[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 51 (Friday, March 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16551-16552]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05985]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69101; File No. SR-NYSE-2013-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending the New York Stock Exchange LLC Price List To Increase the
Gross FOCUS Fee

March 11, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on February 26, 2013, New York Stock Exchange LLC (the
``Exchange'' or ``NYSE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
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\ 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 amend the Exchange's Price List to
increase the gross FOCUS fee (``Gross FOCUS Fee''). The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to increase the Gross
FOCUS Fee. The Exchange proposes to immediately reflect the proposed
change in its Price List, but not to implement the proposed rate change
until April 1, 2013.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange has proposed changes to the Price List, as
reflected in the Exhibit 5 in a manner that would permit readers of
the Price List to identify the proposed increase to the Gross FOCUS
Fee that would be implemented on April 1, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently charges each member organization a monthly
Gross FOCUS Fee of $0.105 per $1,000 of gross revenue reported on its
FOCUS Report.\4\ Member organizations are subject to certain minimum
annual Gross FOCUS Fees, which are $500 for carrying firms and
designated market makers (``DMMs''), $250 for introducing firms, and
$45 for member organizations who do not conduct a public business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ FOCUS is an acronym for Financial and Operational Combined
Uniform Single Report. FOCUS Reports are filed periodically with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'' or ``SEC'')
as SEC Form X-17A-5 pursuant to Rule 17a-5 under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to increase the rate of the Gross FOCUS Fee
from $0.105 per $1,000 of gross revenue to $0.12 per $1,000 of gross
revenue.\5\ The Exchange is proposing this increase in order to offset
increased regulatory expenses. In this regard, the Exchange notes that
it has not increased the Gross FOCUS Fee in more than five years, since
January 2008.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange is also proposing to specify, as is the case
today, that the Gross FOCUS Fee is charged monthly. The Exchange is
not proposing to change the existing minimum annual Gross FOCUS
Fees.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56181 (August 1,
2007), 72 FR 44206 (August 7, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-70).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange allocates the funds collected pursuant to the Gross
FOCUS Fee to fund the performance of its regulatory activities with
respect to member organizations, including expenses associated with the
regulatory functions performed both by NYSE Regulation, Inc. (``NYSE
Regulation'') and by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') pursuant to a regulatory services agreement, for which
FINRA is paid by NYSE Regulation.
    The Exchange will monitor the amount of revenue collected from the
Gross FOCUS Fee to ensure that it, in combination with its other
regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. The
Exchange expects to monitor regulatory costs and revenues on an annual
basis, at a minimum. If the Exchange determines that regulatory
revenues exceed regulatory costs, the Exchange would adjust the Gross
FOCUS Fee downward by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission.
    In addition to being included in the Exchange's Price List, the
Gross FOCUS Fee is also set forth in NYSE Rule 129, along with the
applicable minimum annual fees described above.\7\ The Exchange
proposes to remove the duplicative Gross FOCUS Fee text from NYSE Rule
129. As a result, NYSE Rule 129 would no longer include the Gross FOCUS
Fee or the applicable annual minimums. However, NYSE Rule 129 would
continue to provide that the Exchange's Board may, from time to time,
impose such charge or charges on members and member organizations as it
deems appropriate to reimburse the Exchange, in whole or in part, for

regulatory oversight services provided to the membership by the
Exchange.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57139
(January 14, 2008), 73 FR 3503 (January 18, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-01).
    \8\ The Exchange is also proposing a non-substantive,
grammatical change to this text in NYSE Rule 129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed change is not otherwise
intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of
any problems that member organizations would have in complying with the
proposed change.
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 6(b)(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 Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable
because the increase in the Gross FOCUS Fee would permit the Exchange
to offset increased regulatory expenses related to member
organizations. In this regard, the Exchange notes that it has not
increased the Gross FOCUS Fee in more than five years, since January
2008.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the level of the Gross FOCUS Fee
is reasonable because it is expected to generate revenues that, when
combined with the Exchange's other regulatory fees with respect to
member organizations, will be less than or equal to the Exchange's
regulatory costs. The Exchange believes that this is consistent with
the Commission's previously stated view that regulatory fees be used
for regulatory purposes and not to support the Exchange's business
side.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed change is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because the Gross FOCUS Fee is assessed
in an objective manner to all member organizations based on gross
revenue reported on their FOCUS Reports.
    The Exchange also believes that consolidating the text related to
the Gross FOCUS Fee in the Price List is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it would provide member organizations
with a single location to reference the applicable fees and would
eliminate unnecessary duplication of related text.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not
designed to address any competitive issues. Rather, the proposed change
is designed to permit the Exchange to adequately fund its regulatory
activities in light of increased regulatory expenses related to member
organizations.

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) \12\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \13\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2013-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2013-19. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site 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. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2013-19 and should be
submitted on or before April 5, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-05985 Filed 3-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 8527]
[DOCID:fr25fe09-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-686-001]

New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Filing

February 18, 2009.
    Take notice that on February 12, 2009, the New York Independent
System Operator, Inc. filed an erratum to its February 10, 2009 filing,
revising two of its Tariffs, Market Administration and Controls Area
Services Tariff and its Open Access Transmission Tariff.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 24, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-3970 Filed 2-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 199 (Monday, October 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 62541]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25219]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release Nos. 33-9365; 34-68019; File No. 265-28]

Investor Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Telephonic Meeting of Securities and Exchange
Commission Investor Advisory Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory
Committee, established pursuant to Section 911 of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, is providing notice
that it will hold a telephonic meeting on Friday, October 12, 2012. The
meeting will begin at 12:00 p.m. (EDT) and end at 1:00 p.m. and will be
open to the public via telephone at 1-866-606-4717, participant code
3877211. Persons needing special accommodations to take part because of
a disability should notify the contact person listed below. The public
is invited to submit written statements to the Committee. The agenda
for the meeting includes discussion of and voting on a recommendation
from the Investor as Purchaser subcommittee regarding the Jumpstart Our
Business Startups Act (JOBS Act) requirements on general solicitation
and general advertising in Rule 506 private placements.

DATES: Written statements should be received on or before October 12,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Written statements may be submitted by any of the following
methods:

Electronic Statements

    [ssquf] Use the Commission's Internet submission form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml); or
    [ssquf] Send an email message to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File No. 265-28 on the subject line; or

Paper Statements

    [ssquf] Send paper statements in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Stop 1090, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. 265-28. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
process and review your statement more efficiently, please use only one
method.
    Statements also will be available for Web site viewing and printing
in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Room 1580,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements received will be posted without
change; we do not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: M. Owen Donley, Chief Counsel, at
(202) 551-6322, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

    Dated: October 9, 2012.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-25219 Filed 10-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 50)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13488-13490]
[DOCID:fr13mr08-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0294; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-288-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Model Falcon 2000EX Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

    Analyses of in-service reports revealed that in case of failure
of the wings anti-ice valve, indications of untimely anti-icing with
the wings anti-ice selector on ``OFF'' or of insufficient anti-icing
with the wings anti-ice selector on ``AUTO'' might not be properly
displayed to the flight crew. It may result, on ground, in potential
structural damages due to a leading edge overheat, or in-flight, in
an insufficient anti-ice power.
* * * * *
The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0294;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-288-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2007-0137, dated May 16, 2007 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Analyses of in-service reports revealed that in case of failure
of the wings anti-ice valve, indications of untimely anti-icing with
the wings anti-ice selector on ``OFF'' or of insufficient anti-icing
with the wings anti-ice selector on ``AUTO'' might not be properly
displayed to the flight crew. It may result, on ground, in potential
structural damages due to a leading edge overheat, or in-flight, in
an insufficient anti-ice power.
    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) mandates an upgrade of the
wings anti-ice monitoring circuitry per implementation of
modifications M2814 (Service Bulletin (SB) F2000EX-116) and M2949
(SB F2000EX-140) to cover the whole monitoring logic of the wings
anti-ice system.

The modifications include adding a relay between the bleed air computer
and the wing anti-ice valve; modifying the aircraft wiring; and
rerouting an existing wire between the right- and left-hand electrical
cabinets. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in
the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Dassault has issued Service Bulletin F2000EX-116, dated May 31,
2006, and Service Bulletin F2000EX-140, dated February 28, 2007. The
actions described in this service information are intended to correct
the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 13 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 46 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,344 per product. Where
the service information lists required parts costs that are covered
under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these
costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties,
some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $65,312, or $5,024 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2008-0294; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-288-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by April 14, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Dassault Model Falcon 2000EX airplanes;
certificated in any category; having serial numbers 1 through 5 and
7 through 27 inclusive.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30: Ice and
Rain Protection.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Analyses of in-service reports revealed that in case of failure
of the wings anti-ice valve, indications of untimely anti-icing with
the wings anti-ice selector on ``OFF'' or of insufficient anti-icing
with the wings anti-ice selector on ``AUTO'' might not be properly
displayed to the flight crew. It may result, on ground, in potential
structural damages due to a leading edge overheat, or in-flight, in
an insufficient anti-ice power.
    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) mandates an upgrade of the
wings anti-ice monitoring circuitry per implementation of
modifications M2814 (Service Bulletin (SB) F2000EX-116) and M2949
(SB F2000EX-140) to cover the whole monitoring logic of the wings
anti-ice system.

The modifications include adding a relay between the bleed air
computer and the wing anti-ice valve; modifying the aircraft wiring;
and rerouting an existing wire between the right- and left-hand
electrical cabinets.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, unless
already done, modify the electrical wiring of the wings' anti-ice
system, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-116, dated May 31, 2006, and
Service Bulletin F2000EX-140, dated February 28, 2007.

FAA AD Differences

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

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Airworthiness Directive 2007-0137, dated May 16, 2007; Dassault
Service Bulletin F2000EX-116, dated May 31, 2006; and Dassault
Service Bulletin F2000EX-140, dated February 28, 2007; for related
information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 3, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-5006 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 225)]
[Notices]
[Page 65728-65729]
[DOCID:fr23no07-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12898-000]

BPUS Generation Development, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

November 16, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12898-000.
    c. Date filed: July 30, 2007.
    d. Applicant: BPUS Generation Development, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Mississippi Lock & Dam No. 16 Hydroelectric
Project.
    f. Location: Mississippi River in Rock Island County, Illinois, and
Muscatine County, Iowa. It would use the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
Mississippi Lock & Dam No. 16.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Jeffrey M. Auser, P.E., BPUS Generation
Development, LLC, 225 Greenfield Parkway, Suite 201, Liverpool, NY
13088,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project
number (P-12898-000) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project using the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' Mississippi Lock & Dam No. 16 and operated in a
run-of-river mode would consist of: (1) A new 205-foot long, 160-foot
wide, 60-foot high concrete powerhouse; (2) a new intake channel and
tailrace channel on the north side of the river opposite the existing
lock structure; (3) five turbine/generator units with a combined
installed capacity of 13.75 megawatts; (4) a new 8,200-foot long
aboveground transmission line extending from the switchyard near the
powerhouse to an interconnection point with an existing 69-kilovolt
transmission line at the Highway 92 bridge on the Iowa side of the
river; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The proposed Mississippi Lock &
Dam No. 16 Project would have an average annual generation of 92
gigawatt-hours.
    l. This filing 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, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy
is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in
item h above.
    m. Competing Preliminary Permit--Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the

specified comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR
4.36). Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested
person to file the competing preliminary permit application no later
than 30 days after the specified comment date for the particular
application. A competing preliminary permit application must conform
with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    n. Competing Development Application--Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    o. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    p. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit--A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    q. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', and ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular application to which the filing
refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the
original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's
regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be
sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A
copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    s. Agency Comments--Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-22836 Filed 11-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


January 27, 1999 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: REVISION OF EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR DICHLORVOS ( DDVP) APPLIED TO GREENHOUSES AND MUSHROOM HOUSES ( D251337, PC Code 084001)

FROM: David Jaquith Chemistry and Exposure Branch 2 Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

TO: Jess Rowland Risk Characterization and Analysis Branch Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

THRU: Sue Hummel, Senior Scientist Chemistry and Exposure Branch 2 Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

1.0 INTRODUCTION In April 1998 exposure assessments were conducted for the use of dichlorvos ( DDVP) in greenhouses and mushroom houses ( 1). The assessments assumed that either hand held foggers or total release smoke generators are used for application to greenhouses. Mushroom house application was considered to be made using a hand held fogger, coarse spray, or by paintbrush. HED has received notification from Special Review Branch that the registrant, AMVAC Chemical Corporation, is voluntarily deleting applications using a hand held fogger. That document is presented in Appendix A.

In addition, subsequent to the production of that document, the Health Effects Division Exposure Scientific Advisory Council ( EXPOSAC) has generated a series of generic transfer coefficients to be used in lieu of data for a number of reentry scenarios. These coefficients are presented in Appendix B. These transfer coefficients are different from those used in the earlier 1998 assessment. D251337 Page 2 of 24 The exposure assessment has been revised to reflect these changes. Other parameters used in the assessment have not changed. The calculations and the rationale behind the calculations for reentry from the previous document are repeated in this document for clarity.

2.0 CONCLUSIONS HED has provided revised earlier estimates of workers applying DDVP in greenhouses and mushroom houses based on changes in application and reentry parameters that have become evident since production of the exposure assessment of April 1998. Explanations of the quality of data and the methods by which estimates were derived are presented below. An explanation of the uncertainties associated with each scenario is also included. The exposures for all of the scenarios are summarized in Table 1.

Greenhouse The only methods of application of DDVP to greenhouses that were previously allowed were by hand held fogger and by use of total release smoke generators. The former method has been voluntarily withdrawn from the technical label ( see Appendix A). Smoke generators of the type used for DDVP are units which are ignited by the applicator who immediately leaves the facility. Exposure under these conditions is considered to be negligible.

Exposure estimates for workers were reentering a greenhouse were derived from the combination of a literature study ( for the dermal component) and models using ventilation information obtained from a greenhouse operation textbook. Air flow information, described in detail in Section 4.2 was used to derive a series of first order decay equations under various conditions, considered to representative of normal greenhouse operations. The estimated respiratory exposures from these scenarios were combined with an estimate of the dermal transfer coefficient obtained from a study in the scientific literature to yield a total exposure. The exposure estimates are presented in Table 1.

The post application dermal exposures for greenhouse workers were derived from foliar dislodgeable values obtained from a study in which a DDVP/ Chlorpyrifos mixture was sprayed on lawns, not fogger application to a greenhouse. It is not known what the actual deposition of DDVP would be on the foliage after actuation of a smoke generating product. The deposition of DDVP from a smoke generator was assumed to be the same as that from the spray study. It is also not known whether the dissipation patterns are similar for these two formulation/ application scenarios. The transfer coefficients for greenhouse and mushroom house activities were obtained from the generic transfer coefficient table published by the Health Effects Division Exposure D251337 Page 3 of 24 Advisory Council ( EXPOSAC), presented in Appendix B. The estimated transfer coefficient for greenhouse reentry is assumed to be 10000 cm5/ hr. The estimated dermal exposures for reentry to greenhouses are also presented in Table 1.

Mushroom Houses Application DDVP can be applied to mushroom houses by coarse spray or using paint on methods. The data for coarse spray application DDVP to mushroom houses are very limited. They were obtained from limited data from the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database ( PHED) V1.1 and ranged from 9 to 13 replicates, depending on application equipment. These are considered to be low confidence data sets ( 2).

The estimates of the amounts of DDVP to be handled and surface areas treated were obtained using information found in a mushroom culture textbook. These parameters may not be applicable for all sites. In lieu of specific data it was necessary to use very conservative assumptions, particularly with regard to the surface areas of beds, tables, and walls of mushroom houses, which would be the areas treated by coarse spray applicators or those using paintbrushes for application.

The estimate of postapplication exposure to mushroom workers was obtained from a very limited study measuring surface residues and air concentrations in 2 4 mushroom house over a 24 hour period. The very limited data used to obtain the estimates and the resulting uncertainties must be considered when making any regulatory judgements regarding these uses. As was the case for greenhouses, the transfer coefficients were obtained from the EXPOSAC document presented in Appendix B. The transfer coefficient for mushroom houses is assumed to be 2500 cm 2 / hr. D251337 Page 4 of 24 Table 1. Summary of Exposures of Workers to DDVP During and Following Application to Greenhouses or Mushroom Houses.

Site Clothing Total Daily Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) NOEL ( mg/ kg/ day) MOE Greenhouse Post Application No protective clothing 0.023 if entering after 2 hours of ventilation; 0.0023 if entering after 10 hours of ventilation 0.5 22 after 2 hours;

217 after 10 hours Mushroom House Coarse Spray Application Long pants, Long sleeve shirt, gloves 0.0035 to 0.024 0.1 4.2 to 28 Mushroom House Coarse Spray Application Long pants, Long sleeve shirt, gloves,

respirator ( 90%

protection) 0.0016 to 0.022 0.1 4.6 to 62.1 Mushroom House Paint Application Long pants, Long sleeve shirt, gloves NO DATA but not expected to exceed spray application. NO DATA but not expected to exceed spray application. NO DATA but not expected to exceed spray application.

Mushroom House Post Application No protective clothing 0.0088 if entering after 12 hours of ventilation; 0.0052 if entering 24 hours of ventilation 0.5 57 after 12 hours; 96 after 24 hours D251337 Page 5 of 24 3.0 USE AND LABEL INFORMATION HED has an estimate of the use of DDVP in greenhouses from a 1985 memorandum received from BUD ( 3). An average ornamental crop ( carnations, chrysanthemums, or roses, etc.) takes about 16 weeks per crop. It is believed that DDVP would not be applied more than once a week and no more than 3 times per crop. This would yield a short term exposure scenario with a NOEL of 0.5 mg/ kg/ day ( 4). The target MOE for short term exposures is 10.

Of the previously existing labels listed in Appendix C for greenhouse/ mushroom house use only 2 are currently allowed by the technical label. One is a smoke generating product and this label is still valid. The other specifies that the chemical is to be applied as either a coarse spray or painted on surfaces in mushroom houses only.

4.0 GREENHOUSE EXPOSURES 4.1 Greenhouse Applicator Exposure 4.1.1 Fogger Application Since the deletion of hand held foggers from the technical label application of DDVP to greenhouses is allowed only by smoke generator. Smoke generators and other total release foggers are assumed to provide negligible exposure to the applicator since the applicator is required to exit the facility immediately upon igniting the smoke generators. Likewise automatic foggers would be considered to have negligible applicator exposure, although there may be potential for mixer/ loader exposures. No such products are registered for greenhouses at this time. Any exposure in a greenhouse scenario would be from reentry.

The use report for DDVP ( 3) indicates that an average greenhouse has the dimensions of 120 feet in length, 48 feet wide, 10 feet high at the walls, and 20 feet at the roof peak. The estimated volume was 85,000 ft;. A typical operation was assumed to consist of 7 greenhouses which could be treated in a single day. Treatment was estimated to be 3.75 minutes per house or 26 minutes ( 0.44 hrs) per day. Treatment would not be expected to occur in a given greenhouse more than once a week, resulting in an acute exposure scenario. The appropriate NOEL would be 0.5 mg/ kg/ day ( 4). D251337 Page 6 of 24 4.2 Greenhouse Post Application Exposure 4.2.1 Greenhouse Post Application Dermal Exposure HED has no data addressing surface residues of DDVP in the greenhouse environment. The only dislodgeable foliar residue data available were from a study found in the public literature following application of DDVP to a home lawn. The study description is presented below.

DISLODGEABLE RESIDUES OF DDVP ON TURF CITATION: Goh, K. S, S. Edmiston, K. T. Maddy, D. D. Meinders and S Margetich ( 1986) Dissipation of Dislodgeable Foliar Residue of Chlorpyrifos and Dichlorvos on Turf. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 37: 27 32.

Dislodgeable residues of chlorpyrifos and dichlorvos were measured in turf plots located in Sacramento County. Six 0.61 m x 2.44 m plots of healthy Kentucky bluegrass were sprayed at 700 AM with an insecticidal formulation containing 2.6% DDVP and 3.0% chlorpyrifos (. 0.25 lb ai per gallon for each component. The material was applied at the maximum label rate of 3.79 L of product in 605 L of water for 508 m 2 ( 5466 ft 2 ) of lawn. Immediately after spraying, three of the plots were watered with one half inch of water. Leaf samples were collected before application, immediately after treatment, and at intervals of 2, 6, 10, 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours. Two randomly selected samples of approximately 8 grams each were obtained from each plot and immediately stored on ice until transfer to the analytical laboratory.

Since it is much easier to measure leaf weight than area, a linear regression correlation equation was used to determine the correlation of leaf weight to surface area. Leaf samples weighing 2 to 18 grams and weighed to the nearest centigram. A single surface leaf area was determined for each sample using a leaf area meter ( LI COR, Nebraska). The linear regression equation, forced through the origin, was Y = 79.28 X with an r 2 of 0.99.

Dislodgeable residues were determined by rotating the leaf samples three times ( 30 minutes each) once with 0.2 mL of 2% Sur Ten Solution, once with 50 mL water with Sur Ten, and finally with 50 mL of water alone. The 150 mL solution was extracted three times with 50, 25, and 25 mL ethyl acetate, the solvent phase was dried over sodium sulfate. The sample solutions were analyzed by gas chromatography with a detection limit of 1Fg per sample.

The DDVP dislodgeable foliar residue level was 0.10 Fg/ cm 2 immediately after application (< 2 hrs). After 2 hours the level in the non irrigated plots had dropped to D251337 Page 7 of 24 approximately 0.04 Fg/ cm 2 ( Confidence interval .0.32 to 0.05 Fg/ cm 2 ). Levels remained at approximately these levels at the 6 hour interval. By 10 hours the levels had dropped to .0.004 Fg/ cm 2 . Dissipation was faster in the plots that had been watered but were also at levels of .0.004 Fg/ cm 2 after 10 hours. No material was detected after the 24 sampling period.

The dislodgeable foliar residue level of DDVP was 0.10 Fg/ cm 2 immediately after application (< 2 hrs). After 2 hours the level in the non irrigated plots had dropped to approximately 0.04 Fg/ cm 2 ( Confidence interval .0.32 to 0.05 Fg/ cm 2 ). Levels remained at approximately these levels at the 6 hour interval. By 10 hours the levels had dropped to .0.004 Fg/ cm 2 . Dissipation was faster in the plots that had been watered but were also at levels of . 0.004 Fg/ cm 2 after 10 hours. No material was detected after the 24 sampling period.

In order to estimate dermal exposure from dislodgeable residues, a transfer factor is necessary. The previously used transfer coefficient was obtained from a literature study in which pesticide exposures were monitored during the harvesting of flowers in the Netherlands ( 5). The estimated transfer coefficient was 4500 cm5/ hr. A default value of 10000 cm 2 / hr has been selected by the EXPOSAC for greenhouse reentry ( see Appendix B) and has been used for this revised exposure assessment.

Additional assumptions were used to estimate the total dermal exposure of these workers:

1) A worker was assumed to weigh 70 kg.

2) Workers were assumed to work 8 hours in the greenhouse.

3) At least 7 days were assumed to lapse before DDVP would be reapplied, resulting in no buildup on the foliage.

4) The dermal absorption of DDVP is 11 percent ( 4).

5) A greenhouse is ventilated for at least 2 hours before reentry.

6) The deposition and dissipation pattern of DDVP on greenhouse foliage is the same as that resulting from spraying of residential turf.

The total daily dermal exposure that would occur is estimated to be:

Dermal Exposure ( µ g/ kg/ day) = DFR ( µ g/ cm5) x 10000 ( cm5/ hr) x 8 hrs/ day x 0.11 x 1/ 70 kg The dermal exposure estimates for these workers are presented in Table 2. D251337 Page 8 of 24 Table 2. Estimates of Dermal Exposures of Workers Reentering Greenhouses Treated with DDVP.

Time After Start of Ventilation Dislodgeable Foliar Residues ( µ g/ cm5) Daily Dermal Exposure ( µ g/ kg/ day) 1 Daily Dermal Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day)

< 2 hours 0.10 13 0.013 2  6 hours 0.04 5 0.005 10 hours 0.004 0.5 0.0005 1 Dermal Exposure ( µ g/ kg/ day) = DFR ( µ g/ cm5) x 4500 ( cm5/ hr) x 8 hrs/ day x 0.11 x 1/ 70 kg 4.2.2 Post Application Respiratory Exposure  Greenhouses HED has no adequate data measuring the air concentrations resulting from application of DDVP in greenhouses. It was therefore necessary to use models to estimates these concentrations. It was assumed that the air concentration under ventilated conditions followed first order kinetics and that the initial concentration ( Co) was the maximum label rate from the LUIS report of 2 g/ 1000 ft 3 . After 1 air change this concentration would be halved at time, t1/ 2 . The rate constant ( k) for first order decay can be calculated by the equation:

k = 0.693/ t1/ 2 D251337 Page 9 of 24 HED has obtained reference air exchange rates from a textbook ( 6) which are presented for various conditions of vent position and wind speed in Table 3. Ventilation requirements for greenhouse operation vary depending on environmental conditions. Although these conditions cannot be standardized, a worker performing tasks in a greenhouse would be expected to be exposed to a decreasing concentration of airborne DDVP. The post application exposure of greenhouse workers to DDVP has been considered to be a short term scenario with a NOEL of 0.5 mg/ kg/ day ( 4). To yield a MOE of 10 the exposure would be 0.05 mg/ kg/ day. The dermal component, after 2 hours of ventilation was estimated to be 0.005 mg/ kg/ day ( above), leaving 0.045 mg/ kg/ day for respiratory exposure. If 70 kg worker works 8 hours per day with a respiratory volume of 1.7 m; per hour the concentration necessary to yield an MOE of 10 would be:

Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) = Conc ( mg/ m;) x 1.7 m;/ hr x 8 hrs/ day ) 70 kg Conc ( mg/ m;) = 0.045 mg/ kg/ day x 70 kg 1.7 m;/ hr x 8 hrs/ day = 0.23 mg/ m;

Estimates of the appropriate reentry times were derived by inserting the k values from Table 3 into a spreadsheet and calculating the concentrations over time for each of the aeration scenario. It was assumed that the initial concentration ( Co) was the maximum label application rate of 2 g per 1000 ft 3 ( 71 mg/ m;). The estimates are presented in Table 4. In all of the aeration scenarios, with the exception of both sides and roof shut, the concentrations dropped below the target of 0.23 within 60 minutes after the beginning of aeration. The highest concentration calculated after 2 hours of aeration was 0.19 mg/ m; ( shaded area in Table 4). The estimated respiratory component of exposure would be:

Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) = 0.19 mg/ m; x 1.7 m;/ hr x 8 hrs/ day ) 70 kg = 0.037 mg/ kg/ day 4.2.3 Total Exposures and Calculation of MOE The calculation of total exposures assumes that there are 2 hours of ventilation prior to reentry. The estimated dislodgeable residues measured after 6 hours in a limited study were similar to those after 2 hours ( Table 2). D251337 Page 10 of 24 Table 3. The Effect of Wind Speed and Ventilator Position on Air Exchange in the Greenhouse ( 9).

Vent Position Wind Speed ( mph) Air Exchanges per hour Minutes per Air Change ( t1/ 2) Decay constant ( k)

Roof Sides Shut Shut 13.4 2.9 21 0.033 Lee side 1/ 4 open Shut 13.3 9.1 6.6 0.105 Both sides full open Shut 2.7 14 4.3 0.161 Both sides full open Open 1.4 41 1.5 0.462 Both sides full open Open 1.9 45 1.3 0.533 South side opens at 64 E F Shut 6.2 8.6 7.0 0.099 North at 80 E F Shut ( warmer day) 5.3 8.7 6.9 0.100 Both sides full open Shut 6.0 20 3.0 0.231 Both sides full open Shut 6.5 34 1.8 0.385 Table 4. Estimated Concentrations of DDVP in Greenhouses Under Different Conditions of Aeration.

The target concentration to yield a short term MOE of 100 is 0.026 mg/ m;.

Roof Position Shut Lee Side Both Sides Both Sides Both Sides S. Side Opens N. Side Both Sides Both Sides 1/ 4 Open Full Open Full Open Full Open at 64 E F at 80 E F Full Open Full Open Sides Position Shut Shut Shut Open Open Shut Shut Shut Shut Wind Speed 13.4 13.3 2.7 1.4 1.9 6.2 5.3 6.0 20 Air Exchanges per hr 2.9 9.1 14 41 45 8.6 8.7 20 34 Decay Constant, k 0.033 0.105 0.161 0.462 0.533 0.099 0.1 0.231 0.385 Time ( min) Estimated Concentrations ( mg/ m;):

0 71.0000 71.0000 71.0000 71.0000 71.0000 71.0000 71.0000 71.0000 71.0000 10 51.0436 24.8456 14.1920 0.6995 0.3439 26.3819 26.1194 7.0475 1.5109 20 36.6964 8.6944 2.8368 0.0069 0.0017 9.8029 9.6088 0.6995 0.0322 30 26.3819 3.0425 0.5670 0.0001 0.0000 3.6425 3.5349 0.0694 0.0007 40 18.9666 1.0647 0.1133 0.0000 0.0000 1.3535 1.3004 0.0069 0.0000 50 13.6355 0.3726 0.0227 0.0000 0.0000 0.5029 0.4784 0.0007 0.0000 60 9.8029 0.1304 0.0045 0.0000 0.0000 0.1869 0.1760 0.0001 0.0000 70 7.0475 0.0456 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.0694 0.0647 0.0000 0.0000 80 5.0667 0.0160 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0258 0.0238 0.0000 0.0000 90 3.6425 0.0056 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0096 0.0088 0.0000 0.0000 100 2.6187 0.0020 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0036 0.0032 0.0000 0.0000 110 1.8826 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0013 0.0012 0.0000 0.0000 120 1.3535 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000 D251337 Page 12 of 24 5.0 MUSHROOM HOUSE 5.1 Applicator Exposure HED has no data directly measuring the exposures of applicators using DDVP in mushroom houses. Products requiring fogger application have been deleted leaving one product for mushroom house application. This label directs the user to apply a 0.5 percent solution at a rate of 1/ 2 to 1 pint per 100 ft5 either as a coarse spray or by painting the product on surfaces with a brush. A retreatment is not specified in the other labels. Earlier labels allowed retreatment every four days or twice a week. These intervals were used for establishment of the appropriate NOAEL. Mushroom house application is considered to be an intermediate exposure scenario with a NOAEL of 0.1 mg/ kg/ day.

The specifications of mushroom houses are slightly different than those for greenhouses. A typical mushroom operation is believed to consist of 10 houses, each with a volume of 30000 ft; ( 850 m;) ( 3).

HED has no data regarding the surface areas of mushroom houses in the United States. A mushroom house has an volume of 30000 ft; ( 850 m;). The volume of a typical mushroom house in the Netherlands is 342 m; ( 12073 ft;)( 7). The surface areas of the floors, walls, and ceiling of these houses is 348 m5 ( 3744 ft5) with a growing volume of 5 beds. Each of these growing beds has an internal dimensions of 13.8 m x 1.34 m x 0.18 m, giving an internal surface area of:

Surface Area ( m5) = 2[( 13.8 m x 0.18 m) + ( 1.34 m x 0.18 m)]

= 5.5 m5 = 59 ft5 The total area of a house with a volume of to be sprayed would be:

Total Area ( ft5) = 3744 ft5 + 5( 59 ft5) = 4039 ft5 In lieu of specific data, HED has assumed that the ratio of the volume to area sprayed would be the same for mushroom houses in the United States and those in the Netherlands. Since mushroom houses in the United States are about 2.5 times larger ( 30000 ft;/ 12073 ft;) the estimated area sprayed or painted would be:

Estimated Area ( ft 2 ) = 4039 ft 2 x 2.5 = 10098 ft 2 HED notes that this may be conservative for a painting scenario because not all areas are easily painted but has no data with which to refine this estimate.

The spray/ paint product ( Appendix A) is used as a 0.5 percent solution ( w/ w) containing approximately 0.67 oz ai per gallon ( and applied at a rate of 2 to 1 pint per 100 ft5. Therefore, the maximum volume to be applied to a mushroom house would be: D251337 Page 13 of 24 Amount per house ( gal/ house) = 1 pt/ 100 ft5 x 10098 ft5/ house x 1 gal/ 8 pts = 12.6 gallons per house If the concentration of ai is 0.67 oz ( 0.042 lb ai) per gallon, the amount applied per house would be:

Lb ai/ house = 12.6 gallons/ house x 0.042 lb ai/ gallon = 0.53 lb ai/ house The daily amount handled for someone treating 10 houses is therefore 5.3 lb ai/ day. This is probably conservative for the painting because painting such an area would be difficult in one day. It would be possible to spray such an area, although this may be unlikely to occur.

It is not certain exactly what type of coarse spray equipment would be used in any particular mushroom house. The equipment used could vary from a hose end sprayer to backpack to a pinpoint compressed air apparatus depending on the growers needs. HED has reassessed these exposure estimates using the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database ( PHED V1.1). Both the applicator file ( APPL. FILE) and mixer/ loader/ applicator file were examined. Low pressure hand wand and high pressure hand wand were considered to be low confidence data ( 2).

The 1993 assessment included a number of application methods that are no longer on the DDVP label for mushroom houses and has eliminated the studies addressing these obsolete scenarios from the current assessment. Revised estimates using PHED have replaced these studies. Studies were selected manually from the PHED system in order to obtain those that most closely match the mushroom house application scenario A table of the application method, estimated unit exposures, clothing scenarios, and data sources is presented in Table 5. PHED outputs are presented in Appendix D.

The daily exposures and resulting MOEs estimated for these workers to DDVP, adjusted for use information and dermal absorption are presented in Table 6. It must be noted that the respiratory measurements for three of these studies are based entirely on non detect samples and therefore have an artifactual component, possibly an appreciable one. D251337 Page 14 of 24 Table 5. Estimates of Unit Exposures of Workers Applying Pesticides Using Various Types of Equipment That Might Be Used for Coarse Spray in a Mushroom House. These values are NOT corrected for dermal absorption. Numbers in parentheses are in mg/ kg, adjusted for a 70 kg worker.

Unit Exposure  mg/ lb ai ( mg/ kg/ lb ai)

Equipment Used Clothing Scenario Dermal Respiratory No.

Of Reps Reference Hand Held Sprayer Long Pants, Long Sleeves, Gloves 0.17 ( 0.0024) 0.026 1 ( 0.0004) 9 PHED ( 471LPHW. MLAP)

Backpack Sprayer Long Pants, Long Sleeves, Gloves 2.6 ( 0.37) 0.026 1 ( 0.0004) 9 PHED ( 471PKPK. MLAP)

Backpack Sprayer Long Pants, Long Sleeves, Gloves 0.27 ( 0.0039) 0.062 ( 0.0009) 4 PHED ( 416. APPL. APPL)

Portable Sprayer on Wheels Long Pants, Long Sleeves, Gloves 0.69 ( 0.0099) 0.078 1 ( 0.0011) 9 PHED( 471. APPL)

1 All values were non detect samples D251337 Page 15 of 24 Table 6. Estimates of Daily Exposures and Resulting MOEs of Workers Applying DDVP Using Various Types of Equipment That Might Be Used for Coarse Spray in a Mushroom House. These values are corrected for a dermal absorption of 11 percent. Unit Exposures 2 ( mg/ kg/ lb ai) Daily Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day)

Equipment Used Clothing Scenario 1 Amount Handled ( lb ai per day) Dermal Resp. Dermal 3 Respir. Total Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day)

. NOEL ( mg/ kg/ day) MOE Hand Held Sprayer LP, LS, G 5.3 0.0024 0.0004 0.0014 0.0015 0.0029 0.1 34.3 Backpack Sprayer LP, LS, G 5.3 0.37 0.0004 0.022 0.0015 0.023 0.1 4.3 Backpack Sprayer LP, LS, G 5.3 0.0039 0.0009 0.0023 0.0036 0.0059 0.1 17 Portable Sprayer on Wheels LP, LS, G 5.3 0.0099 0.0011 0.0058 0.0045 0.010 0.1 9.7 1 LP = long pants, LS = long sleeve shirt, G = gloves 2 Assumes a 70 kg worker 3 Daily Dermal Exposure = Amount Handled ( lb ai/ day) x Unit Exposure ( mg/ kg/ lb ai) x 0.11 ( Absorp) D251337 Page 16 of 24 5.2 Post Application Exposures in Mushroom Houses There are few data addressing the post application of workers to DDVP in mushroom houses. The California Department of Food and Agriculture ( CDFA) conducted a limited air and surface monitoring study of mushroom houses in California ( 15) which is described below. As explained in Section 4.2.2 the total exposure required to reach a MOE of 10 would be 0.05 mg/ kg/ day.

CITATION: Maddy, K. T., F. Schneider, J. Lowe, E. Ochi, S. Fredrickson, and S. Margotich ( 1981) Vapona ( DDVP) Exposure Potential to Workers in Mushroom Houses in Ventura County, California in 1981. HS 861.

Air residue samples were collected from four mushroom houses treated with Vapona ( DDVP) at a rate of 34 grams per 16,000 ft;. Surface wipe samples of horizontal surfaces were collected from two such rooms. The material was by placing a container of the pesticide on a hot plate located in the center of the room. The doors were closed and the interior forced air fans run for 20 minutes. After the application the exhaust fans were run at high speed for 30 minutes. Following 30 minutes of aeration, during which there were 10 air changes, the workers were allowed to reenter the building without protective clothing.

Air samples were collected by drawing air at a rate of 1 liter per minute through XAD 4 resin tubed using personal sampling pumps. Samples were obtained prior to applications and at intervals of 30 minutes, 1 hour, 3 hours, 6 hours, 12, hours and 24 hours after the treatment. The duration of the 30 minute sample was 30 minutes and the a 1 hour interval was used for the others.

Wipe samples were collected from the upper tiers of the houses which workers must climb to irrigate the mushrooms. Areas were measured with a template and swabbed with laboratory tissues moistened with ethyl acetate.

Both air and wipe samples were stored on ice for shipment to the analytical laboratory where they quantified by gas chromatography.

The results of air sampling are presented in Table 5 and graphically in Figure 1. The results of surface sampling are in Table 6.

Table 5. Air Concentrations of DDVP in Mushroom Houses After Application at a Rate of 34 grams per 16,000 ft;. Values are in ppm. Numbers in parentheses have been converted to mg/ m;.

Room 4 Room 6 Room 52 Room 124 Mean D251337 Page 17 of 24 Preapplication ND ND ND ND ND During Application No sample No sample 0.054 ( 0.49) o 0.061 ( 0.56) 0.058 ( 0.53)

30 minutes 0.0107 ( 0.097) 0.0025 ( 0.023) 0.0068 ( 0.061) 0.0023 ( 0.021) 0.0056 ( 0.051)

1 hour No sample No sample 0.0028 ( 0.025) 0.0035 ( 0.032) 0.0032 ( 0.029)

3 hours 0.0046 ( 0.042) 0.0005 ( 0.0045) 0.0017 ( 0.015) 0.0044 ( 0.040) 0.0028 ( 0.026)

6 hours 0.0054 ( 0.049) 0.0004 ( 0.036) 0.0003 ( 0.0027) 0.0037 ( 0.033) 0.0025 ( 0.022)

12 hours 0.0019 ( 0.017) 0.0004 ( 0.036) 0.0134 ( 0.12) 0.0037 ( 0.033) 0.0049 ( 0.044)

24 hours 0.0028 ( 0.025) 0.0008 ( 0.0072) No sample No sample 0.0018 ( 0.016)

omg/ m; = 221 g/ mol ) 24.25 x ppm D251337 Page 18 of 24 Table 6. Surface Residues of DDVP in Mushro om Houses After Applica tion at a Rate of 34 g per 16000 ft;. Values are in µ g/ cm5.

Room 52 Room 124 Preapplication ND ND 30 minutes postapplication 0.014 0.007 3 hours postapplication 0.026 0.003 12 hours postapplication 0.014 ND Figure 1. Airborne Concentrations of DDVP in Mushroom Houses 0 30 60 180 360 720 1440 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Time After Application ( Minutes)

mg/

m ³ Rm 4 Rm 6 Rm 52 Rm 124 Target Conc. D251337 Page 20 of 24 5.2.1 Postapplication Dermal Exposure HED has no data measuring a transfer coefficient for workers performing tasks in mushroom houses. HED has used the transfer coefficient for low crops of 2500 cm5 per hour, obtained from the table presented in Appendix B. Surface residues were obtained from a limited study conducted by the California Department of Food and Agriculture ( CDFA, now CALEPA). Wipe sampling was only conducted in 2 mushroom houses, preventing any analysis of the distribution of surface residues in these facilities. Therefore the highest residues monitored were used for the estimation of dermal exposure. There was no clear trend with which to describe the dissipation over a 12 hour period. A surface residue of 0.026 µ g/ cm5, the highest residue measured, was therefore used to estimate dermal exposure. This may be conservative since the wipe samples were collected using an organic solvent ( ethyl acetate) instead of the more commonly used surfactant rinse used in dislodgeable foliar residue studies. However, in lieu of additional data, HED must take a conservative approach. The resulting dermal exposures of a 70 kg worker working 8 hours per day in a treated mushroom house are estimated to be:

Dermal Exposure ( µ g/ kg/ day) = 1000 cm5/ hr x 8 hr/ day x 0.026 µ g/ cm5 x 1/ 70 kg x 0.11 ( Absorb)

= 0.33 µ g/ kg/ day = 0.00033 mg/ kg/ day Postapplication Respiratory Exposure Postapplication respiratory exposures were derived from the study summarized in Section 5.2. The total exposure required to generate a MOE of 100 is 0.005 mg/ kg/ day for an acute exposure scenario. If the dermal component is subtracted from this total the maximum Aallowable@ respiratory exposure would be 0.0047 mg/ kg/ day. For a 70 kg worker working 8 hours in a mushroom house with a respiratory volume of 1.7 m; per hour, the maximum concentration would be:

Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) = Conc ( mg/ m;) x 1.7 m;/ hr x 8 hrs/ day ) 70 kg Conc ( mg/ m;) = 0.0047 mg/ kg/ day x 70 kg 1.7 m;/ hr x 8 hrs/ day = 0.024 mg/ m; D251337 Page 21 of 24 Calculation of MOEs 12 Hour Reentry Respiratory Exposure The total exposure of a 70 kg worker in a mushroom house entering the facility after 12 hours is estimated to be:

Daily Respiratory Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) = 0.044 mg/ m; x 1.7 m;/ hr x 8 hr/ day ) 70 kg = 0.0085 mg/ kg/ day Added to the dermal component gives:

Daily Exposure = 0.0085 mg/ kg/ day + 0.00033 mg/ kg/ day = 0.0088 mg/ kg/ day The corresponding MOE for these workers using a short term NOEL of 0.5 mg/ kg/ day would be:

MOE = 0.5 mg/ kg/ day 0.0088 mg/ kg/ day = 57 24 Hour Reentry ( Using the highest of the 2 values reported for air concentration)

Daily Respiratory Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) = 0.0018 mg/ m; x 1.7 m;/ hr x 8 hr/ day ) 70 kg = 0.0049 mg/ kg/ day Total Daily Exposure = 0.00495 mg/ kg/ day + 0.00033 mg/ kg/ day = 0.0052 mg/ kg/ day The corresponding MOE for these workers using a short term NOEL of 0.5 mg/ kg/ day would be:

MOE = 0.5 mg/ kg/ day 0.0052 mg/ kg/ day D251337 Page 22 of 24 = 96 It is evident from Table 6 and Figure 1 that the air concentrations fluctuate greatly during the 24 hours following treatment. Two of the four rooms monitored showed increases in the airborne DDVP concentration after 1 3 hours. This may be due to offgassing of DDVP from the compost following treatment or release of Apockets@ of material due to the nature of mushroom house construction. Examination of the very limited data from the study indicates that in the two study rooms reported, the concentrations are 0.025 and 0.0072 mg/ m;. Based on this very limited data the target concentration of 0.024 m/ m.; was not achieved until after 24 hours and only 2 samples were provided. There are at this time insufficient data to revise the reentry intervals of 48 hours described in the PD 2/ 3 ( 7). Additional data could refine this estimate. D251337 Page 23 of 24 REFERENCES 1) Memorandum from D. Jaquith ( EAB) to C. Scheltema ( RCAB) titled AEXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR DICHLORVOS ( DDVP) APPLIED TO GREENHOUSES AND MUSHROOM HOUSES ( D246129, PC Code 084001), dated April 22, 1998.

2) PHED Surrogate Exposure Guide, May 1997.

3) Memorandum from M. Dow ( BUD) to D. Pilitt ( RD) titled ADDVP ( Vapona) QUA@, dated October 2, 1985.

4) Federal Register Notice, September 28, 1995, Dichlorvos; Notice of Preliminary Determination to Cancel Certain Registrations and Draft Notice of Intent to Cancel; Page 50352.

5) Van Hemmen, J. J, R. Brouwer, and D. H. Brower ( 1992) Worker Exposure to Pesticides in Greenhouses Health Risks During the Harvesting of Flowers. Med. Fac. Landbouww. Univ. Garn. 57/ 3b.

6) Mastalerz, J. W ( 1977) The Greenhouse Environment. John Wiley & Sons, New York, Table 2.1, page 14.

7) Arkenbout, J. ( 1988) Air Treatment in Mushroom Growing IN: The Cultivation of Mushrooms, L. J. L. D van Griensven, Ed. Darlington Mushroom Laboratories Ltd, Rustington Sussex, England.

cc: DDVP File/ 084001 Correspondence file D. Utterback ( SRB/ 7508W) S. Hummel ( CEB2/ 7509C) APPENDIX A APPENDIX A Policy Science Advisory Council for Exposure Policy #: 003 Regarding: Agricultural Default Transfer Coefficients Date: May 7, 1998 Index terms: Transfer coefficients; default; re entry; dermal exposure ISSUE:

There is a need to assure consistency in the default transfer coefficients used when no other information is available.

BACKGROUND:

This is a reference for reviewers when no agricultural postapplication exposure data are available. Its purpose is to add consistency to the choice of default transfer coefficients under such circumstances. It is designed particularly for agricultural workers. The generic default values in the table below are not supported quantitatively, but were derived by pesticide exposure assessors, based on their best judgement from their experience with the transfer coefficients used for these crops and agricultural activities in pesticide specific assessments.

POLICY:

Use the following table as a guide for choosing default transfer coefficients when no other supporting data or information are available: APPENDIX B Table 1. Default Transfer Coefficients for Agricultural Activities Crop Group/ Site Activities Default Transfer Coefficient ( cm 2 / hr)

harvest ( hand) 2,500 Low Potential for Dermal Transfer ( see Table 2 below) scout irrigate 1,000 Medium Potential for Dermal Transfer ( see Table 2 below) harvest ( hand) stake/ tie scout irrigate 4,000 harvest ( hand) 10,000 High Potential for Dermal Transfer ( see Table 2 below) stake/ tie scout irrigate 4,000 mow, maintain 1000 Turfgrass cut/ roll/ harvest ( sod farm) 10,000 harvest, hand girdle, cane, tie prune, thin, tip 15,000 Grapes i rrigate 4,000 Tree crops ( fruit and nut) all activities, e. g., harvest ( hand) prune, summer shake, rake, pole and pickup ( nuts) prop 10,000 cut/ harvest ( e. g., flowers) prune ( e. g., roses) 10,000 Ornamentals, indoor i rrigate 4,000 APPENDIX B Crop Group/ Site Activities Default Transfer Coefficient ( cm 2 / hr)

sort/ pack 2,500 transplant ball/ burlap 10,000 sort/ pack 2,500 Ornamentals, outdoor ( shrubs, trees)

i rrigate 4,000 Mushrooms cut/ harvest/ sort/ pack 2,500 dig/ harvest by hand 10,000 Tubers, onions sort, pack 2,500 scouting, early season 1000 cotton scouting, late season 4000 hoe, weed 1,000 till, disc plant mechanically build furrows harvest mechanically ( only refers to machine operators; not to any manual activities ancillary to the machine harvest) NA, negligible Tc likely All plant by hand; aligning plants( e. g., potato pieces; sugar cane) 10,000 Use the following table as a guide for choosing crops: APPENDIX B Table 2. Examples of Crops for use in Table 1.

LOW Dermal Transfer MEDIUM Dermal Transfer HIGH Dermal Transfer Alfalfa Artichokes Asparagus Bok Choy Broccoli Brussels Sprouts Cabbage Celery Chick Peas Collards Herbs, low growing Kale Lettuce Mustard Greens Pineapple Small grains ( negligible to low due to mechanical harvesting, e. g., barley, wheat, oats) Spinach Swiss Chard Watercress Beans, Bush Caneberries and Bushberries Cantaloupe Cranberries Cucumbers Eggplant Gourds Herbs, medium growing Melon Okra Peanut Pepper Pumpkin Rice Squash Strawberries Zucchini Bananas ( unbagged) Beans, Pole Corn Tomato APPENDIX C  LABEL INFORMATION Product Use Site Percent DDVP Application Parameters Max Rate Retreatment Interval PPE Amvac DDVP 5 for Mushroom Houses EPA No. 5481 203 Mushroom House 50 2% solution ( 1 pt to 2 3/ 4) gal trichloroethane; ULV Cold aerosol generator;

expose 1 hr; ventilate with fans before resuming work);

direct fog downward while walking backwards through building; Keep fogger nozzle at least 6 to 8 feet from the beds 5 g/ 1000 ft; Twice weekly during spawn run; thereafter as required; do not apply within 1 day of harvest Coveralls w/ long sleeve shirt and long pants, chemical resistant gloves,

chemical resistant footwear, socks,

protective eyewear, chemical resistant headwear for overhead exposure,

chemical resistant apron while cleaning equipment or M/ L, respirator with organic vapor cartridge w/ prefilter or canister approved for pesticides GREENHOUSE:

Close all doors, windows,

and ventilators; lock all entrances,; turn off misting systems etc.; foliage should be dry; use in Dyna Fog only ( Pulse fogger); walk backward down center of aisle, swaying machine from side to side 32 oz/ 96000 ft; Full face mask approved for dichlorvos Air Mate Formula GH 19 EPA No.

5011 49 Greenhouse/

Mushroom House 9.3 MUSHROOM HOUSE:

Walk down center of aisle,

directing fog upward; ventilate at least 1 hour before re entering 2 oz/ 3000 ft; Full face mask approved for dichlorvos Summit Mushroom House Fogging Insecticide EPA No.

6219 21 Mushroom House 9.3 Close all windows and doors;

Apply dry fog; recommended flow rate is 8 oz per minute REI = 24 hours 2 oz/ 3000 ft; Every 4 days Coveralls over long sleeved shirt and long pants, chemical resistant gloves,

chemical resistant footwear plus socks,

protective eyewear, chemical resistant headgear for overhead exposure,

chemical resistant apron when cleaning equipment or M/ L, respirator with organic vapor removing cartridge with a APPENDIX C  LABEL INFORMATION Product Use Site Percent DDVP Application Parameters Max Rate Retreatment Interval PPE prefilter approved for pesticides Prentox Vapon 4E EPA No. 655 692 ( for use in PA only)

Fulex DDVP Fumigator EPA No. 1327 36 Mushroom House Greenhouse 11.09 Apply with brush or as a coarse, wet spray to inside walls, around doors, ventilators and cracks in building before mushrooms come into production; 2 1 pint per 100 ft5 Close greenhouse vents prior to use; do not place on wood or flammable materials placing the farthest 10 feet from end of greenhouse and others equidistant throughout length of the greenhouse; light generators,

staring with farthest from the exit;

when all cans are ignited, exit immediately 0.5 percent solution 0.61 oz ( 17 g)

per 10000 ft; Not Specified One or two repeat applications at intervals of about one week Not Specified Coveralls over long sleeve shirt and long pants, waterproof gloves, chemical resistant footwear and socks, protective eyewear, chemical resistant headgear for overhead exposure, respirator with either an organic vapor removing cartridge with a prefilter for pesticides or a canister approved for pesticides Appendix D. Summary Statistics for Studies Selected from PHED to Address the Exposures of Workers to DDVP in Mushroom Houses.

471  Low Pressure Hand Wand SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR CALCULATED DERMAL EXPOSURES SCENARIO: Long pants, long sleeves, gloves PATCH DISTRIB. MICROGRAMS PER LB AI SPRAYED LOCATION TYPE Median Mean Coef of Var Geo. Mean Obs.

HEAD ( ALL) Lognormal 13.52 95.9689 161.5896 37.513 9 NECK. FRONT Lognormal 4.065 7.3967 116.9075 4.327 9 NECK. BACK Normal 1.144 2.7243 101.6775 1.9155 9 UPPER ARMS Normal 15.132 29.9407 99.9395 22.7111 9 CHEST Other 18.46 146.26 242.8398 34.8928 9 BACK Other 18.46 66.9372 201.2858 29.0838 9 FOREARMS Other 6.292 6.292 0 6.292 9 THIGHS Other 19.864 37.9878 115.1859 27.6737 9 LOWER LEGS Lognormal 12.376 66.9309 164.3135 30.0241 9 FEET 0 HANDS Other 2.0833 2.0833 0 2.0834 9 TOTAL DERM: 169.6884 111.3963 462.5218 196.5164 INHALATION: Other 26.0417 26.0417 0 26.0429 9 COMBINED: 195.7301 137.438 488.5635 222.5593 95% C. I. on Mean: Dermal: [ 8383.8174, 9308.861]

95% C. I. on Geo. Mean: Inhalation: [ 26.0429, 26.0429]

Inhalation Rate : 25 Liters/ Minute Number of Records: 9 Data File: MIXER/ LOADER/ APPLICATOR Subset Name: 471LPHW. MLAP 471  High Pressure  Greenhouse and Ornamentals SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR CALCULATED DERMAL EXPOSURES SCENARIO: Long pants, long sleeves, gloves PATCH DISTRIB. MICROGRAMS PER LB AI SPRAYED LOCATION TYPE Median Mean Coef of Var Geo. Mean Obs.

HEAD ( ALL) Lognormal 105.69 140.8333 77.4664 105.262 9 NECK. FRONT Lognormal 12.195 22.0817 96.0397 13.4678 9 NECK. BACK Lognormal 8.943 31.548 152.5041 12.9288 9 UPPER ARMS Other 45.396 47.918 15.7895 47.4874 9 CHEST Other 55.38 55.38 0 55.3791 9 BACK Other 55.38 55.38 0 55.3791 9 FOREARMS Lognormal 18.876 255.0142 248.3883 47.5413 9 THIGHS Lognormal 59.592 4954.0307 291.5219 186.603 9 LOWER LEGS Lognormal 37.128 3474.1124 283.7355 159.2327 9 FEET 0 HANDS Other 6.25 110.8403 266.2583 13.8807 9 TOTAL DERM: 687.4416 404.83 9147.1386 697.1619 INHALATION: Other 78.125 78.125 0 78.1277 9 COMBINED: 765.5666 482.955 9225.2636 775.2896 95% C. I. on Mean: Dermal: [ 352402.5151, 370696.7923]

95% C. I. on Geo. Mean: Inhalation: [ 78.1277, 78.1277]

Inhalation Rate : 25 Liters/ Minute Number of Records: 9 Data File: APPLICATOR Subset Name: 471. APPL SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR CALCULATED DERMAL EXPOSURES SCENARIO: Long pants, long sleeves, gloves PATCH DISTRIB. MICROGRAMS PER LB AI SPRAYED LOCATION TYPE Median Mean Coef of Var Geo. Mean Obs.

HEAD ( ALL) Lognormal 70.46 383.0956 194.8378 79.1674 9 NECK. FRONT Lognormal 15.93 119.965 155.5213 26.7717 9 NECK. BACK Lognormal 663.894 1349.5607 97.8202 849.1595 9 UPPER ARMS Lognormal 27.354 12277.5487 216.2146 234.3196 9 CHEST Other 18.46 230.4739 223.1428 42.3181 9 BACK Lognormal 3272.745 10793.8144 149.0355 1242.0996 9 FOREARMS Other 6.292 151.5323 208.7399 20.6347 9 THIGHS Lognormal 19.864 597.2782 282.8189 49.147 9 LOWER LEGS Lognormal 32.13 425.8878 230.6324 64.6874 9 FEET 0 HANDS Lognormal 2.0833 4.9821 130.0415 3.3199 9 TOTAL DERM: 2573.4241 4129.2123 26334.1387 2611.6249 INHALATION: Other 26.0417 26.0417 0 26.0429 9 COMBINED: 2599.4658 4155.254 26360.1804 2637.6678 95% C. I. on Mean: Dermal: [ 617117.5802, 669785.8576]

95% C. I. on Geo. Mean: Inhalation: [ 26.0429, 26.0429]

Inhalation Rate : 25 Liters/ Minute Number of Records: 9 Data File: MIXER/ LOADER/ APPLICATOR Subset Name: 471BKPK. MLAP 416 Greenhouse backpack SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR CALCULATED DERMAL EXPOSURES SCENARIO: Long pants, long sleeves, gloves PATCH DISTRIB. MICROGRAMS PER LB AI SPRAYED LOCATION TYPE Median Mean Coef of Var Geo. Mean Obs.

HEAD ( ALL) Lognormal 16.25 27.0725 95.3133 20.1332 4 NECK. FRONT Lognormal 4.995 5.31 48.4614 4.8351 4 NECK. BACK Lognormal 4.5815 14.4348 154.0181 5.4415 4 UPPER ARMS Lognormal 42.9225 42.9225 50.4938 38.6002 4 CHEST Other 29.465 29.465 0 29.465 4 BACK Lognormal 44.375 44.375 38.798 41.7961 4 FOREARMS Lognormal 52.151 107.5992 134.3206 41.6344 4 THIGHS Lognormal 53.289 58.828 55.412 51.985 4 LOWER LEGS Lognormal 19.754 22.253 22.4599 21.8835 4 FEET 0 HANDS Lognormal 10.5833 25.5625 123.344 15.957 4 TOTAL DERM: 271.731 278.3663 377.8225 271.731 INHALATION: Lognormal 31.25 31.8742 62.4728 26.7416 4 COMBINED: 298.4726 309.6163 409.6967 298.4726 95% C. I. on Mean: Dermal: [ 4512.6214, 5268.2664]

95% C. I. on Geo. Mean: Inhalation: [ 6.6448, 107.6198]

Inhalation Rate : 25 Liters/ Minute Number of Records: 4 Data File: APPLICATOR Subset Name: 416. APPL. APPL


[Federal Register: August 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 154)]
[Notices]
[Page 45805]
[DOCID:fr10au06-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP05-94-001]

Liberty Gas Storage, LLC; Notice of Compliance Filing

August 3, 2006.
    Take notice that on July 31, 2006, Liberty Gas Storage, LLC
(Liberty) tendered for filing as part of its pro forma FERC Gas Tariff,
First Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised pro forma tariff
sheets:

Pro Forma Sheet No. 135.
Pro Forma Sheet No. 201.

    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 14, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-13062 Filed 8-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P