EXAMS Additional input parameters for various scenarios.

Scenario Parent EBDC Rate ETU Rate Application Date( dd/ mm) Number of Applications Interval ( Days) ( lbs/ a) kg/ ha 1 kg/ ha 2 Apples NC, Apples PA, and Apples OR ( Metiram, Mancozeb and Maneb) 4.80 5.38 0.52 07/ 03 20/ 03 15/ 03 04 7 Tomatoes FL, Tomatoes PA, and Tomatoes CA ( Mancozeb) 2.40 2.69 0.26 11/ 02 06/ 08 06/ 07 07 7 Peppers FL ( Maneb) 2.40 2.69 0.26 09/ 10 06 7 Sweet Corn FL, and Sweet Corn OR ( Maneb) 1.20 1.35 0.13 07/ 11 03/ 07 15 05 3 3 Potatoes ME, Potatoes ID ( Maneb) 1.60 1.79 0.17 07/ 07 15/ 07 10 5 Wheat TX, Wheat ND, and Wheat OR ( Mancozeb) 1.60 1.79 0.17 02/ 04 24/ 05 16/ 04 03 7 Cabbage FL ( Maneb) 1.60 1.79 0.17 10/ 10 01/ 15 06 7 Grapes CA ( Mancozeb and Maneb) 3.2 3.59 0.34 15/ 02 06 7 Almonds CA ( Maneb) 6.4 7.17 0.69 20/ 03 04 7 Onions CA ( Mancozeb and Maneb) 2.40 2.69 0.26 15/ 03 10 7 Turf FL ( Mancozeb and Maneb) 3 17.4 19.51 1.87 15/ 03 01 None Sugar beet CA, and Sugar beet ( Mancozeb and Maneb) 1.60 1.79 0.17 01/ 03 01/ 08 07 7 Peanuts NC ( Mancozeb) 1.80 2.02 0.19 21/ 03 07 5 1 Parent rate ( kg/ ha)= parent rate ( lbs a. i./ a) x 1.121. 2 ETU rate ( kg/ ha)= parent rate ( kg a. i./ ha) x 0.096. 3 Label didn't specify the number of applications, one application was assumed at a rate of 17.4 lbs a. i/ acre. However, PRZM/ EXAMS runs were also executed for three applications, 17.4 lbs a. i/ acre each applied at 5 and 7 days intervals. 100 b. Summary of all Outputs and Sample of selected Outputs PRZM/ EXAMS modeling results; EDWCs at the national scale.

Scenario National PCA Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly All Years FL Peppers 0.87 25.2 20.4 12.9 6.4 4.4 1.1 0.7 NC Apples 0.87 23.3 20.2 15.6 8.6 5.9 1.5 1.2 FL Sweet corn 0.87 22.6 18.3 10.4 6.2 4.1 1.2 0.8 FL Tomatoes 0.87 22.5 17.5 8.5 5.3 3.8 0.9 0.7 FL Turf 1 0.87 23.3 19.5 11.5 6.2 4.2 1.0 0.7 CA Almonds 0.87 21.6 19.0 14.9 9.0 6.2 1.5 1.3 PA Tomatoes 0.87 19.6 16.3 10.7 7.1 5.2 1.3 0.9 PA Apples 0.87 18.3 15.9 12.8 7.4 5.0 1.3 1.1 CA Onions 0.87 17.7 14.4 11.6 10.0 7.6 1.9 1.8 OR Apples 0.87 16.0 14.0 11.5 6.9 4.8 1.2 1.1 NC Peanuts 0.87 12.8 11.2 8.2 4.7 3.2 0.8 0.6 CA Grapes 0.87 11.2 9.9 8.6 6.1 4.3 1.1 1.0 FL Cabbage 0.87 9.8 8.6 6.1 3.8 2.7 0.7 0.5 MN Sugar beet 0.87 9.0 7.7 5.2 3.7 2.9 0.8 0.6 ME Potatoes 0.87 8.9 7.6 6.0 4.4 3.3 0.9 0.8 TX Wheat 0.87 8.1 6.4 4.0 1.7 1.2 0.3 0.2 CA Sugar beet 0.87 7.0 6.3 5.5 4.0 2.9 0.7 0.6 ID Potatoes 0.87 6.0 4.9 4.3 3.4 2.5 0.7 0.6 CA Tomatoes 0.87 5.4 4.2 3.5 2.7 1.9 0.5 0.4 OR Sweet corn 0.87 5.0 4.2 3.1 1.5 1.1 0.3 0.2 OR wheat 0.87 4.5 4.0 2.9 1.6 1.1 0.3 0.3 ND Wheat 0.87 4.5 3.7 2.7 1.3 0.9 0.2 0.2 1 These are the results for one application ( 17.4 lbs a. i/ acre). The results for three applications ( 17.4 lbs a. i/ acre each) are as follows ( ETU in ppb):

For 5 day intervals: 55.9 ( Peak); 47.1( 96 hr); 34.9 ( 21 Day); 18.2 ( 60 Day); 12.4 ( 90 Day); 3.1 ( Yearly); and 2.2 ( All Years); and For 7 day intervals: 56.7 ( Peak); 55.4 ( 96 hr); 35.0 ( 21 Day); 18.1 ( 60 Day); 12.2 ( 90 Day); 3.0 ( Yearly); and 2.2 ( All Years). 101 PRZM/ EXAMS modeling results; EDWCs at the regional scale.

Scenario Regional PCA Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly All Years CA Almonds 0.56 13.9 12.2 9.6 5.8 4.0 1.0 0.8 OR Apples 0.63 11.6 10.1 8.3 5.0 3.5 0.9 0.8 CA Onions 0.56 11.4 9.3 7.5 6.4 4.9 1.2 1.1 FL Peppers 0.38 11.0 8.9 5.6 2.8 1.9 0.5 0.3 PA Tomatoes 0.46 10.4 8.6 5.6 3.7 2.7 0.7 0.5 NC Apples 0.38 10.2 8.8 6.8 3.8 2.6 0.6 0.5 FL Sweet corn 0.38 9.9 8.0 4.5 2.7 1.8 0.5 0.3 FL Tomatoes 0.38 9.8 7.7 3.7 2.3 1.6 0.4 0.3 PA Apples 0.46 9.7 8.4 6.8 3.9 2.7 0.7 0.6 FL Turf 1 0.38 10.2 8.5 5.0 2.7 1.8 0.5 0.3 MN Sugar beet 0.83 8.6 7.4 5.0 3.5 2.7 0.7 0.6 CA Grapes 0.56 7.2 6.3 5.5 3.9 2.8 0.7 0.7 TX Wheat 0.67 6.2 4.9 3.1 1.3 0.9 0.2 0.1 NC Peanuts 0.38 5.6 4.9 3.6 2.0 1.4 0.3 0.3 CA Sugar beet 0.56 4.5 4.1 3.5 2.6 1.8 0.5 0.4 ID Potatoes 0.63 4.4 3.6 3.1 2.5 1.8 0.5 0.4 FL Cabbage 0.38 4.3 3.8 2.6 1.7 1.2 0.3 0.2 OR Sweet corn 0.63 3.6 3.0 2.3 1.1 0.8 0.2 0.2 CA Tomatoes 0.56 3.5 2.7 2.2 1.7 1.2 0.3 0.3 OR wheat 0.63 3.3 2.9 2.1 1.2 0.8 0.2 0.2 ND Wheat 0.56 2.9 2.4 1.7 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.1 ME Potatoes 0.14 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.1 1 These are the results for one application ( 17.4 lbs a. i/ acre). The results for three applications ( 17.4 lbs a. i/ acre each) are as follows ( ETU in ppb):

For 5 day intervals: 24.4 ( Peak); 20.6 ( 96 hr); 15.2 ( 21 Day); 8.0 ( 60 Day); 5.4 ( 90 Day); 1.3 ( Yearly); and 1.0 ( All Years); and For 7 day intervals: 29.1 ( Peak); 24.2 ( 96 hr); 15.3 ( 21 Day); 7.9 ( 60 Day); 5.3 ( 90 Day); 1.3 ( Yearly); and 1.0 ( All Years). 102 lorida peppers scenario Inputs generated by pe4. pl  8 August 2003 Data used for this run: Output File: ETUDW Metfile: w12844. dvf PRZM scenario: FLpeppersC. txt EXAMS environment file: ir298. exv Chemical Name: ETU Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 102.2 g/ mol Henry's Law Const. henry atm m^ 3/ mol Vapor Pressure vapr 9.73E 01 torr Solubility sol 20000 mg/ L Kd Kd mg/ L Koc Koc 288 mg/ L Photolysis half life kdp 1 days Half life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 6.28 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 447 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 3.14 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.26 kg/ ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.393 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 10 09 dd/ mm or dd/ mmm or dd mm or dd mmm Interval 1 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Interval 2 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Interval 3 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Interval 4 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Interval 5 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR IR Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total( average of entire run)

Outputs stored as ETUDW. out Chemical: ETU PRZM environment: FLpeppersC. txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 16: 41: 28 103 EXAMS environment: ir298. exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 15: 34: 12 Metfile: w12844. dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09: 04: 30 Water segment concentrations ( ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 7.7 5.74 4.839 3.173 2.142 0.5281 1962 7.703 5.699 4.228 2.898 1.971 0.4919 1963 15.02 11.21 6.364 4.25 2.882 0.7171 1964 19.61 14.79 9.273 7.331 5.039 1.248 1965 36.65 28.79 15.19 8.985 6.055 1.509 1966 10.11 7.864 5.344 3.448 2.337 0.5942 1967 11.91 8.921 5.825 3.524 2.382 0.5947 1968 13.14 10.79 7.101 4.35 2.955 0.7344 1969 12.44 9.092 7.65 4.679 3.199 0.7983 1970 6.327 5.053 3.942 2.742 1.863 0.4707 1971 13.48 11.21 7.543 4.151 2.794 0.6951 1972 55.22 42.08 18.65 8.196 5.543 1.371 1973 5.815 4.402 3.676 2.873 1.946 0.497 1974 9.919 7.623 4.724 3.692 2.535 0.6306 1975 7.429 5.699 4.35 2.914 1.977 0.4955 1976 11.26 9.591 6.419 4.213 2.883 0.7151 1977 7.135 5.475 4.491 3.433 2.386 0.5983 1978 25.5 20.22 11.59 6.121 4.148 1.032 1979 12.29 9.137 5.713 3.514 2.386 0.6012 1980 6.644 5.686 4.227 3.245 2.208 0.5505 1981 17.59 14.71 8.107 4.427 3.01 0.7496 1982 29.11 22.25 15.64 7.333 4.957 1.232 1983 22.7 17.06 10.35 5.537 3.75 0.9407 1984 28.09 23.54 10.72 6.728 4.779 1.187 1985 5.691 4.291 3.442 2.441 1.65 0.4276 1986 11.03 8.242 6.276 4.122 2.786 0.6923 1987 21.21 17.19 9.183 5.279 3.566 0.8874 1988 8.881 7.147 5.173 3.032 2.044 0.513 1989 8.347 6.427 4.909 3.288 2.221 0.5533 1990 6.274 4.55 3.563 2.525 1.703 0.4257 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258065 55.22 42.08 18.65 8.985 6.055 1.509 0.064516129 36.65 28.79 15.64 8.196 5.543 1.371 0.096774194 29.11 23.54 15.19 7.333 5.039 1.248 0.129032258 28.09 22.25 11.59 7.331 4.957 1.232 0.161290323 25.5 20.22 10.72 6.728 4.779 1.187 0.193548387 22.7 17.19 10.35 6.121 4.148 1.032 0.225806452 21.21 17.06 9.273 5.537 3.75 0.9407 104 0.258064516 19.61 14.79 9.183 5.279 3.566 0.8874 0.290322581 17.59 14.71 8.107 4.679 3.199 0.7983 0.322580645 15.02 11.21 7.65 4.427 3.01 0.7496 0.35483871 13.48 11.21 7.543 4.35 2.955 0.7344 0.387096774 13.14 10.79 7.101 4.25 2.883 0.7171 0.419354839 12.44 9.591 6.419 4.213 2.882 0.7151 0.451612903 12.29 9.137 6.364 4.151 2.794 0.6951 0.483870968 11.91 9.092 6.276 4.122 2.786 0.6923 0.516129032 11.26 8.921 5.825 3.692 2.535 0.6306 0.548387097 11.03 8.242 5.713 3.524 2.386 0.6012 0.580645161 10.11 7.864 5.344 3.514 2.386 0.5983 0.612903226 9.919 7.623 5.173 3.448 2.382 0.5947 0.64516129 8.881 7.147 4.909 3.433 2.337 0.5942 0.677419355 8.347 6.427 4.839 3.288 2.221 0.5533 0.709677419 7.703 5.74 4.724 3.245 2.208 0.5505 0.741935484 7.7 5.699 4.491 3.173 2.142 0.5281 0.774193548 7.429 5.699 4.35 3.032 2.044 0.513 0.806451613 7.135 5.686 4.228 2.914 1.977 0.497 0.838709677 6.644 5.475 4.227 2.898 1.971 0.4955 0.870967742 6.327 5.053 3.942 2.873 1.946 0.4919 0.903225806 6.274 4.55 3.676 2.742 1.863 0.4707 0.935483871 5.815 4.402 3.563 2.525 1.703 0.4276 0.967741935 5.691 4.291 3.442 2.441 1.65 0.4257 0.1 29.008 23.411 14.83 7.3328 5.0308 1.2464 EDWC for ETU; Fl peppers Average of yearly averages: 0.749377 Adj for National PCA ( 0.87) 25.2 20.4 12.9 6.4 4.4 1.1 0.7 Adj for Regional PCA ( 0.38) 11.0 8.9 5.6 2.8 1.9 0.5 Average of yearly averages: 0.3 105 California almonds scenario Inputs generated by pe4. pl  8 August 2003 Data used for this run: Output File: ETUDW Metfile: w23232. dvf PRZM scenario: CAalmondC. txt EXAMS environment file: ir298. exv Chemical Name: ETU Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 102.2 g/ mol Henry's Law Const. henry atm m^ 3/ mol Vapor Pressure vapr 9.73E 01 torr Solubility sol 20000 mg/ L Kd Kd mg/ L Koc Koc 288 mg/ L Photolysis half life kdp 1 days Half life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 6.28 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 447 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 3.14 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.69 kg/ ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.393 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 20 03 dd/ mm or dd/ mmm or dd mm or dd mmm Interval 1 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Interval 2 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Interval 3 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR IR Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total( average of entire run)

Outputs stored as ETUDW. out Chemical: ETU PRZM environment: CAalmondC. txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 16: 30: 38 EXAMS environment: ir298. exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 15: 34: 12 Metfile: w23232. dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09: 04: 22 Water segment concentrations ( ppb) 106 Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 20.64 17.54 14.25 8.026 5.454 1.361 1962 20.73 17.6 14.41 8.088 5.497 1.379 1963 28.25 24.98 23.19 13.28 9.107 2.282 1964 20.48 17.37 14.12 7.925 5.386 1.346 1965 21.99 18.89 14.98 8.601 5.845 1.465 1966 20.03 16.79 13.85 7.597 5.143 1.287 1967 24.87 21.97 17.22 10.44 7.144 1.787 1968 20.29 17.14 13.98 7.788 5.284 1.319 1969 24.24 20.76 16.27 9.238 6.266 1.567 1970 20.94 18 14.34 8.223 5.57 1.393 1971 21.02 18.04 14.48 8.333 5.68 1.422 1972 20.38 17.34 13.9 7.859 5.333 1.331 1973 20.17 16.96 13.97 7.684 5.192 1.298 1974 21.14 18.18 14.58 8.408 5.726 1.441 1975 22.44 19.45 16.15 9.532 6.454 1.613 1976 22.73 19.43 14.75 8.427 5.694 1.42 1977 19.84 16.6 13.63 7.527 5.122 1.282 1978 21.42 18.53 14.71 8.655 5.874 1.47 1979 22.01 18.93 15.81 8.9 6.034 1.51 1980 20.6 17.47 14.29 8.012 5.445 1.36 1981 21.15 18.14 14.66 8.405 5.716 1.429 1982 37.54 33.24 22.57 12.85 8.764 2.197 1983 21.48 18.53 14.97 9.014 6.154 1.542 1984 20.01 16.94 13.54 7.554 5.102 1.272 1985 20.49 17.29 14.28 7.91 5.362 1.342 1986 20.87 17.87 14.09 8.073 5.482 1.372 1987 20.23 17.05 13.96 7.707 5.207 1.303 1988 20.53 17.53 13.99 8.628 5.881 1.467 1989 20.29 17.12 14.04 7.799 5.284 1.373 1990 20.01 16.76 13.84 7.607 5.438 1.367 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258065 37.54 33.24 23.19 13.28 9.107 2.282 0.064516129 28.25 24.98 22.57 12.85 8.764 2.197 0.096774194 24.87 21.97 17.22 10.44 7.144 1.787 0.129032258 24.24 20.76 16.27 9.532 6.454 1.613 0.161290323 22.73 19.45 16.15 9.238 6.266 1.567 0.193548387 22.44 19.43 15.81 9.014 6.154 1.542 0.225806452 22.01 18.93 14.98 8.9 6.034 1.51 0.258064516 21.99 18.89 14.97 8.655 5.881 1.47 0.290322581 21.48 18.53 14.75 8.628 5.874 1.467 107 0.322580645 21.42 18.53 14.71 8.601 5.845 1.465 0.35483871 21.15 18.18 14.66 8.427 5.726 1.441 0.387096774 21.14 18.14 14.58 8.408 5.716 1.429 0.419354839 21.02 18.04 14.48 8.405 5.694 1.422 0.451612903 20.94 18 14.41 8.333 5.68 1.42 0.483870968 20.87 17.87 14.34 8.223 5.57 1.393 0.516129032 20.73 17.6 14.29 8.088 5.497 1.379 0.548387097 20.64 17.54 14.28 8.073 5.482 1.373 0.580645161 20.6 17.53 14.25 8.026 5.454 1.372 0.612903226 20.53 17.47 14.12 8.012 5.445 1.367 0.64516129 20.49 17.37 14.09 7.925 5.438 1.361 0.677419355 20.48 17.34 14.04 7.91 5.386 1.36 0.709677419 20.38 17.29 13.99 7.859 5.362 1.346 0.741935484 20.29 17.14 13.98 7.799 5.333 1.342 0.774193548 20.29 17.12 13.97 7.788 5.284 1.331 0.806451613 20.23 17.05 13.96 7.707 5.284 1.319 0.838709677 20.17 16.96 13.9 7.684 5.207 1.303 0.870967742 20.03 16.94 13.85 7.607 5.192 1.298 0.903225806 20.01 16.79 13.84 7.597 5.143 1.287 0.935483871 20.01 16.76 13.63 7.554 5.122 1.282 0.967741935 19.84 16.6 13.54 7.527 5.102 1.272 0.1 24.807 21.849 17.125 10.3492 7.075 1.7696 EDWC for ETU; CA Almonds Average of yearly averages: 1.466567 Adj for National PCA ( 0.87) 21.6 19.0 14.9 9.0 6.2 1.5 1.3 Adj for Regional PCA ( 0.56) 13.9 12.2 9.6 5.8 4.0 1.0 Average of yearly averages: 0.8 2. Background Information on the modeling a. PRZM and EXAMS models and the Index Reservoir Scenario The linked PRZM and EXAMS models are used in this case as a second tier screen designed to estimate the pesticide concentrations found in water for use in drinking water assessments. They provide high end values on the concentrations that might be found in a small drinking water reservoir due to the use of pesticide. The Drinking Water Index Reservoir scenario includes a 427 acres field immediately adjacent to a 13 acres reservoir, 9 feet deep, with continuous site specific flow. This amount can be reduced due to degradation in field and the effect of binding to soil. Spray drift is equal to 6.4% of the applied concentration from the ground spray application and 16% for aerial applications.

The PRZM/ EXAMS modeling system with the Index Reservoir scenario also makes adjustments for 108 the percent cropped area. While it is assumed that the entire watershed would not be treated, the use of a PCA is still a screen because it represents the highest percentage of crop cover of any large watershed in the US, and it assumes that the entire crop is being treated. Various other conservative assumptions of this scenario include the use of a small drinking water reservoir surrounded by a runoff prone watershed, the use of the maximum use rate and no buffer zone.

b. SCIGROW SCI GROW is a screening model which the Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP) in EPA frequently uses to estimate pesticide concentrations in vulnerable ground water. The model provides an exposure value which is used to determine the potential risk to the environment and to human health from drinking water contaminated with the pesticide. The SCI GROW estimate is based on environmental fate properties of the pesticide ( aerobic soil degradation half life and linear adsorption coefficient normalized for soil organic carbon content), the maximum application rate, and existing data from small scale prospective ground water monitoring studies at sites with sandy soils and shallow ground water.

Pesticide concentrations estimated by SCI GROW represent conservative or high end exposure values because the model is based on ground water monitoring studies which were conducted by applying pesticides at maximum allowed rates and frequency to vulnerable sites ( i. e., shallow aquifers, sandy, permeable soils, and substantial rainfall and/ or irrigation to maximize leaching). In most cases, a large majority of the use areas will have ground water that is less vulnerable to contamination than the areas used to derive the SCI GROW estimate. SCIGROW provides a groundwater screening exposure value to be used in determining the potential risk to human health from drinking water contaminated with the pesticide. SCIGROW estimates likely groundwater concentrations if the pesticide is used at the maximum allowable rate in areas where groundwater is exceptionally vulnerable to contamination. In most cases, a large majority of the use area will have groundwater that is less vulnerable to contamination than the areas used to derive the SCIGROW estimate. 109 REFERENCES a. Environmental Fate MRID: 404661 03 M. Carpenter 1987. Hydrolysis as a function of pH at 25 oC of 14C Ethylenethiourea. Un published study prepared by ABC Laboratories for Roam and Haas and received Jan 18, 1988 in response to the Mancozeb Registration Standard.

MRID: 404661 02 M. Carpenter and M. Fennessey 1987. Determination of photolysis rate of 14C Ethylenethiourea in pH 7 aqueous solution. Un published study prepared by ABC Laboratories for Roam and Haas and received Jan 18, 1988 in response to the Mancozeb Registration Standard.

MRID: 404661 01 M. Carpenter 1987. Determination of photolysis rate of 14C Ethylenethiourea on the surface of soil. Un published study prepared by ABC Laboratories for Roam and Haas and received Jan 18, 1988 in response to the Mancozeb Registration Standard.

MRID: 40838701 Schweitzer, M. 1988. Response to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency review of mancozeb aerobic soil metabolism study Acc. No. 263908. Performed and submitted by Rohm and Haas Company, Spring House, PA MRID: 45156401 and 45225101 Wright, M. C. 2000. Aerobic soil metabolism degradation rate determination for ethylenethiourea ( ETU) on soil. XBL Study No.: XBL99045. XBL Report No.: RPT00598 ( MRID 45156401) and RPT00643 ( MRID 45225101). Unpublished study performed by XenoBiotic Laboratories, Inc., Plainsboro, NJ; and submitted by the EDBC/ ETU Task Force ( consisting of BASF Corporation, Elf Atochem North America, Inc., Griffin, L. L. C, and Rohm and Haas Company), Washington, DC.

MRID: 001633 35 J. Blair 1986. Anaerobic aquatic metabolism of 14C maneb. Unpublished study prepared by Hazelton Laboratories.

MRID: 000888 20 Swan, L. H. 1978a Degradation of Dithane M 45 ( mancozeb) and ethylenethiourea under anaerobic aquatic conditions. Technical report No. 34F 78 6. Includes method 1853 1 dated July 19, 1973. Unpublished study received Dec. 9, 1981 under 707 78 submitted by Rohm and Haas Company, Philadelphia, PA. CDL: 070528 A. 110 MRID: 402582 03 Swan, L. H. 1978b. Supplemental to the Degradation of Dithane M 45 ( MRID 000888 20) and ETU under anaerobic aquatic conditions. Laboratory project ID TR 34 78 06 submitted by Rohm and Haas Company, Spring House, PA.

MRID: 002588 96 ( Also submitted under Accession No. 402229 02) Yeh, S. M. 1986a. Batch soil adsorption/ desorption. Technical Report No. 310 86 63. Laboratory Project ID: Biospherics No. 86E205AD. Prepared by Biospherics, Incorporated for Rohm and Haas Company, Philadelphia, PA.

MRID: 000971 58 A laboratory technical report submitted by the registrar.

No MRID No. ( Accession No. 255229) Helling, C. S. and S. M. Thompson 1973. Azide and ethylenethiourea mobility in soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 38: 79 85. Submitted by E. I. de Pont de Nemours and company.

MRID: 405883 01 Daly, D. 1988a. Leaching characteristics of soil incorporated ethylenethiourea following aerobic aging. Prepared by Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories, Columbia, Missouri, and submitted by Rohm and Haas, Philadelphia, PA No MRID No. ( Accession No. 255229) Blazquez, C. H. 1973. Residue determination of ethylenethiourea ( 2 imidiazoli dinethions) from tomato foliage, soil and water. J. Agric. Food Chem. 21 ( 3): 330 333. Submitted by E. I. de Pont de Nemours and company.

MRID: 000889 23 Rhodes, R. C. 1977. Studies with manganese 14C ethylenebis ( dithiocarbamate)( 14C maneb) fungicide and 14C ethylenethiourea ( 14C ETU) in plants, soil, and water. J. Agric. Food Chem. 25 ( 3): 328 533. Also in unpublished submission received Dec. 9, 1981 under 707 78. Submitted by Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, PA; CDL: 070525 1.

MRID: 448804 01 G. Bruns et al. 1999. Validation of the Method of Analysis for Ethylenethiourea ( ETU) in Water by LC/ MS/ MS. Unpublished study conducted by Enviro Test Laboratories ( ETL), 9936 67 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T6E OP5 Canada. 111 112 b. Ecological Effects Beyer, W. N.. and E. E. Connor, " Estimates of Soil Ingestion by Wildlife," U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center at Laurel, MD and S. Gerould, U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

Biswas, S. K. and K. Banerjee, S. K. Handa. 2003. Metabolic fate of mancozeb in tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum). Toxicol. And Environ. Chem. 85( 1 3): 33 38.

Brooks, H. L. et al. 1973. Insecticides. Cooperative Extension Service. Kansas State Univ. Manhattan, Kansas.

Burns, L. A. 1997. EXAMS 2.97.5 Users Manual. National Exposure Research Lab, Office of Research and Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Athens, Georgia.

Carsel, R. F., Imhoff, J. C., Hummel, P. R., Cheplick, J. M. and Donigan, A. S. 1997. PRZM 3.1 Users Manual. National Exposure Research Lab, Office of Research and Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Athens, Georgia.

Dole, Tim and Jeff Dawson. Issued: 5/ 15/ 2003. Mancozeb: Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment and Recommendations for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document. PC Code 014504; DP Barcode: D286871.

Dole, Tim and Jeff Dawson. Issued: 12/ 05/ 2003a. Metiram: Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment and Recommendations for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document. PC Code 014601; DP Barcode: D287664.

Dole, Tim and Jeff Dawson. Issued: 5/ 14/ 2003b. Maneb: Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment and Recommendations for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document. PC Code 014505; DP Barcode: D251404.

DÇtzer, R. 1994. Statement on the Analytical Determination of Polyram DF ( Active Ingredient: Metiram) in Water for Ecotoxicological Tests. Attachment to MRID No. 43522501: Acute Toxicity Study on the Rainbow Trout of BAS 222 28 F in a Flow Through System for 96 Hours: Lab Project Numbers: 94/ 10920: PCP03089: 94/ 161. Unpublished study prepared by BASF Aktiengesellschaft.

Felkel, J. 2000. Reregistration Eligibility Document ( RED) for Diazinon. US EPA, OPP, EFED Fletcher, J. S., J. E. Nellessen, and T. G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA food chain ( Kenaga) nomogram, an instrument for estimating pesticide residues on plants. Environ. 113 Toxicol. Chem. 13: 1383 1391.

Gusey, W. F. and Z. D. Maturgo. April, 1973. Wildlife Utilization of Croplands. Environmental Affairs. Shell Oil Co. Houston, TX.

Hoerger, F. and E. E. Kenaga. 1972. Pesticide residues on plants: Correlation of representative data as a basis for estimation of their magnitude in the environment. In F. Coulston and F. Korte ( eds), Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology and Technology. Georg Thieme Publishers, Stuttgart, pp. 9 28.

MRID No. 46145401. Bedosky, S. 2003. EBDC/ ETU Task Force National Drinking Water Monitoring Survey: Final Report. Project Number: ETU/ 2000/ 01, ETU/ 0301, 004/ 06942/ 04. Unpublished study prepared by Levine Fricke, Inc., Enviro Test Laboratories ( ETL), and Morse Laboratories. 572 p.

Nelson, A. N. 1975. Appraisal of the Safety of Chemicals: Approximate Relation of Parts Per Million in Diet to Mg/ Kg/ Day. Quarterly Report to the Editor on Topics of Current Interest. Association of Food and Drug Officials of the United States.

Ollinger, J. Mar. 7, 2005. Literature supporting revised mancozeb and ETU half lives. Mancozeb Task Force  Cerexagri, Inc; Dow AgroSciences, LLC; and Griffin LLC ( a DuPont Company). Washington, DC Urban, Douglas J. 2000. Guidance for Conducting Avian Risk Assessments for Spray Applications of Pesticides. Environmental Fate & Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D. C.

US EPA. April, 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum. Washington, DC. EPA/ 630/ R 95/ 002F US EPA. Oct. 6, 1997. Announcement of the Draft Drinking Water Contaminant List. FR Vol. 62, No. 193. pp 52193 52219 ° URL: http:// www. epa. gov/ ogwdw000/ ccl/ dwccl. html US EPA. June 30, 1995. EEB Guidance Document Number A 02. What Are Our Levels of Concern and How Are They Used. Office of Pesticide Programs. Environmental Fate & Effects Division. Washington, D. C.

US EPA December, 2002. TXR# 0050408. Ethylenebisdithiocarbamates ( EBDCs): Mancozeb, Maneb, and Metiram. Outcome of the HED Metabolism Assessment Review Committee ( MARC) 114 Meeting. Office of Pesticide Programs. Health Effects Division. Washington, D. C.

Willis, G. and L. McDowell. 1987. Pesticide Persistance on Foliage. Review of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Volume 100. Springer Verlag, New York. pp. 24 73


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 214 (Monday, November 5, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55263-55264]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24052]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No.: FAA-2018-0914]

Changes to Surveillance and Broadcast Services

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notification of changes to surveillance and broadcast services.

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

SUMMARY: This action announces changes to the following surveillance
and broadcast services (``surveillance services'') after January 1,
2020: Automatic Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B); Traffic
Information Service--Broadcast (TIS-B); Automatic Dependent
Surveillance--Rebroadcast (ADS-R); and Automatic Dependent
Surveillance--Same Link Rebroadcast (ADS-SLR). These service changes
will affect aircraft equipped with older ADS-B avionics that do not
meet the requirements of 14 CFR 91.225. The service changes will
primarily affect aircraft operating in specific airspace areas, though
a few service changes will affect aircraft operating throughout the
National Airspace System (NAS).

DATES: The FAA will initiate the actions described herein on January 2,
2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact: David E. Gray, Program Manager, Surveillance and
Broadcast Services, AJM-232, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation
Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20597;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In 2010, the FAA issued a final rule mandating equipage
requirements and performance standards for Automatic Dependent
Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B) Out avionics on aircraft operating in
certain airspace after January 1, 2020 (75 FR 30160, May 28, 2010). Use
of ADS-B Out will move air traffic control (ATC) from a radar-based
system to a satellite-derived aircraft location system and enhance
aircraft surveillance by the FAA and Department of Defense air traffic
controllers. Equipage with ADS-B avionics also provides aircraft
operators with a platform for additional flight applications and
services, including TIS-B \1\ and ADS-R \1\, which will improve a
pilot's situational awareness in aircraft not equipped with a traffic
alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS). Under 14 CFR 91.225, after
January 1, 2020, to operate in certain airspace, an aircraft must have
equipment installed that meets the performance requirements of
Technical Standard Order (TSO)-C166b or TSO-C154c (``2020 Equipment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ TIS-B uses secondary surveillance radars and multilateration
systems to provide proximate traffic situational awareness,
including position reports from aircraft not equipped with ADS-B Out
or providing poor quality ADS-B Out data. TIS-B data does not
provide as much information as could be received directly from an
aircraft's ADS-B Out broadcast, because of the information available
and required data processing. The TIS-B signal is an advisory
service that is not designed for aircraft surveillance or
separation, and cannot be used for either purpose.
    \1\ ADS-R collects traffic information from each ADS-B link and
rebroadcasts it to ADS-B In-equipped aircraft on the other ADS-B
link as needed. Note that ADS-R services are only available when
both aircraft are within range of any ADS-B ground radio station, so
there are regions of airspace without ADS-R coverage. ADS-B-In
avionics with dual link receive capability neither require nor
receive ADS-R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between 2010 and 2014, the FAA completed the ADS-B ground
infrastructure. To ensure the benefits of the ADS-B surveillance
infrastructure were made available as soon as it was deployed, the FAA
enabled aircraft equipped with Pre-2020 \2\ Equipment to receive TIS-B
and ADS-R services even though these aircraft would not be considered
rule compliant after January 1, 2020. The FAA also provided ATC
surveillance services to aircraft that were equipped with Pre-2020
Equipment outside radar coverage in Alaska and offshore Gulf of Mexico
airspace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For purposes of this document, Pre-2020 Equipment refers to
aircraft that are in compliance with Technical Standard Order (TSO)-
C166a or TSO-C154b. It does not include aircraft that are equipped
with avionics compliant with TSO-C166 or TSO-C154a (or earlier).
Note that aircraft equipped with ADS-B avionics compliant with TSO-
C166 or TSO-C154a (or earlier) have never been provided with FAA
TIS-B or ADS-R services or FAA ATC surveillance services using ADS-
B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Service Changes to Operations in Alaska

    With regard to operations in Alaska, the FAA funded a project to
upgrade Pre-2020 Equipment for aircraft operating within Alaska to
ensure these aircraft would meet the 2020 Equipment standards in time
for the mandate.\3\ This upgrade project will conclude in early 2019.
Aircraft flying to and from Anchorage, Alaska and within Class A
airspace over Alaska must also be in compliance with Sec.  91.225 after
January 1, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The aircraft were originally equipped with the Pre-2020
Equipment by the FAA's Alaska Capstone program in the early 2000s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to this action, on January 2, 2020, the FAA will begin
terminating air traffic control surveillance services outside radar
coverage for aircraft with Pre-2020 Equipment. In a 30-day period
ending in June 2018 the FAA detected less than 30 aircraft equipped
with Pre-2020 Equipment in the Alaskan airspace where the FAA receives
ADS-B signals. Therefore, the FAA anticipates that this service change
will only affect a small number of aircraft equipped with Pre-2020
Equipment.

Service Changes to Operations in the Gulf of Mexico

    The provisions of Sec.  91.225 require all aircraft flying in Class
E airspace at and above 3,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) over the Gulf
of Mexico from the coastline of the United States out to 12 nautical
miles to have operational 2020 Equipment (unless otherwise authorized
by ATC) after January 1, 2020. As noted, the FAA has been providing
surveillance services to approved aircraft with Pre-2020 Equipment
operating in this airspace. Pursuant to this action, the FAA will begin
terminating these surveillance services after January 1, 2020, to the
aircraft with Pre-2020 Equipment. During a 30-day period ending in June
2018, the FAA found less than 10 aircraft with Pre-2020 Equipment were
receiving ATC surveillance services in the offshore Gulf of Mexico
airspace managed by Houston Center. The FAA has already informally
notified these operators that FAA will not provide ATC surveillance
services to aircraft equipped with Pre-2020 Equipment after January 1,
2020.

Service Changes at Airports With ADS-B Surface Service Volumes

    To date, aircraft with Pre-2020 Equipment have been receiving ADS-
SLR services in ADS-B surface service volumes (all U.S. airports with
Airport Surface Detection Equipment Model X (ASDE-X) or Airport Surface
Surveillance Capability (ASSC) systems). After January 1, 2020, in
order to reach any airport with an ADS-B surface service volume, an
aircraft will pass through airspace requiring 2020 Equipment.
Accordingly, after January 1, 2020, the FAA will begin terminating

provision of ADS-SLR services to aircraft with Pre-2020 Equipment. The
only aircraft that will be affected by the ADS-SLR service change are
those aircraft that are not equipped with 2020 Equipment as required by
Sec.  91.225.

NAS-Wide Service Changes

    As described above, FAA will no longer use ADS-B data from Pre-2020
Equipment to provide ATC surveillance services after January 1, 2020.
As such, the FAA will discontinue TIS-B and ADS-R client services NAS-
wide for aircraft equipped with Pre-2020 Equipment after January 1,
2020.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In 2016, the FAA changed how these services were provided.
More information is available at http://rgl.faa.gov/
Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/
45845cd583ad3cd686257d62006b3b3e/$FILE/TIS-
B_Service_Change_Summary.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation

    The FAA will begin making the above described changes on January 2,
2020. However, each of the changes requires the implementation of
software revisions and some require changes at multiple locations NAS-
wide. Because of the number of changes required and to ensure safe
implementation, the changes will not be complete on January 2, 2020,
but sometime soon thereafter.

Summary

    Starting on January 2, 2020, the FAA will begin to discontinue ATC
surveillance services for aircraft equipped with Pre-2020 Equipment
operating in Alaska and the offshore Gulf of Mexico airspace. The
number of affected aircraft is expected to be less than 20. Any
affected aircraft will receive ATC surveillance services only within
FAA radar coverage over Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.
    Starting on January 2, 2020, the FAA will begin to discontinue ADS-
SLR services for aircraft equipped with Pre-2020 Equipment at airports
that lie immediately under the airspace defined in Sec.  91.225(d)(1)
and/or (d)(2). After January 1, 2020, these specific airspace areas
require aircraft to have 2020 Equipment. As such, the only affected
aircraft will be those aircraft that have failed to equip to meet the
regulatory requirements effective on January 2, 2020.
    Starting on January 2, 2020, in all airspace where TIS-B and ADS-R
services are currently provided, the FAA will begin to discontinue TIS-
B and ADS-R client services for aircraft equipped with Pre-2020
Equipment. This change will maximize the number of aircraft eligible
for ATC surveillance services and support the safe provision of air
traffic services. This action also reduces the resources required to
provide and maintain TIS-B/ADS-R services.
    Starting on January 2, 2020, the FAA will begin enabling National
Accuracy Category for Velocity (NACv) filtering for TIS-B and ADS-R
client status throughout the NAS.\5\ This action will not impact any
aircraft with 2020 Equipment meeting the requirements of Sec.  91.227
or any aircraft with ADS-B avionics that meet the minimum requirements
in TSO-C199 for a Class B position source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A complete description of NACv filtering is available at
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/
45845cd583ad3cd686257d62006b3b3e/$FILE/TIS-
B_Service_Change_Summary.pdf.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 24, 2018.
Kristen G. Burnham,
Vice President, Program Management Organization, FAA Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2018-24052 Filed 11-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 30327]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10619]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0579]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Suspected
Unapproved Parts Report

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The information collected on the FAA Form 8120-11 is
reported voluntarily by manufacturers, repair stations, aircraft owner/
operators, air carriers, and the general public who wish to report
suspected unapproved parts to the FAA for review. The report
information is collected and correlated by the FAA Hotline Program
Office, and used to determine if an unapproved part investigation is
warranted. When unapproved parts are confirmed that are likely to exist
on other products or aircraft of the same or similar design or are
being used in other facilities, the information is used as a basis for
an aviation industry alert or notification.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by July 18, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments:
    By electronic docket: www.regulations.gov (enter docket number into
search field).
    By mail: Robert Franklin, Production and Airworthiness Systems,
AIR-632, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, Washington, DC 20024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Franklin by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0552.
    Title: Suspected Unapproved Parts Report.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 8120-11.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The information collected on the FAA Form 8120-11,
Suspected Unapproved Parts Report, is reported voluntarily by
manufacturers, repair stations, aircraft owner/operators, air carriers,
and the general public who wish to report suspected unapproved parts
(SUP) to the FAA for review. The report information is collected and
correlated by the FAA Hotline Program Office, and used to determine if
an unapproved part investigation is warranted. When unapproved parts
are confirmed that are likely to exist on other products or aircraft of
the same or similar design or are being used in other facilities, the
information is used as a basis for an aviation industry alert or
notification. Alerts are used to inform industry of situations
essential to the prevention of accidents, if the information had not
been collected. The consequence to the aviation community would be the
inability to determine whether or not unapproved parts are being
offered for sale or use for installation on type-certificated products.
    Procedures and processes relating to the SUP program and associated
reports are found in FAA Order 8120.16A, Suspected Unapproved Parts
Program, and Advisory Circular 21-29, Detecting and Reporting Suspected
Unapproved Parts. When unapproved parts are identified, the FAA
notifies the public by published Field Notifications, disseminated
using Unapproved Parts Notifications, Aviation Maintenance Alerts,
Airworthiness Directives, entry into an issue of the Service Difficulty
Reporting Summary, a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin, a
display on an internet site, or direct mailing. Reporting of
information is strictly voluntary. The information is requested from
any individual or facility suspecting an unapproved part. Any burden is
minimized by requesting only necessary information to warrant an
investigation.
    Respondents: Anyone may fill out and send FAA Form 8120-11 to the
FAA.
    Frequency: Whenever anyone discovers or suspects they have received
an unapproved part.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: About 30 minutes to read and
disposition each form.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: The FAA collects approximately 200
forms from the public per year.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 12, 2022.
Michael A. Millage,
Manager, Production & Airworthiness Systems, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-10619 Filed 5-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 248)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 68756-68758]
[DOCID:fr29de09-36]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926

[Docket No. OSHA-H022K-2006-0062 (formerly OSHA Docket No. H022K)]
RIN 1218-AC20

Hazard Communication

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of informal public hearings.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA is scheduling informal public hearings on its proposal to
revise the Hazard Communication Standard. OSHA anticipates receiving
several hearing requests, and this document describes the procedures
the public must use to participate in the hearings.

DATES: Informal public hearing. The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m.,
local time, on the following dates:
     March 2, 2010, in Washington, DC;
     March 31, 2010, in Pittsburgh, PA; and
     April 13, 2010, in Los Angeles, CA.
    If necessary, the hearing will continue at the same time on
subsequent days at each location.
    Notice of intention to appear at the hearing. Interested persons
who intend to present testimony or question witnesses at any of these
locations must submit (transmit, send, postmark, deliver) a notice of
their intention to do so by January 18, 2010.
    Hearing testimony and documentary evidence. Interested persons who
request more than 10 minutes to present testimony or who intend to
submit documentary evidence at the hearing

must submit (transmit, send, postmark, deliver) the full text of their
testimony and all documentary evidence by February 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Informal public hearing. The Washington, DC, hearing will be
held in the auditorium of the U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. OSHA will announce the
address of the Pittsburgh, PA, and Los Angeles, CA, hearings in a later
Federal Register document.
    Notice of intention to appear, hearing testimony and documentary
evidence: You may submit (transmit, send, postmark, deliver) your
notice of intention to appear, hearing testimony, and documentary
evidence, identified by docket number OSHA-H022K-2006-0062, by any of
the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions online for electronically submitting materials, including
attachments;
    Fax: If your written submission does not exceed 10 pages, including
attachments, you may fax it to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648; or
    Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery, and messenger and
courier service: Submit your materials to the OSHA Docket Office,
Docket No. OSHA-H022K-2006-0062, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693-2350 (TTY number<PHONE_NUMBER>). Deliveries (express mail, hand
delivery, and messenger and courier service) are accepted during the
Department of Labor's and OSHA Docket Office's normal hours of
operation, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-H022K-2006-0062).
All submissions, including any personal information, are placed in the
public docket without change and may be available online at http://
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions you about submitting
certain personal information such as social security numbers and
birthdates. Because of security-related procedures, the use of regular
mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of your submissions.
For information about security-related procedures for submitting
materials by express delivery, hand delivery, messenger, or courier
service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office. For additional
information on submitting notices of intention to appear, hearing
testimony or documentary evidence, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this notice.
    Docket: To read or download comments, notices of intention to
appear, and other material in the docket, go to Docket No. OSHA-H022K-
2006-0062 at http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket
are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some
information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to
read or download through the Web site. All submissions and other
material in the docket are available for public inspection and copying
in the OSHA Docket Office. For information on reading or downloading
materials in the docket and obtaining materials not available through
the Web site, please contact the OSHA Docket Office.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice are available at
http://www.regulations.gov. This notice as well as news releases and
other relevant information also are available at OSHA's Web page at
http://www.osha.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Press inquiries: Jennifer Ashley,
OSHA, Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693-1999.
    Technical information: Maureen Ruskin, OSHA, Office of Chemical
Hazards-Metals, Room N-3718, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Hearings: Ms. Veneta Chatmon, OSHA, Office of Communications, Room
N-3647; 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202) 693-1999; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 30, 2009, OSHA published a
proposed rule to revise the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) to
conform with the United Nations' (UN) Globally Harmonized System of
Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) (74 FR 50280). OSHA
published a correction notice for the NPRM on November 5, 2009 (74 FR
57278). The deadline for submitting written comments and hearing
requests is December 29, 2009. OSHA anticipates receiving several
hearing requests and is scheduling hearings to begin on March 2, 2010,
in Washington, DC; March 31, 2010, in Pittsburgh, PA; and April 13,
2010, in Los Angeles, CA. This document describes the procedures the
public must use to participate in the hearings.
    Informal public hearings--purpose, rules and procedures. OSHA
invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by
providing oral testimony and documentary evidence at the informal
public hearing. In particular, OSHA invites interested persons who have
knowledge of or experience with hazard communication and the issues the
proposed rule raises to participate in the hearings. OSHA also welcomes
presentation of data and documentary evidence that will provide the
Agency with the best available evidence to use in developing the final
rule.
    Pursuant to section 6(b)(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(3)), members of the public have
an opportunity at the informal public hearing to provide oral testimony
and evidence on issues raised by the proposal. An administrative law
judge (ALJ) will preside over the hearing and will resolve any
procedural matters relating to the hearing.
    The legislative history of section 6 of the OSH Act, as well as
OSHA's regulation governing public hearings (29 CFR 1911.15), establish
the purpose and procedures of informal public hearings. Although the
presiding officer of the hearing is an ALJ and questioning of witnesses
is allowed on crucial issues, the proceeding is largely informal and
essentially legislative in purpose. Therefore, the hearing provides
interested persons with an opportunity to make oral presentations in
the absence of procedural restraints or rigid procedures that could
impede or protract the rulemaking process. The hearing is not an
adjudicative proceeding subject to the technical rules of evidence.
Instead, it is an informal administrative proceeding convened for the
purpose of gathering and clarifying information. The regulations that
govern the hearings and the prehearing guidelines issued for the
hearing will ensure that participants are treated fairly and provided
due process. This approach will facilitate the development of a clear,
accurate, and complete record. Accordingly, application of these rules
and guidelines will be such that questions of relevance, procedure, and
participation generally will be resolved in favor of developing a
clear, accurate, and complete record.
    Conduct of the hearing will conform to 29 CFR 1911.15. In addition,
the Assistant Secretary may, on reasonable notice, issue additional or
alternative procedures to expedite the proceedings, to provide greater
procedural protections to interested persons or to further any other
good cause consistent with applicable law (29 CFR 1911.4).

Although the ALJ presiding over the hearing makes no decision or
recommendation on the merits of the proposal, the ALJ has the
responsibility and authority necessary to ensure that the hearing
progresses at a reasonable pace and in an orderly manner. To ensure
that interested persons receive a full and fair hearing, the ALJ has
the power to regulate the course of the proceedings; dispose of
procedural requests, objections, and comparable matters; confine
presentations to matters pertinent to the issues the proposed rule
raises; use appropriate means to regulate the conduct of persons
present at the hearing; question witnesses and permit others to do so;
limit the time for such questioning; and leave the record open for a
reasonable time after the hearing for the submission of additional
data, evidence, comments and arguments (29 CFR 1911.16).
    At the close of the hearing the ALJ will establish a post-hearing
comment period for interested persons who filed a timely notice of
intention to appear at the hearing. During the first part of the post-
hearing period, those persons may submit additional data and
information to OSHA. During the second part they may submit final
briefs, arguments, and summations.
    Notice of intention to appear at the hearing. Interested persons
who intend to participate in and provide oral testimony or documentary
evidence at the hearing must file a written notice of intention to
appear prior to the hearing. To testify or question witnesses at one of
the hearing locations, interested persons must submit (transmit, send,
postmark, deliver) their notice by January 18, 2010. The notice must
provide the following information:
     Name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of
each individual who will give oral testimony;
     Name of the establishment or organization each individual
represents, if any;
     Occupational title and position of each individual
testifying;
     Hearing location at which each individual wishes to appear
and testify and/or question witnesses;
     Approximate amount of time required for each individual's
testimony;
     A brief statement of the position each individual will
take with respect to the issues raised by the proposed rule; and
     A brief summary of documentary evidence each individual
intends to present.
    Participants who need projectors and other special equipment for
their testimony must contact Ms. Veneta Chatmon at OSHA's Office of
Communications, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, no later than a week before
the hearing begins.
    OSHA emphasizes that the hearings are open to the public; however,
only individuals who file a notice of intention to appear may question
witnesses and participate fully at the hearing. If time permits, and at
the discretion of the ALJ, an individual who did not file a notice of
intention to appear may be allowed to testify at the hearing, but for
no more than 10 minutes.
    Hearing testimony and documentary evidence. Individuals who request
more than 10 minutes to present their oral testimony at the hearing or
who will submit documentary evidence at the hearing must submit
(transmit, send, postmark, deliver) the full text of their testimony
and all documentary evidence no later than February 1, 2010.
    The Agency will review each submission and determine if the
information it contains warrants the amount of time the individual
requested for the presentation. If OSHA believes the requested time is
excessive, the Agency will allocate an appropriate amount of time for
the presentation. The Agency also may limit to 10 minutes the
presentation of any participant who fails to comply substantially with
these procedural requirements, and may request that the participant
return for questioning at a later time. Before the hearing, OSHA will
notify participants of the time the Agency will allow for their
presentation and, if less than requested, the reasons for its decision.
In addition, before the hearing OSHA will provide the pre-hearing
guidelines and hearing schedule to each participant.
    Certification of the hearing record and Agency final determination.
Following the close of the hearing and the post-hearing comment
periods, the ALJ will certify the record to the Assistant Secretary of
Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. The record will consist of
all of the written comments, oral testimony and documentary evidence
received during the proceeding. The ALJ, however, will not make or
recommend any decisions as to the content of the final standard.
Following certification of the record, OSHA will review all the
evidence received into the record and will issue the final rule based
on the record as a whole.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice under the
authority granted by section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655(b)), Secretary of Labor's Order 5-2007 (72
FR 31160), and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on this 18th day of December 2009.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E9-30713 Filed 12-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P