[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31087-31090]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10243]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97460; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2023-35]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the NYSE
Arca Options Fee Schedule

May 9, 2023.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on May 1, 2023, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The

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

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule'') regarding the Ratio Threshold Fee. The Exchange
proposes to implement the fee change effective May 1, 2023. The
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to further extend the waiver of the
Ratio Threshold Fee that was originally implemented in connection with
the Exchange's migration to the Pillar platform.\4\ The Exchange
proposes to implement the rule change on May 1, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94095 (January 28,
2022), 87 FR 6216 (February 3, 2022) (SR-NYSEArca-2022-04) (Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Ratio Threshold Fee is based on the number of orders entered as
compared to the number of executions received in a calendar month and
is intended to deter OTP Holders from submitting an excessive number of
orders that are not executed.\5\ Because order to execution ratios of
10,000 to 1 or greater have the potential residual effect of exhausting
system resources, bandwidth, and capacity, such ratios may create
latency and impact other OTP Holders' ability to receive timely
executions.\6\ In connection with the Exchange's migration to the
Pillar platform, the Exchange implemented a waiver of the Ratio
Threshold Fee (the ``Waiver'') that took effect beginning in the month
in which the Exchange began its migration to the Pillar platform and
would remain in effect for the three months following the month during
which the Exchange completed its migration to the Pillar platform. As
the Exchange completed the migration in July 2022, the Waiver was
originally due to expire on October 31, 2022. The Exchange previously
filed to extend the Waiver until January 31, 2023 and, subsequently, to
extend the Waiver until April 30, 2023.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Fee Schedule, RATIO THRESHOLD FEE; see also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 60102 (June 11, 2009), 74 FR 29251 (June
19, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-50).
    \6\ See id.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 96252 (November 7,
2022), 87 FR 68210 (November 14, 2022) (SR-NYSEARCA-2022-74)
(extension of Waiver until January 31, 2023); 96878 (February 10,
2023), 88 FR 10156 (February 16, 2023) (SR-NYSEARCA-2023-14)
(extension of Waiver until April 30, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that extending the Waiver would allow the
Exchange additional time to continue to monitor and to further analyze
traffic rates and order to execution ratios, without imposing a
financial burden on OTP Holders based on their order to execution
ratios. The Exchange thus proposes to modify the Fee Schedule to
provide that the Waiver would extend through June 30, 2023.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See proposed Fee Schedule, RATIO THRESHOLD FEE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\10\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (``Reg NMS
Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options
trades.\12\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power
in the execution of multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow.
More specifically, in March 2023, the Exchange had less than 13% market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options
trades.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety
of formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange,
available here: https://www.theocc.com/Market-Data/Market-Data-Reports/Volume-and-Open-Interest/Monthly-Weekly-Volume-Statistics.
    \13\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of equity-based ETF options,
see id., the Exchange's market share in equity-based options
decreased from 13.57% for the month of March 2022 to 12.83% for the
month of March 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain options exchange transaction fees. Stated otherwise,
modifications to exchange transaction fees can have a direct effect on
the ability of an exchange to compete for order flow.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed extension of the Waiver is
reasonable because it is designed to lessen the impact of the migration
on OTP Holders and would allow OTP Holders to continue trading on the
Pillar platform without incurring excess Ratio Threshold Fees while the
Exchange continues to evaluate and conduct further analysis on traffic
rates and order to execution ratios. To the extent the proposed rule
change encourages OTP Holders to maintain their trading activity on the
Exchange, the Exchange believes the proposed change would sustain the
Exchange's overall competitiveness and its market quality for all
market participants. In the backdrop of the competitive environment in
which the Exchange operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable
attempt by the Exchange to

mitigate the impacts of the Pillar migration without affecting its
competitiveness.
The Proposed Rule Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Credits and Fees
    The proposed extension of the Waiver is an equitable allocation of
fees and credits because the Waiver would continue to apply to all OTP
Holders. All OTP Holders would have the opportunity to continue trading
on the Pillar platform without incurring Ratio Threshold Fees, while
the Exchange continues to evaluate post-migration traffic rates and
order to execution ratios. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change would continue to mitigate the impact of the migration
process for all market participants on the Exchange, thereby sustaining
market-wide quality.
The Proposed Rule Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes the proposed extension of the Waiver is not
unfairly discriminatory because it would apply to all OTP Holders on an
equal and non-discriminatory basis. The Waiver, as proposed, would
permit all OTP Holders to continue trading on the Pillar platform,
without incurring additional fees based on their monthly order to
execution ratios, while the Exchange continues to evaluate post-
migration traffic rates and order to execution ratios. The Exchange
thus believes that the proposed change would support continued trading
opportunities for all market participants, thereby promoting just and
equitable principles of trade, removing impediments to and perfecting
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general, protecting investors and the public interest.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.

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

    In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes that
the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting
Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which
promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Reg NMS Adopting Release, supra note 11, at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The Exchange does not believe the proposed
extension of the Waiver would impose any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate because it would apply
equally to all OTP Holders. All OTP Holders would continue to be
eligible for the Waiver for an additional two months while the Exchange
continues to assess traffic rates and order to execution ratios
following the migration to Pillar.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor one
of the 16 competing option exchanges if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. Based on publicly-
available information, and excluding index-based options, no single
exchange has more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\15\ Therefore, currently
no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow. More specifically,
in March 2023, the Exchange had less than 13% market share of executed
volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety
of formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange,
available here: https://www.theocc.com/Market-Data/Market-Data-Reports/Volume-and-Open-Interest/Monthly-Weekly-Volume-Statistics.
    \16\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of equity-based ETF options,
see id., the Exchange's market share in equity-based options
decreased from 13.57% for the month of March 2022 to 12.83% for the
month of March 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe the proposed extension of the Waiver
would impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate because it would apply equally to all OTP
Holders. All OTP Holders would continue to be eligible for the Waiver
for an additional two months while the Exchange continues to assess
traffic rates and order to execution ratios following the migration to
Pillar.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A) \17\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \18\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
section 19(b)(2)(B) \19\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2023-35 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2023-35. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email 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 website (https://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 website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. Do not include personal identifiable
information in submissions; you should submit only information that you
wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold
entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject
to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-NYSEARCA-2023-35, and should be submitted on or before June 5, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-10243 Filed 5-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on February 18, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1999-5708

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  ABACO AIR LTD.
                                   Date Filed:  December 15, 2003

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct charter foreign air transportation of
persons, property and mail, between the Bahamas and Florida, using small
equipment (see below).

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  February 26, 2003, in
this Docket.

Applicant representative:  Denise D. Kelly,<PHONE_NUMBER>        DOT
analyst:  Allen F. Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

        DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved
                                          Action date:  February 18,
2004

Effective dates of authority granted:  February 18, 2004, through March
1, 2005.

Basis for approval:  Reciprocity with the Bahamas.

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations of our standard exemption conditions.

Special conditions/Remarks:  In the conduct of these operations, the
applicant may only use aircraft designed to have a maximum passenger
capacity of not more than 60 seats or a maximum payload capacity of not
more than 18,000 pounds.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director, Office of International
Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

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

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


A total of 19 articles in the open scientific literature describing intentional or accidental poisonings due to aldicarb exposure were reviewed. Summaries of the articles are included under Literature on Poisonings in this Memorandum. The literature studies provide some limited insight into the questions of: 1) duration of symptoms from aldicarb poisoning; 2) doses at which poisonings occur; and 3) subpopulation sensitivity. Concerning duration of symptoms, there are limited data on the time between onset of symptoms and recovery without specific treatment with atropine. In one study in which people were exposed to cucumbers contaminated with aldicarb, there are data on the duration of illness for 14 people Page 50 of 51 of both sexes, ages 6 54. All of the people had symptoms compatible with carbamate poisoning which were reported within one hour of exposure, however analysis of the cucumbers for aldicarb was not performed. While the duration of their illnesses was 6 hours or less in 12 of the patients, 2 young girls ( ages 7 and 16) were reported to be ill for 12 hours. In an outbreak from Vancouver, Canada involving contaminated cucumbers, it was reported that recovery occurred within two to eight hours. In the report from Louisiana where people ingested cabbage salad, the illness reportedly lasted a median of 4 hours with a range of 1 to 8 hours. It is unknown if the individuals in the last two outbreaks were treated with atropine. In two studies in human volunteers submitted to EPA, subjects recovered within 6 hours but symptoms were relatively mild ( sweating and leg weakness). While many references give less than 8 hours as the time to reversal of symptoms after carbamate intoxication, there are data in two young girls that indicate as long as 12 hours may be required.

Concerning doses which produce symptoms of carbamate poisoning, this information was not provided in most of the literature articles. In the report on the cabbage salad ingestion, it was calculated that a 150 lb. adult would have ingested 0.2 mg/ kg body weight of aldicarb. In another study, the doses calculated from four outbreaks, in which aldicarb was measured in the food, ranged from 0.0011 to 0.060 mg/ kg body weight. In the Canadian cucumber outbreak, it was possible to correlate the quantity of cucumber consumed by an individual with the residue found in the remaining portion of the same cucumbers in only a few cases. Typical symptoms of acute carbamate poisoning were caused by aldicarb residues in the range of 0.01 to 0.03 mg/ kg body weight.

Concerning subpopulation sensitivity, several articles have asserted that clinical signs and symptoms of carbamate toxicity can differ in children and adults. Signs and symptoms commonly associated with carbamate poisoning ( SLUDGE syndrome) are more commonly observed in adults than in children. This could lead to misdiagnosis and underreporting of carbamate intoxication in children. However, there are no data in the literature which compared the doses at which clinical signs/ symptoms occurred in adults versus children that would answer the question about subpopulation sensitivity.

8.0 DATA NEEDS/ LABEL REQUIREMENTS 8.1 Toxicology 870.3200 21 day dermal toxicity ( including RBC/ plasma ChEI measures). 28 day inhalation study ( including RBC/ plasma/ brain ChEI measures).

8.2 Residue Chemistry 860.1500 Field trials residues in sorghum forage and cotton gin by products ( gin trash). [ HED recommends cotton field trials include residues in cottonseed, since the available data for this commodity are limited and are of poor quality.]

Label Changes:

Registered labels must reflect maximum seasonal use rates ( where applicable). Page 51 of 51

The restriction against feeding grain sorghum forage must be removed.

A 10 month plantback interval ( PBI) should be specified on EPA Reg. No. 264 331 for crops not listed on the label.

9.0 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION The conclusions from the following supporting documents have been incorporated into the aldicarb preliminary human health risk assessment:

" Aldicarb  Residue and Product Chemistry Chapters of the HED Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document ( RED)." [ C. Swartz memorandum dated 6/ 02/ 00, DP Barcode No. D266396].

" Aldicarb  Update of Incident Data Review of April 10, 1996" [ V. Dobozy memorandum dated 6/ 24/ 00, DP Barcode No. D267355].

" Aldicarb Toxicology Chapter for the HED RED," [ L. Taylor and W. Sette memorandum dated 8/ 20/ 02, DP Barcode No. D266321, TXR#: 014220].

" Aldicarb  Revised Anticipated Residues and Dietary Exposure Analyses for the HED Human Health Risk Assessment," [ F. Fort memorandum dated 05/ 12/ 06, DP Barcode No. D332808].

" Aldicarb  Revised Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment for the Health Effects Division RED," [ J. Dawson memorandum dated 1/ 11/ 05, DP Barcode No. D311821].


[Federal Register: January 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 14)]
[Notices]
[Page 3792-3793]
[DOCID:fr22ja08-113]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activity Seeking OMB Approval

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) revision of a current
information collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of
information was published on October 29, 2007, vol. 72, no. 208, page
61199. The information collected is needed to determine applicant
eligibility and compliance for certification of Civil Aviation
mechanics and operation of aviation mechanic schools.

DATES: Please submit comments by February 21, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Aviation Maintenance Technician School Certification and
Ratings Application.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0040.
    Forms(s): FAA Form 8310-6.
    Affected Public: An estimated 174 Respondents.
    Frequency: This information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden Per Response: Approximately 1 hour per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 174 hours annually.
    Abstract: The information collected is needed to determine
applicant eligibility and compliance for certification of Civil
Aviation mechanics and operation of aviation mechanic schools.
    Addresses: Interested persons are invited to submit written
comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.
Comments should be addressed to Nathan Lesser, Desk Officer, Department
of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the Department, including whether the information
will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates
of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC on January 14, 2008.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 08-211 Filed 1-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 19276]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09250]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Revocation of Market-Based Rate Authority and
Termination of Electric Market-Based Rate Tariff

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Quarterly Reports.................  ER02-2001-020
Fibrominn LLC..............................  ER12-1161-002
BluCo Energy LLC...........................  ER12-1279-000
Alternate Power Source Inc.,...............  ER11-4550-000
Atlantic Coast Energy Corporation..........  ER13-734-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 19, 2018, the Commission issued an order announcing its
intent to revoke the market-based rate authority of the public
utilities listed in the caption of that order, which included the
companies listed in the caption above, which had failed to file their
required Electric Quarterly Reports.\1\ The Commission directed those
public utilities to file the required Electric Quarterly Reports within
15 days of the date of issuance of the order or face revocation of
their authority to sell power at market-based rates and termination of
their electric market-based rate tariffs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Electric Quarterly Reports, 162 FERC 61,249 (2018) (March 19
Order).
    \2\ Id. at Ordering Paragraph A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The time period for compliance with the March 19 Order has elapsed.
The above-captioned companies failed to file their delinquent Electric
Quarterly Reports. The Commission hereby revokes, effective as of the
date of issuance of this notice, the market-based rate authority and
terminates the electric market-based rate tariff of each of the
companies who are named in the caption of this order.

    Dated: April 25, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-09250 Filed 5-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 50800-50801]
[DOCID:fr28au08-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13167-000]

FFP Ohio River 15, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Applications
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

August 21, 2008.
    On March 25, 2008, FFP Ohio River 15, LLC each filed an
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Ohio River 15 Project, to be
located on the Ohio River in Jefferson County, Indiana and Trimble
County, Kentucky.
    The proposed Ohio River 15 Project consists of: (1) 2,400 proposed
20 kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total installed
capacity of 48

megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission line, and (3) appurtenant
facilities. The FFP Ohio River 15, LLC, project would have an average
annual generation of 210.24 gigawatt-hours and be sold to a local
utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Dan Irvin, FFP Ohio River 15, LLC, 69 Bridge
Street, Manchester, MA 01944, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's website
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13167) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-19937 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 21223]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08406]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2984-042]

S.D. Warren Company; Notice of Availability of Supplemental
Environmental Assessment

    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 the application for new license for the
Eel Weir Project, located at the outlet of Sebago Lake on the
Presumpscot River, in Cumberland County, Maine, and has prepared a
supplemental Environmental Assessment (supplemental EA) for the
project.
    The supplemental EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential
environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the
project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not
constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the
quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the supplemental EA is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY).
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this
notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to
6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. In lieu of electronic
filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The
first page of any filing should include docket number P-2984-042.
    For further information, contact Tom Dean at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 8, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08406 Filed 4-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Date: November 26, 2003 Subject: Review of Correlations Between Process Variables and Emissions for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Industry EPA Contract No. 68 D 1 079; EPA Work Assignment No. 2 12 RTI Project No. 08550.002.012 From: Kristin Parrish Katie Hanks To: Mary Tom Kissell, ESD/ WCPG ( C439 03) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 I. Introduction The purpose of this memorandum is to review potential correlations between process variables and uncontrolled emissions test data. Process variables are characteristics of process units or production processes that could potentially be manipulated ( if technical difficulties could be overcome) to reduce emissions. This memorandum analyzes the process variables used to distinguish process units for purposes of emission factor development including:

dryer firing method ( direct vs. indirect fired)

fuel type used for direct firing ( natural gas vs. wood)

wood type ( hardwood vs. softwood)

resin type ( phenol formaldehyde [ PF] vs. urea formaldehyde [ UF])

tube dryer blending method ( blowline vs. non blowline blending)

As explained in the emission factor documentation memo, the parameters above would have the most significant effect on hazardous air pollutant ( HAP) emissions. 1 Further distinctions in process unit variables ( e. g., specific dryer temperature, press cycle time, wood age, etc.) are impractical because in many cases, the source to source variability is greater than the variability associated with process operating parameters. Based on available data for the PCWP industry and related industries, the following general correlations are expected:

Direct fired dryers generally have higher emissions because combustion emissions are combined with the dryer emissions. 2

Emissions from wood combustion tend to be higher than emissions from natural gas combustion, and thus, combustion related emissions also tend to be higher from direct fired dryers that fire wood as opposed to natural gas.

HAP emissions from drying of wood are highly variable ( e. g., from tree to tree and species to species); THC emissions are also highly variable, however, THC emissions generally tend to be higher when drying softwood species rather than hardwood species due to the presence of non HAP volatile compounds in softwoods such as pinenes. 1, 2

Resins with higher HAP contents are expected to contribute more HAP emissions than resins with lower HAP content, although other parameters such as press temperature and cycle times could also affect HAP emission levels.

Emissions from blowline blend tube dryers are expected to be higher than emissions from non blowline blend tube dryers because the emissions from blending of the resin and wood are combined with the emissions from wood drying in blowline blend tube dryers.

To analyze the potential effect of process variable manipulation on emissions, the formaldehyde, methanol, and total hydrocarbon as carbon ( THC) uncontrolled emissions test data ( e. g., 3 run average emission factors) were sorted within each process unit group according to the variables listed above. Formaldehyde, methanol, and THC were used for this analysis because these are the pollutants are emitted in greatest mass and from the most process units in the plywood and composite wood products ( PCWP) industry. Some process units were not included in this analysis because no data were available to make the process distinctions listed above ( e. g., data were only available for softwood plywood presses using phenol formaldehyde resin, or for one hardboard oven with direct gas firing). Attachments 1 through 8 present graphs of the uncontrolled formaldehyde, methanol, and THC emissions test data according to process distinction. Section II of this memorandum describes the conclusions that can be drawn from the graphs, and Section III describes the technical merits associated with manipulating the process variables.

II. Analysis of Emissions Data According to Process Characteristic A. Dry Rotary Dryers Attachment 1 presents uncontrolled formaldehyde, methanol, and THC emissions test results from particleboard dry rotary dryers. The test results were graphed according to firing method, fuel type, and wood type. The available data do not show any correlation between HAP ( methanol and formaldehyde) or THC emissions and firing method or wood type. The available data also do not show a correlation between formaldehyde or THC emissions and fuel type. The 3 graph of methanol emissions for fuel type would seem to indicate that direct natural gas firing results in greater emissions than direct wood firing; however, this is likely an anomaly because there is only one data point for direct gas firing and all of the other PCWP dryers show lower methanol emissions when firing natural gas instead of wood. The wood dried in dry rotary dryers includes wood that has been previously dried, and thus, the overall HAP and THC emissions from dry rotary dryers are relatively low compared to emissions from other dryer types. At such low emission levels, expected correlations are not exhibited.

B. Green Rotary Dryers Attachment 2 presents uncontrolled emissions test results from medium density fiberboard ( MDF) and particleboard green furnish rotary dryers. The test results were grouped according to fuel type and wood type. All of the green rotary dryers for which data are available are directfired therefore, distinctions in firing method ( e. g., direct vs. indirect fired) could not be analyzed. The data sets for gas vs. wood firing overlap at the lower end of the scale ( i. e., low emissions are exhibited by both gas fired and wood fired dryers); however, the highest emissions generally are associated with wood fired dryers. The methanol and formaldehyde data sets for softwood vs. mixed wood overlap completely, and thus, no correlation between wood type and HAP emissions is observed. The THC data sets for softwood vs. mixed wood also overlap; however, the highest THC data are associated with drying softwoods.

C. Rotary Strand Dryers Attachment 3 presents uncontrolled emissions test results from oriented strandboard ( OSB) and laminated strand lumber ( LSL) rotary strand dryers. The test results were graphed according to wood type. All of the OSB and LSL rotary strand dryers for which data are available are direct wood fired; therefore, distinctions in firing method ( e. g., direct vs. indirectfired and fuel type ( e. g., natural gas vs. wood) could not be analyzed. Drying hardwood appears to result in lower THC emissions but higher methanol emissions than drying softwood or mixed wood in OSB and LSL rotary dryers; however, only one methanol data point is available for hardwood drying. The available data do not show any correlation between formaldehyde emissions and wood type.

D. Primary Tube Dryers Attachment 4 presents uncontrolled emissions test results from primary tube dryers at MDF and hardboard facilities. The test results were grouped according to firing method, fuel type, wood type, resin type, and use of blowline or non blowline blending. The available data show no correlations between HAP or THC emissions and any of the above factors, except blowline vs. non blowline blending ( which likely obscured any other correlations present). The formaldehyde and THC data set for blowline vs. non blowline blending both overlap at the lower end ( i. e., both blowline and non blowline processes can exhibit lower emissions); however, the higher formaldehyde and THC emissions are associated with blowline blending. No correlation is 4 observed between methanol emissions and blowline vs. non blowline blending, which could suggest that the methanol emissions from tube dryers predominantly originate from the wood and not the resin.

E. Secondary Tube Dryers Attachment 5 presents uncontrolled emissions test results from secondary tube dryers at MDF and hardboard facilities. The test results were grouped according to wood type and resin type. All of the secondary tube dryers for which data are available are indirect fired; therefore, distinctions in firing method ( e. g., direct vs. indirect fired) and fuel type ( e. g., natural gas vs. wood) could not be analyzed. The available data do not show any correlation between wood type or resin type and formaldehyde emissions. At first glance, drying hardwood and PF resin appear to result in higher methanol and THC emissions than drying softwood and UF resin in secondary tube dryers. However, this correlation is likely an anomaly because higher THC emissions would be expected from the drying of softwood ( as was the case for rotary strand dryers). These same trends in THC emissions and wood type are not observed for other types of dryers. Upon further examination of the available data for secondary tube dryers, it was discovered that the data points fall into one of only two separate groups: hardboard plants drying hardwood with PF resin and MDF plants drying softwood with UF resin. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that there is a correlation between either resin or wood type and HAP or THC emissions because there are only four data points for each pollutant, and confounding may obscure the true effects of resin type and wood type. In other words, it is impossible to tell whether the emission levels are affected the most by wood type, resin type, or a combination of both factors. Because secondary tube dryers follow primary tube dryers, the majority of the HAP emission have already been released prior to the wood entering the secondary tube dryer, resulting in relatively low emissions as compared to primary tube dryers. As with the dry rotary dryers, at such low emission levels, expected correlations are not exhibited.

F. Hardwood Veneer Dryers Attachment 6 presents uncontrolled emissions test results from hardwood veneer dryers. The test results were graphed according to firing method. All of the direct fired hardwood veneer dryers for which data are available are direct wood fired; therefore, distinctions in fuel type ( e. g., natural gas vs. wood) could not be analyzed. The graph of formaldehyde emissions for firing method seems to indicate that direct wood firing results in greater emissions than indirect heating; however there is only one data point for direct wood firing. No other process units exhibited a correlation between formaldehyde emissions and firing method. The available data do not show a correlation between methanol or THC emissions and firing method. 5 G. Softwood Veneer Dryers Attachment 7 presents uncontrolled emissions test results from softwood veneer dryers. The test results were grouped according to firing method and fuel type. The available data show no correlation between HAP or THC emissions and firing method or fuel type.

H. Hot Presses Attachment 8 presents uncontrolled formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and THC emissions test results from hot presses at particleboard, hardboard, OSB, and MDF facilities. The test results were graphed according to resin type. The resin types include the two most commonly used resins, UF and PF, and two other types of resins ( linseed oil binder and methylene diphenyl diisocyanate [ MDI]). A graph of press phenol emissions data was included in this analysis because phenol is an ingredient in a commonly used resin. The graphs of formaldehyde and methanol emissions seem to indicate that UF resin results in greater emissions than the other types of resins, but the graphs of phenol and THC emissions show no correlation between resin type and emissions. There are not enough data points for linseed oil binder or MDI resin to accurately determine the full effect of those resin types on HAP or THC emissions.

III. Technical Merits of Potential Process Changes Section II presented emissions data for various process unit characteristics to show whether any emission reduction could be achieved through use of a particular type of raw material or process. In the event that an emission reduction could potentially be achieved, this section discusses the technical feasibility of changing raw material and process characteristics at existing facilities and of using processes with certain characteristics at new facilities.

A. Firing Methods and Fuels for Dryers Dryers in the PCWP industry are designed for a particular firing method ( e. g., directversus indirect fired), and direct fired dryers are designed for a particular fuel type ( e. g., natural gas or wood). Dryers designed for direct firing do not have the internal components or geometry necessary for indirect firing. Furthermore, switching from direct to indirect firing would require shifting the fuel combustion necessary to produce hot air to a separate combustion unit; and therefore, emissions associated with combustion would not be eliminated from the facility. Dryer burner and combustion unit designs are generally not capable of handling different fuel types ( e. g., switching from solid wood to liquid natural gas), and generally cannot accommodate changes in fuel volume or shape. Modifications to allow different fuel use could reduce the capacity or efficiency of a burner or combustion unit such that less complete combustion is achieved ( resulting in additional organic HAP emissions.) For these reasons, it would not be feasible for existing sources to switch firing method or fuel type. However, if there were any emission reduction to be achieved, new facilities could choose to install process units designed for a particular firing method or fuel type considering what fuels are available. Many PCWP facilities 6 use their wood waste as fuel, and therefore, it would not be practical or economical for new facilities to purchase natural gas and find an alternative disposal method for their wood waste.

B. Wood Type Existing facilities cannot readily switch wood types ( e. g., from softwoods to hardwoods or from one softwood species mix to another softwood species mix) for several reasons: ( 1) equipment at each facility is often designed for a particular wood type; ( 2) product characteristics would change; and ( 3) PCWP facilities are located near their wood source and must base their operations on the available local wood supply. Plywood products are dependent on a particular wood type ( e. g., softwood plywood is made with softwoods and hardwood plywood is made with hardwoods); therefore changing wood type is not an available option for existing or new plywood facilities. Reconstituted wood products ( e. g., OSB, particleboard, MDF, hardboard, and fiberboard) can be made using a mixture of wood types, depending on the available source of the wood and the facility design and configuration. For plywood and OSB, monitoring of the softwood and hardwood material is not difficult because whole logs are used in the manufacturing process. However, wood chips, flakes, particles, etc. from various sources ( e. g., nearby sawmills or other wood products producers) are used to produce particleboard, MDF, hardboard, and fiberboard, and facilities making these products may have no way to monitor that exact mixture of wood types used. Also, wood material used to manufacture these types of PCWP is often considered " waste wood," and thus the characteristics of this " recycled" material are not always within the control of the PCWP manufacturer. For this reason, it would not be feasible for new ( or existing) facilities producing reconstituted wood products to be required to use a specific wood type.

C. Resin Type Switching from one type of resin to another is not a viable option for new or existing PCWP facilities because the fundamental properties of the product would be altered. For example, UF resin and PF resin are not interchangeable. Urea formaldehyde resins are pale and are used in PCWP ( e. g., particleboard, MDF, hardwood plywood) that will later be used in interior, decorative products where the resin must not show through the products finish ( e. g., cabinets, furniture). Phenol formaldehyde resins are dark brown and water proof and are used in PCWP designed for exterior applications ( e. g., OSB sheathing, softwood plywood roofing, laminated veneer lumber [ LVL] rafters). Some types of products can be made with a limited amount of MDI resin, but cannot be made exclusively with MDI because MDI often sticks to the press platens ( e. g., MDI may be used in the panel core while PF may be used in the panel face). Furthermore, within the engineered wood products sectors, the pressing equipment is configured for a specific type of resin ( e. g., steam injection or microwave pressing, radio frequency curing).

Over the past decades, the PCWP industry and its resin suppliers have responded to pressure to reduce the HAP content of resins. It is expected that this trend will continue into the future ( e. g., resins with lower HAP content may be developed). Resin reformulation is a slow, 7 trial and error process that must be completed by individual facilities and their resin suppliers so that product quality is maintained. No information is available to determine the degree of emission reduction that could be achieved through further resin reformulation. The achievable emission reduction would be very facility specific, and may not be comparable to the emission reduction achievable with add on control systems because emissions originating from the wood would remain.

D. Blowline vs. Non blowline Blending Existing facilities using tube dryers may not be able to switch from blowline blending to non blowline blending due to product quality issues and spatial concerns ( i. e., may not have space to add separate blenders and associated wood handling equipment). However, the technical considerations are irrelevant given the fact that such a switch would not result in any overall emissions reduction. With blowline blend tube dryers, the emissions from blending and drying operations are combined, whereas with non blowline blend tube dryers, the emissions from blending and wood drying exhaust from separate operations. Therefore, switching from blowline to non blowline blending would not result in an overall emissions reduction, but instead would merely shift a portion of the emissions to another process area. In addition, blowline blending may be preferable from an emissions control standpoint because the emissions from blending and wood drying are concentrated in one emissions stream. Therefore, a requirement to use nonblowline blending does not appear to be reasonable for new or existing facilities.

IV. Summary and Conclusions Based on a review of the available emissions data, emissions from PCWP process units are highly variable, and expected correlations between emissions and process changes were not consistently exhibited. Unlike chemical manufacturing plants where the raw materials are chemical compounds with known physical and chemical properties, PCWP plants process wood material that is naturally variable ( even within the same species), and thus, emissions from drying of wood are also variable. Few correlations between process variables and emissions data were revealed, and of those correlations noted, most were either weak correlations ( based on only one data point), counter intuitive, and/ or masked by confounding factors. Furthermore, the correlations observed for one type of process unit generally were not observed for other process unit types. This suggests that the source to source variability is greater than any differences in emissions that could be associated with different process characteristics. In addition, even if meaningful and consistent emission reductions could be achieved through changes in process characteristics, making these changes would not be feasible in most cases. The only process changes determined to be technically feasible were designing new facilities for a specified dryer firing method or fuel type; however, the emissions data show no meaningful correlations in dryer firing method or fuel type. Therefore, none of the process changes considered would be appropriate for consideration in MACT analyses because these process changes either are not technically feasible or would not result in any emissions reduction. 8 V. References 1. Memorandum from D. Bullock and K. Hanks, MRI, to M. Kissell, EPA/ ESD. April 27, 2000. Documentation of Emission Factor Development for the Plywood and composite Wood Products Manufacturing NESHAP.

2. Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Wood Products Manufacturing Facilities, Part I  Plywood, Technical Bulletin No. 768, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, 1999. ATTACHMENT 1 Graphs of Uncontrolled Formaldehyde, Methanol, and THC Emissions Test Data from Particleboard ( PB) Dry Rotary Dryers Formaldehyde test data by firing method, PB dry rotary dryers 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Direct fired Indirect fired Methanol test data by firing method, PB dry rotary dryers 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Direct fired Indirect fired THC test data by firing method, PB dry rotary dryers 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Direct fired Indirect fired Formaldehyde test data by fuel type, direct fired PB dry rotary dryers 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Natural Gas Wood Methanol test data by fuel type, direct fired PB dry rotary dryers 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Natural Gas Wood THC test data by fuel type, direct fired PB dry rotary dryers 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Natural Gas Wood Formaldehyde test data by wood type, PB dry rotary dryers 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Hardw ood Softw ood Methanol test data by wood type, PB dry rotary dryers 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Softw ood THC test data by wood type, PB dry rotary dryers 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Hardw ood Softw ood Mixed w ood ATTACHMENT 2 Graphs of Uncontrolled Formaldehyde, Methanol, and THC Emissions Test Data from MDF and Particleboard Green Furnish Rotary Dryers Formaldehyde test data by fuel type, direct fired green rotary dryers 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Natural Gas Wood Methanol test data by fuel type, direct fired green rotary dryers 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Natural Gas Wood THC test data by fuel type, direct fired green rotary dryers 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Natural Gas Wood Formaldehyde test data by wood type, green rotary dryers 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Softw ood Mixed w ood Methanol test data by wood type, green rotary dryers 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Softw ood Mixed w ood THC test data by wood type, green rotary dryers 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Softwood Mixed w ood ATTACHMENT 3 Graphs of Uncontrolled Formaldehyde, Methanol, and THC Emissions Test Data from OSB and LSL Rotary Strand Dryers Formaldehyde test data by wood type, OSB and LSL rotary strand dryers 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Emission factor, lb/ ODT Hardw ood Softw ood Mixed w ood Methanol test data by wood type, OSB and LSL rotary strand dryers 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Hardw ood Softw ood THC test data by wood type, OSB and LSL rotary strand dryers 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Hardw ood Softw ood Mixed w ood ATTACHMENT 4 Graphs of Uncontrolled Formaldehyde, Methanol, and THC Emissions Test Data from MDF and Hardboard Primary Tube Dryers Formaldehyde test data by firing method, primary tube dryers 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Direct fired Indirect fired Methanol test data by firing method, primary tube dryers 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Direct fired Indirect fired THC test data by firing method, primary tube dryers 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Direct fired Indirect fired Formaldehyde test data by fuel type, direct fired primary tube dryers 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Natural Gas Wood Methanol test data by fuel type, direct fired primary tube dryers 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Natural Gas Wood THC test data by fuel type, direct fired primary tube dryers 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Natural Gas Wood Formaldehyde test data by wood type, primary tube dryers 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Hardw ood Softwood Methanol test data by wood type, primary tube dryers 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Hardw ood Softw ood THC test data by wood type, primary tube dryers 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Emssion Factor, lb/ ODT Hardw ood Softw ood Formaldehyde test data by resin type, primary tube dryers 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT PF UF Methanol test data by resin type, primary tube dryers 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT PF UF THC test data by resin type, primary tube dryers 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT PF UF Formaldehyde test data by blowline blend, primary tube dryers 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Non Blow line Blow line Methanol test data by blowline blend, primary tube dryers 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Non Blow line Blow line THC test data by blowline blend, primary tube dryers 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Non Blow line Blow line ATTACHMENT 5 Graphs of Uncontrolled Formaldehyde, Methanol, and THC Emissions Test Data from MDF and Hardboard Secondary Tube Dryers Formaldehyde test data by wood type, secondary tube dryers 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Hardw ood Softw ood Methanol test data by wood type, secondary tube dryers 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Hardw ood Softw ood THC test data by wood type, secondary tube dryers 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Hardw ood Softw ood Formaldehyde test data by resin type, secondary tube dryers 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT PF UF Methanol test data by resin type, secondary tube dryers 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT PF UF THC test data by resin type, secondary tube dryers 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT PF UF ATTACHMENT 6 Graphs of Uncontrolled Formaldehyde, Methanol, and THC Emissions Test Data from Hardwood Veneer Dryers Formaldehyde test data by firing method, hardwood veneer dryers 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Direct w ood fired Indirect heated Methanol test data by firing method, hardwood veneer dryers 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Direct w ood fired Indirect heated THC test data by firing method, hardwood veneer dryers 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Direct w ood fired Indirect heated ATTACHMENT 7 Graphs of Uncontrolled Formaldehyde, Methanol, and THC Emissions Test Data from Softwood Veneer Dryers Formaldehyde test data by firing method, softwood veneer dryers 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Direct f ired Indirect heated Methanol test data by firing method, softwood veneer dryers 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Direct f ired Indirect heated THC test data by firing method, softwood veneer dryers 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Direct fired Indirect heated Formaldehyde test data by fuel type, direct fired softwood veneer dryers 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Natural Gas Wood Methanol test data by fuel type, direct fired softwood veneer dryers 0.0355 0.0356 0.0357 0.0358 0.0359 0.036 0.0361 0.0362 0.0363 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Natural Gas THC test data by fuel type, direct fired softwood veneer dryers 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Emission Factor, lb/ ODT Natural Gas Wood ATTACHMENT 8 Graphs of Uncontrolled Formaldehyde, Methanol, Phenol, and THC Emissions Test Data from Particleboard, Hardboard, OSB, and MDF Hot Presses Formaldehyde test data by resin type, hot presses 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 lb/ MSF 3/ 4 UF PF/ MDI PF linseed oil MDI Methanol test data by resin type, hot presses 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 lb/ MSF 3/ 4 UF PF/ MDI PF linseed oil Phenol test data by resin type, hot presses 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 lb/ MSF 3/ 4 UF PF/ MDI PF linseed oil THC test data by resin type, hot presses 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 lb/ MSF 3/ 4 UF PF/ MDI PF linseed oil MDI


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 365-366]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33202]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0879; FRL-8860-5]

Exposure Modeling Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: An Exposure Modeling Public Meeting (EMPM) will be held for
one day on January 11, 2011. This notice announces the location and
time for the meeting and sets forth the tentative agenda topics.

DATES: The meeting will be held on January 11, 2011 from 9 a.m. to
12:30 p.m. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, preferably prior
to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your
request.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 4th Floor South Conference Room (S-4370/80), 2777 S. Crystal
Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chuck Peck, Environmental Fate and
Effects Division (7507P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are required
to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not
attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by
this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0879. Publicly available docket materials are available
either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if
only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

II. Background

    On a biannual interval, an Exposure Modeling Public Meeting will be
held for presentation and discussion of current issues in modeling
pesticide fate, transport, and exposure of risk assessment in a
regulatory context. Meeting dates and abstract requests are announced
through the ``empmlist'' forum on the LYRIS list server at https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_forums/.

III. How can I request to participate in this meeting?

    You may submit a request to participate in this meeting to the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Do not submit any
information in your request that is considered CBI. Requests to
participate in the meeting, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2009-0879, must be received 3 days after January 4, 2011.

IV. Tentative Topics for the Meeting

    Tentative topics for the meeting will include presentations related
to the spatial context of terrestrial exposure modeling. Specifically,
presentations will include the following:
     Estimation of confidence intervals for metabolite
degradation rates.
     Developments in terrestrial exposure modeling.
     Determining the fate and transport of pesticides in the
Chesapeake Bay region.
     Habitat classification for ecological risk assessments
using aerial photography and GIS data.
     Dermal contact, movement, and amphibian pesticide
exposure.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, modeling, monitoring, pesticides.

    Dated: December 28, 2010.
Arthur-Jean Williams,
Acting Director, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-33202 Filed 1-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I was fully able to quit traditional cigarettes through the use of E-Cigs. Tobacco cigarettes were a plague in my life that i had to deal with for 5 years. I am 23 Years old now and becoming physically addicted to a product that has known carcinogens is unacceptable to say the least. I am sure that you have not had to deal with addiction but it is a monster as i have learned with other substances. After being clean from everything else, cigarettes were still present and an issue. Being able to quit them aswell as snuff has brought me great joy in knowing that i am not knocking years off my life anymore. I know there needs to be more studies and research done but we need to allow time for this to happen. In that time, i most certainly think that this is 100% the lesser evil when comparing the two.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 100 (Thursday, May 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24113-24114]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10755]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0011; FRL-9958-19]

Registration Review; Neonicotinoid Risk Assessments; Summary
Response to Comments, and Updated Neonicotinoid Work Schedule; Notice
of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of the aquatic
ecological assessment for imidacloprid, the combined preliminary
pollinator risk assessment for clothianidin and thiamethoxam, and the
draft bee assessment for dinotefuran, and opens a public comment period
on these three assessment documents. This notice also announces the
availability of EPA's Registration Review Update for Four Neonicotinoid
Insecticides. The Registration Review Update describes the next steps
and information needs for the Agency's registration review of the
neonicotinoids. This notice also announces the availability of a
summary document that responds to certain comments received on the
Preliminary Pollinator Assessment for imidacloprid, issued in January
2016. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that
each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific knowledge.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 24, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the docket
identification (ID) number for the specific pesticide of interested
provided in Table 1 of Unit III., by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For pesticide specific information
contact: The Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest
identified in Table 1 of Unit III.
    For general questions on the registration review program, contact:
Richard Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the Chemical Review Manager identified in Table 1 of Unit III.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at

http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed
in Table 1 of Unit III pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural
Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C.
Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the
registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under
FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only
if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must
perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

III. Registration Reviews

    As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide
registration for the pesticides listed in Table 1 to ensure that they
continue to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration, that is, that
these chemicals can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects
on human health or the environment.

  Table 1--Chemicals for Which Assessments are Being Made Available for
                             Public Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Chemical review
 Registration review case name   Docket ID number   manager and contact
          and number                                    information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clothianidin 7620.............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0  Ricardo Jones,
                                 865<EMAIL_ADDRESS>703-347-0493.
Dinotefuran 7441..............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0  Steven Snyderman,
                                 920<EMAIL_ADDRESS>703-347-0249.
Imidacloprid 7605.............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0  Ricardo Jones,
                                 844<EMAIL_ADDRESS>703-347-0493.
Thiamethoxam 7614.............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0  Thomas Harty,
                                 581<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                                    ,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity,
through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide
comments and input concerning the Agency's ecological assessments for
the chemicals listed in Table 1. Such comments and input could address,
among other things, the Agency's risk assessment methodology and
assumptions applied to its draft risk assessments, such as its
methodology for estimating colony-level risk to bees from exposure to
bee bread. The Agency will then issue updated assessments, and address
public comments.
    1. Other related information. Additional information on the
registration review status of the chemicals listed in Table 1, as well
as information on the Agency's registration review program and on its
implementing regulation is available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.
    2. Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or
information in response to this document. To be considered during a
pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must
meet the following requirements:
     To ensure that EPA will consider data or information
submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information
during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider
data or information submitted at a later date.
     The data or information submitted must be presented in a
legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must
accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript
must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or
videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or
electronic form.
     Submitters must clearly identify the source of any
submitted data or information.
     Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or
information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However,
submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider
the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.
    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for
each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the
duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions
required in the final decision on the registration review case have
been completed.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: February 2, 2017.
Yu-Ting Guilaran,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2017-10755 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


1 Small entities are defined as small businesses, small governments, and non profits that are not dominant in their field. Summary Overview for Docket ID No. OPP 2003 0115 Section 610 Review of the Pesticide Worker Protection Rule April 29, 2003 ° What is a Section 610 Review?

The Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) generally requires agencies to examine the impact of their proposed and final regulations on small entities. 1 Section 610 of the RFA requires that within ten years of promulgation, the Agency review rules that have or will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities ( SISNOSE).

° Did EPA certify the Pesticide Worker Protection Rule as having a SISNOSE?

No. For EPA rules on which work started after April 9, 1992 and which were issued before February 5, 1997, EPA was operating under a policy which did not require it to designate whether a rule had a SISNOSE and did not use the common certification statement SISNOSE. EPA stated in the preamble to the Pesticide Worker Protection Rule that " The Agency has determined that the burden on small agricultural businesses does not outweigh the risk to handlers and workers employed in those businesses, and that further exemptions from the regulation for small businesses would not be warranted."( 57 FR 38146, August 21, 1992)

° What is the purpose of a Section 610 Review?

The purpose of this review is to determine whether such rules should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded to lessen any significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. In reviewing rules under section 610 the Agency shall consider, ( 1) the continued need for the rule; ( 2) the nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule from the public; ( 3) the complexity of the rule; ( 4) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other Federal rules, and to the extent feasible, with State and local Governmental rules; and, ( 5) the length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.

° What does the Pesticide Worker Protection Rule require?

On August 21, 1992, EPA issued the final Pesticide Worker Protection Rule ( WPR) governing the protection of workers from agricultural pesticides. These revised regulations expand the scope of the standards to include not only workers performing hand labor operations in fields treated with pesticides, but employees in forests, nurseries, and greenhouses and employees who handle ( mix, load, apply, etc.) pesticides for use in these locations. The revised regulations became effective January 1, 1995, and are applicable to agricultural farm workers and pesticide handlers working on farms, forests, nurseries, and Page 2 of 4 greenhouses.

° Has EPA amended the WPR to address any concerns by regulated entities since 1992?

Yes. In 1995 and 1996, the standard was amended to address specific concerns of the regulation community. Amendments to the requirements address the exception process and exceptions for limited contact activities, roses and irrigation activities. The most recent amendments include warning signs, crop advisories, training requirements, decontamination and proposed changes related to gloves.

° How do I obtain more information about the Pesticide WPR?

For the complete Pesticide Worker Protection Standard, go to 40 CFR Part 170   Pesticide Worker Protection Standard Regulations ( http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ safety/ workers/ PART170. htm). For more additional information about the Pesticide WPR go to http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ health/ worker. htm.

° How can I submit comments or suggestions for lessening the burden on small entities?

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier using one of the following methods. For this action, please DO NOT submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute.

1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select " search," and then key in Docket ID No. OPP 2003 0115. The system is an " anonymous access" system, which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of Page 3 of 4 your comment.

ii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified below. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By Mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 7502C, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OPP 2003 0115.

3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA., Attention Docket ID No. OPP 2003 0115. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified below.

° How can I access other comments or suggestions that have been submitted?

EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP 2003 0115. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305 5805.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA

s electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA

s electronic public docket. EPA

s policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA

s electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA

s electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA

s electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified above. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA

s electronic public docket. Page 4 of 4 For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA

s policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA

s electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA

s electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA

s electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA

s electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA

s electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked " late." EPA is not required to consider these late comments. For this action, please DO NOT submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute.


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:I started vaping as an alternative to cigarettes. Not only do I not smell horribly bad, I have had other health benefits. Among them are lowered blood pressure, improved lung function as well as less asthma attacks. I vape far less than the packs of cigarettes that I smoked. Additionally, I have dramatically lowered the amount of nicotine I ingest on a daily basis. I am a firm believer that "electronic cigarettes" are not only a viable option to smoking, but can also be used to discard the habit all together. And to the FDA especially, classifying something that is in no way, shape, or form a "tobacco" product is ridiculous in the extreme. Nicotine can come from tobacco but the products used by the vapor industry are FAR less harmful to public health than tobacco cigarettes. Vapor does not contain carbon monoxide as tobacco cigarettes do, as well as whatever additives the cigarette company throws in to increase their addictiveness. Please reevaluate this policy. A 75 day comment period is insufficient time for the vaping industry and the wider vaping community to comment on the proposed deeming regulations. I would respectfully request that the period for comment be extended to 180 days.