Comments to EDMVS Concerning Proposed Wildlife Studies July 23 24,

2002 Ellen M.

Mihaich, Ph. D.,

DABT Rhodia Inc. Raleigh, NC Amphibian DRP °

Rationale for using an amphibian as a "general vertebrate model"

is vague and unsubstantiated.

The rat is already a sensitive species for thyroid. °

Additional endpoints added to the study to help improve sensitivity yet their link to thyroid activity is uncertain. Big data gaps. °

Funding should be for basic research, not standardization and validation at this point in time. "… the objective of this DRP is to develop a method to determine the effects of chemicals on normal thyroid function using an amphibian as a general vertebrate model."

(Amphibian DRP p.

6 line 3) Mysid Life

Cycle °

Currently the 1

generation mysid test is an apical test used primarily in pesticide registration. What evidence is there to suggest that a 2 generation test will perform any better than a 1 generation study? Mysid DRP °

While ecdysteroids and EAT are steroid hormones, no justification that effects on ecdysteroids in mysids could be extrapolated to effects on EAT in vertebrates is supported. °

Effects on biochemical endpoints is not indicative of endocrine disruption.

Testosterone studies cited indicate only that general detoxification enzymes can be affected by exposure to test substances.

This is not evidence of "endocrine disruption"

in crustaceans nor does it suggest the likelihood of "endocrine disruption"

in other animals. °

"The limited available data on vertebrate type steroids in crustaceans are insufficient to conclude that these steroids function as hormones." (p.

196;

Verslycke et al.

2002 Gen.

Comp.

Endocrinol. 126: 190 199). Conclusions &

Suggestions °

Both of these studies require significant basic research to determine relevancy and usefulness. Such an effort is clearly basic scientific research that should not be funded from the EDSP validation and standardization effort. °

Resources and effort may be better spent in validating and standardizing truly relevant assays.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 195 (Friday, October 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62489-62491]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25959]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65470; File No. SR-BX-2011-048]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Routing Functionality on the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities Market

October 3, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on September 21, 2011, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``Exchange'' or
``BX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, 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

    BX is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to add
routing functionality to the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities Market
(``System''). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule
4758, Order Routing, and amend Rule 4751, Definitions, and Rule 4755,
Order Entry Parameters, as described below. The Exchange intends to
implement the proposal upon notice to its membership.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at BX's principal office, 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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to attract additional
business to and enhance the functionality offered by the Exchange's
NASDAQ OMX BX Equities Market by providing optional outbound routing
services. Most equities exchanges today provide routing services. The
Exchange intends to offer routing strategies materially identical to
several currently offered by its affiliate, The NASDAQ Stock Market,
LLC (``NASDAQ'').\3\ Nasdaq Execution Services LLC is NASDAQ's routing
broker and provides all routing functions for NASDAQ. As described in
detail below, the Exchange proposes to use Nasdaq Execution Services
LLC as its routing broker to provide all of its routing services as
well. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to permit Nasdaq Execution
Services LLC to route orders from BX to all market centers, as it does
for NASDAQ, including to NASDAQ and the NASDAQ OMX PSX facility of
NASDAQ OMX PHLX (``PHLX'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See e.g., NASDAQ Rule 4758.
    \4\ BX's other affiliate, PHLX, has also proposed to provide
outbound routing services using NES as its routing broker. See SR-
Phlx-2011-108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, BX proposes to amend two existing rules to accommodate
routing. Specifically, BX proposes to amend subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule
4751, Definitions, which pertains to Intermarket Sweep Orders
(``ISOs''). These are currently defined as limit orders that are
designated as ISOs in the manner prescribed by the Exchange and are
executed within the System by Participants at multiple price levels
without respect to Protected Quotations of other market centers within
the meaning of Rule 600(b) of Regulation NMS under the Act. ISOs are
immediately executable within the System pursuant to BX Rule 4757. BX
proposes to add that ISOs are not eligible for routing as set out in
new Rule 4758.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This is the same as NASDAQ Rule 4751(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, BX proposes to amend Rule 4755, Order Entry
Parameters, to add a paragraph on routing and renumber the rule to more
closely track NASDAQ's rule.\6\ The new routing paragraph will state
that all System orders entered by Participants directing or permitting
routing to other market centers shall be routed for potential display
and/or execution as set forth in new Rule 4758. In connection with the
trading of securities governed by Regulation NMS, System orders shall
be routed for potential display and/or execution in compliance with
Regulation NMS. This paragraph is intended to add routing to the rule
that governs order types generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Specifically, the introductory paragraph in BX Rule 4755(a)
will now be subparagraph (a)(1), subparagraph (a)(1)(A),
subparagraph (a)(2) will now be subparagraph (a)(1)(B) and
subparagraph (a)(3) will now be subparagraph (a)(1)(C), all to track
NASDAQ Rule 4755(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, BX proposes to adopt new Rule 4758, Order Routing, to fully
spell out how routing will work and to generally track the language of
NASDAQ Rule 4758. Paragraph (a) describes the order routing process and
states that all routing shall be in compliance with Rule 610 of
Regulation NMS under the Act. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
introduce several routing strategies, all of which operate on NASDAQ
today. These are BSTG, BSKN, BSCN, BSKP, BTFY, BMOP and BCRT, which are
spelled out in proposed Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(iii)-(vii).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ These correspond to the following routing strategies on
NASDAQ, respectively: STGY, SKNY, SCAN, SKIP, TFTY, MOPP and CART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BSTG is a routing option under which orders would check the System,
check destinations on the BSTG System routing table,\8\ and then return
to the System if shares remain unexecuted. After returning to the
System, a BSTG order will subsequently route out to another market
center if it posts a bid or offer that locks or crosses the BSTG
order.\9\ BSKN is a form of BSTG in which the entering party instructs
the System to bypass any market centers included in the BSTG System
routing table that are not posting Protected Quotations within the
meaning of Regulation NMS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Routing tables are explained in proposed Rule 4758(a)(1)(A).
    \9\ See proposed Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(iii).
    \10\ See proposed Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BSCN is a routing option under which orders check the System, check
destinations on the BSCN System routing table, and then return to the
System. After returning to the System, a BSCN order will not
subsequently route out to another market center if it posts a bid or
offer that locks or crosses the BSCN order.\11\ BSKP is a form of BSCN
in which the entering party instructs the System to bypass any market
centers included in the BSCN System routing table that are not posting
Protected Quotations within the meaning of Regulation NMS.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See proposed Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(iv).
    \12\ See proposed Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BTFY is a routing option under which orders check the System for
available shares only if instructed by the entering firm prior to
routing to destinations on

the BTFY System routing table. Thereafter, they return to the System
and, like BSCN orders, do not route out again.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See proposed Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BMOP is a routing option under which orders route only to Protected
Quotes, but only for displayed size. If shares remain unexecuted after
routing, they are posted to the System and do not route out again.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See proposed Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BCRT is a routing option that will check the Exchange's System and
then route an order to PSX and NASDAQ, with any unexecuted shares
posting to the Exchange's book or cancelling, depending upon the time-
in-force of the order. Shares posted on the Exchange's book are not
routed out again.\15\ This routing option is similar to CART on NASDAQ,
which also routes among the three exchanges in the same order: BX, PSX,
NASDAQ.\16\ BCRT, like all of the proposed routing strategies is
designed to comply with SEC Rule 611 and the other provisions of
Regulation NMS.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See proposed Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(vii).
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release no. 63900 (February 14,
2011), 76 FR 9397 (February 17, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-026).
    \17\ 17 CFR 242.611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (b) describes the routing broker, Nasdaq Execution
Services LLC (``NES'') and the conditions under which NES would
operate. Currently, NES does not provide inbound routing to NASDAQ. At
this time, BX proposes to use NES as its outbound routing facility for
cash equities, providing outbound routing from BX to other market
centers, including their affiliates, NASDAQ and PHLX.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In order for BX to provide outbound routing services, PHLX
and NASDAQ each must file a proposed rule change to receive inbound
orders from their affiliate exchange, BX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange, NASDAQ, NASDAQ OMX PHLX and NES are affiliates. NES
is a broker-dealer and member of NASDAQ, NASDAQ OMX PHLX and the
Exchange. Accordingly, the affiliate relationship between BX and NES,
its member, raises the issue of an exchange's affiliation with a member
of such exchange. Specifically, in connection with prior filings, the
Commission has expressed concern that the affiliation of an exchange
with one of its members raises the potential for unfair competitive
advantage and potential conflicts of interest between an exchange's
self-regulatory obligations and its commercial interests.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 59153 (December
23, 2008), 73 FR 80485 (SR-NASDAQ-2008-098); and 62736 (August 17,
2010), 75 FR 51861 (August 23, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-100).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, in this proposed rule change, BX proposes to permit
NES to operate as its routing broker, providing outbound routing to its
affiliates, under the following conditions, which are the same as those
found in NASDAQ rules:
    (1) NES shall route orders to other market centers as directed by
BX;
    (2) NES will not engage in any business other than: (a) As an
outbound router for BX and (b) any other activities it may engage in as
approved by the Commission.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ PHLX has also filed a proposed rule change seeking approval
to have NES operate as the outbound routing broker for its PSX
facility. See SR-Phlx-2011-108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) NES shall operate as a facility, as defined in Section 3(a)(2)
of the Act, of BX.
    (4) For purposes of SEC Rule 17d-1, the designated examining
authority of NES shall be a self-regulatory organization unaffiliated
with BX or any of its affiliates.
    (5) BX shall be responsible for filing with the Commission proposed
rule changes related to the operation of, and fees for services
provided by, NES and NES shall be subject to exchange non-
discrimination requirements.
    (6) The books, records, premises, officers, agents, directors and
employees of NES as a facility of BX shall be deemed to be the books,
records, premises, officers, agents, directors and employees of BX for
purposes of, and subject to oversight pursuant to, the Act. The books
and records of NES as a facility of BX shall be subject at all times to
inspection and copying by the Commission.
    (7) Use of NES to route orders to other market centers will be
optional. Parties that do not desire to use NES must enter orders into
BX as immediate-or-cancel orders or any other order-type available
through BX that is ineligible for routing.
    (8) NES shall establish and maintain procedures and internal
controls reasonably designed to adequately restrict the flow of
confidential and proprietary information between BX and its facilities
(including NES as its routing facility) and any other entity.
    These conditions are intended to address the Commission's concerns
regarding potential conflicts of interest in instances where a member
firm is affiliated with an exchange.
    Furthermore, BX Rule 2140(a)(1) currently provides that the
Exchange or any entity with which it is affiliated shall not, directly
or indirectly, acquire or maintain an ownership interest in, or engage
in a business venture with, an Exchange member or an affiliate of an
Exchange member in the absence of an effective filing under Section
19(b) of the Act. Because NES is an Exchange member and BX now proposes
to engage in the business venture of outbound routing using NES as its
routing broker, the Exchange has filed this proposed rule change under
Section 19(b) of the Act.
    The Exchange also proposes to adopt Rule 4758(c) to address the
recently adopted Market Access Rule.\21\ In order to comply with Rule
15c3-5,\22\ NES proposes to implement, as part of its procedures,
certain tests, on both an order-by-order basis and over a short period
of time, that are designed to limit the financial exposure that could
arise as a result of market access and to ensure compliance with all
regulatory requirements that are applicable in connection with market
access. Consistent with the requirements of the Market Access Rule,
these tests are designed to reject orders that NES deems to be
erroneous or duplicative, would cause the entering member's credit
exposure to exceed a preset credit threshold, or are noncompliant with
pre-trade regulatory requirements (as defined in the Market Access
Rule). To the extent NES determines, based on these procedures, that an
order should be rejected, NES may also seek to cancel orders that have
already been routed away.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63241 (November 3,
2010), 75 FR 69792 (November 15, 2010.
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\23\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\24\ in particular, in that the proposal is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest, because BX
will be better able to serve its customers and compete with other
markets by offering optional routing services. The Exchange believes
that these services are useful to its participants seeking efficient
access to the best markets, consistent with removing impediments to and

perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system. The Exchange also believes that its rules applicable to
the routing broker should promote just and equitable principles of
trade and prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices by
establishing conditions that are intended to address potential
conflicts of interest between the Exchange and it affiliated member,
consistent with the framework in place at other exchanges using an
affiliated routing broker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \25\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \26\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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 to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2011-048 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-BX-2011-048. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such 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-BX-2011-048 and should be
submitted on or before October 28, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-25959 Filed 10-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


From: Holloway, Thomas C. ( Tom) Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 11: 37 AM To: ' kburton@ emaglink. com' Subject: Magnetic tape MACT follow up Mr. Burton,

I am a contractor working for the U. S. EPA on a follow on project related to the Magnetic Tape MACT standard. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review MACT sta ndards several years after they have been implemented to determine whether there is any remaining, or residual, health risk. We have been contacting the remain ing magnetic tape manufacturing facilities to obtain information to help EPA con duct its residual risk assessment of the industry source category. In my phone call to Jerry Murray, he suggested that you might be able to help me in this reg ard. Attached is a list of the information we need to help EPA conduct its asse ssment. If you could take a look at the list and provide whatever information y ou can within the next 2 weeks, I would appreciate it. Please let me know if yo u have any questions. My contact information is provided below. Thank you for your assistance.

Tom Holloway Research Environmental Scientist RTI International 3040 Cornwallis Rd., P. O. Box 12194 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Phone: ( 919) 316 3733 Fax: ( 919) 541 7155 E mail: tcholloway@ rti. org


Chitin and Chitosan Summary Document

Registration Review: Initial Docket

September 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

											Page #

Preliminary Work Plan (PWP)						3

Introduction									3

Anticipated Risk Assessment and Data Needs			4

Incidents									4

Efficacy and Label Claims						4

Timeline									5

Guidance for Comments							5

Next Steps									5

Fact Sheet – Chitin, Poly-N-Acetyl-D-Glucosamine		6

		Background Information							6

		Description of the Active Ingredient
      	6

Use Information								6

		Recent Actions								7

		Ecological Risk Assessment Status					7

		Human Health Risk Assessment Status				7

		Incidents									8

Labels and Products							8

Fact Sheet -	Chitosan, Poly-D-Glucosamine			9

		Background Information							9

		Description of the Active Ingredient  					9

		Use Information								10

		Recent Actions								10

		Ecological Risk Assessment Status					10

		Human Health Risk Assessment Status				11

		Incidents 									12

Labels and Products							12

I. PRELIMINARY WORK PLAN

Introduction:

The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 mandated the continuous review
of existing pesticides.  All pesticides distributed or sold in the
United States must generally be registered by EPA, based on scientific
data showing that they will not cause unreasonable risks to human
health, workers, or the environment when used as directed on product
labeling.  The new registration review program is intended to make sure
that, as the ability to assess risk evolves and as policies and
practices change, all registered pesticides continue to meet the
statutory standard of no unreasonable adverse effects.  Changes in
science, public policy, and pesticide use practices will occur over
time.  Through the new registration review program, the Agency
periodically reevaluates pesticides to make sure that as change occurs,
products in the marketplace can be used safely.  Information on this
program is provided at:
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/.

The Agency has begun to implement the new Registration Review program
pursuant to FIFRA Section 3(g) and intends to review each registered
pesticide approximately every 15 years to determine whether it continues
to meet the FIFRA standard for registration.  The public phase of
registration review begins when the initial docket is opened for each
case.  The docket is the Agency’s opportunity to state clearly what it
knows about the pesticide and what additional risk analyses and data or
information it believes are needed to make a registration review
decision.  Chitin and Chitosan are among the first biochemical
pesticides to undergo the registration review process and to be
reassessed using the most current standards of risk assessment.

Because Chitosan is derived from Chitin, and because both compounds
share basic physical characteristics, they have been combined into a
single case - Registration Review Case 6063.  As a matter of general
similarity, Chitin and Chitosan are both naturally occurring polymers
that are ubiquitous throughout nature.  Structurally, they are related
to cellulose and each consists of long chains of glucose molecules.
Relationally, Chitosan is a deacetylated product of Chitin, whose chains
of glucose are slightly modified.  As biochemical active ingredients,
they are applied in different use patterns; however, they both
demonstrate a low toxicity profile, and are both known for their role in
bolstering plant resistance.  Based on these factors and the data
submitted, no adverse human health or ecological risks are expected as a
result of exposure to these compounds, if they are used as labeled.
However, if additional information is submitted that warrants further
risk assessments, the Agency will then conduct any necessary risk
assessment(s).  Further information regarding use sites, summaries of
health, ecological effects data reviews and endangered species
assessments, as well as a list of registered pesticide products
containing these active ingredients, is found in Parts II and III in
this document.

Anticipated Risk Assessment and Data Needs:

Ecological Risk Assessment:  Ecological effects for both Chitin and
Chitosan were duly considered in the course of reviewing the
applications for the first products containing these active ingredients.
 In each case, non-target data and/or various non-target waiver requests
were sufficient to determine that the proposed uses of the pesticides
containing these active ingredients posed negligible to non-existent
ecological risk.  These determinations were captured in both summary
science memos and regulatory decision documents.  EPA’s ecological
risk assessments are undergirded by the understanding that both Chitin
and Chitosan are naturally occurring, ubiquitous, and regarded as
essentially non-toxic to animals.  Additionally noteworthy, applications
of pesticides containing Chitin or Chitosan are not expected to result
in concentrations of the compounds measurably greater than common
background concentrations.  Accordingly, the Agency anticipates that no
additional ecological effects or environmental data are required for
either Chitin or Chitosan.

Endangered Species Act:  Endangered species assessments for Chitin and
Chitosan are expected to be completed in October of 2007.  The
assessment documents will be added to the docket at that time.
Potential commenters will also have full opportunity to make comments
during the 60 day comment period when the assessment documents are
posted in the docket for the Proposed Registration Review Decision for
Chitin .

Human Health:  Based on reviews of human health exposure and summary
risk assessments that were conducted when the first pesticides
containing these active ingredients were originally registered, the
Agency anticipates that no additional human health effects data will be
required for either Chitin or Chitosan.  The reviews indicate that data
were sufficient to fulfill all current biochemical pesticide toxicology
data requirements for both Chitin and Chitosan.  Moreover, all the data
reviewed by the Agency indicate that both Chitin and Chitosan are so low
in toxicity as to be considered virtually non-toxic to humans or
animals.  In further support of Chitin’s and Chitosan’s lack of
toxicity, it is also noted that both ingredients are regularly present
in many foods; and both have an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance – 40 CFR 180.1089 and 40 CFR 180.1072, respectively.  In
sum, the Agency anticipates that no new data or human health risk
assessments will be necessary for either Chitin or Chitosan.

Incidents:

The OPP Incident Data System (IDS) indicates that there have been no
reports of human and domestic animal incidents for products containing
either Chitin or Chitosan.  The Agency will consider any additional
incidents data or comments submitted in response to this docket.

Efficacy and Label Claims

The Agency requires and reviews efficacy data for products making
labeling claims to control public health pests.  A review of the
pesticide product labels containing Chitin and Chitosan reveals no
claims against public health pests.  Accordingly, no efficacy data will
likely be required.  Notwithstanding, a full review of label claims
remains incomplete pending the final registration review decision.  As
appropriate, registrants will be required to resolve any outstanding
efficacy/labeling concerns in response to that final decision.

Timeline:

EPA has created the following estimated timeline for the completion of
the Chitin and Chitosan Registration Review case.  This schedule is
subject to revision should there be a need for a Data Call-in during the
registration review process or should other issues arise.

Activities 	Estimated Month/Year

Open Public Comment Period for Chitin and Chitosan Docket 	September
2007

Close Public Comment Period 	November 2007

Develop Final Work Plan (FWP)	January 2008

Open Public Comment Period for Proposed Reg. Review Decision 	FY 2008
3rd Quarter

Close Public Comment Period 	FY 2008 3rd Quarter

Final Decision 	FY 2008 4th Quarter

Total (years)	1

Guidance for Commenters:

The public is invited to comment on EPA’s preliminary registration
review work plan.  Stakeholders are specifically asked to provide any
additional information regarding use information and any incident data
not already reported to the agency.  In addition, the Agency welcomes
any comments regarding EPA’s risk assessments and its anticipated
decision not to conduct further risk assessments.  The Agency will
carefully consider all comments as well as any additional information or
data provided prior to issuing a final work plan for the Chitin and
Chitosan case.

Water quality concerns for Chitin and Chitosan are expected to be
non-existent since these pesticides are ubiquitous in nature and have a
very low toxicity profile.  Public comment is invited on any water
quality concerns.  Similarly, trade irritants aren’t expected for this
pesticide since it is exempted from the requirements for a tolerance in
the U.S.  Growers and other stakeholders are asked to comment on any
trade irritant issues for this pesticide.

Next Steps:

After the comment period closes, the Agency will prepare a Final Work
Plan for this pesticide.

II. CHITIN FACT SHEET

Chitin Background Information:

Registration review case number: 6063

Chemical Name:  Poly-N-Acetyl-D-Glucosamine

PC Code: 128991

CAS#: 1398-61-4

Source material:  Shells of crustaceans

Sole (and original) registrant:  Igene Biotechnology

First approved for use in a registered product in 1988

Not subject to reregistration (no Reregistration Eligibility Decision
[RED])

Exemption from The Requirement of a Tolerance:  40 CFR 180.1089; was
reassessed September 12, 2003.

Registration Review Lead:  Chris Pfeifer;   HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Description of the Active Ingredient:

Chitin is a naturally occurring chain of glucose molecules that is
structurally related to cellulose.  It is ubiquitous in nature.  Chitin
is most commonly derived from crustacean shells, particularly from crabs
and shrimp.  Historically, it has been used as a food additive and a
fertilizer.  As a pesticide active ingredient, it acts by stimulating
the growth of certain microorganisms in soil, which release substances
that kill pathenogenic nematodes and their eggs.   The compound is also
reputed to play a role as a plant growth regulator by bolstering plant
defenses against disease.

                                          Chitin

Chitin Use Information:

Chitin is used for controlling soil nematodes on crops (food and
non-food), ornamentals and turf.

Use sites are residential and commercial.  They include: agricultural
fields, nurseries, greenhouses, sod farms, commercial turf grasses, golf
courses, home lawns and gardens.

Application methods include:  pre-plant soil incorporation and
post-plant surface application followed by saturation.

Mode of action:  Chitin acts in soil to stimulate the growth of
naturally occurring microorganisms in the soil, which then release
substances that kill pathogenic nematodes and their eggs.

Chitin is the active ingredient in CLANDOSAN 618, which is the sole
registered pesticide product containing this active ingredient.

Recent Actions:

There have been no recent significant regulatory activities regarding
the sole registered Chitin product (i.e. tolerance related actions,
changes of use patterns, submission of toxicology studies or incident
reports).

Ecological Risk Assessment Status:

Ecological effects for Chitin were fully considered in the course of
reviewing the application for the first product containing this active
ingredient (CLANDOSAN 618).  A registration decision document, issued in
March of 1988, concurred that Chitin posed negligible to non-existent
ecological risk.  In that decision document, the Agency granted data
waivers for all nontarget data requirements relating to the application
of the Chitin-based pesticide, CLANDOSAN 618.  It was determined that
under normal conditions, the proposed end uses would pose minimal
hazards to nontarget organisms.  EPA noted the following as grounds for
a rationale:  1) historical data on Chitin demonstrating negligible
toxicity on humans and animals; 2) a ubiquity of Chitin in nature such
that applications of Chitin would likely fall within the existing range
of background concentrations; and 3) the ability of Chitin to degrade.
As a result of these considerations, the Agency does not anticipate the
need for new data or the need to conduct a new ecological risk
assessment for Chitin.

Endangered Species Act:  An endangered species assessment for Chitin is
expected to be completed in October of 2007.  The assessment document
will be added to the docket at that time.  Potential commenters will
also have full opportunity to make comments during the 60 day comment
period when the assessment document is posted in the docket for the
Proposed Registration Review Decision for Chitin (FY 2008, 3rd Quarter).

Human Health Risk Assessment Status:

All biochemical pesticide toxicology data requirements applicable to a
human health effects determination for Chitin were considered and
fulfilled for the Chitin-based pesticide CLANDOSAN 618 in 1988.  Acute
Oral Toxicity and Acute Eye Irritation studies specific to the pesticide
were both accepted as Toxicity Category IV.  The balance of the Tier I
biochemical toxicology data requirements were satisfied through a public
literature submission, which further supported the case for Chitin’s
low toxicity profile.  Additional information used in making a human
health effects determination for Chitin included:  1) a bridging of data
used to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
Chitosan; 2) an approval by the FDA for the use of Chitin as a food
additive; 3) a history of unrestricted use of Chitin as a soil
amendment, without a record of incident; and 4) a recognition that any
exposure gains relative to pesticidal applications would be negligible,
given Chitin’s ubiquity in nature. Altogether, the aforementioned
information provided sufficient grounds for section 3 registration and
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for Chitin – 40 CFR
180.1089.  As a result of these considerations, the Agency does not
anticipate the need for new data or the need to conduct a human health
risk assessment for Chitin.

Incidents:

The OPP Incident Data System (IDS) indicates that there have been no
reports of human and domestic animal incidents for products containing
Chitin.  The Agency will consider any additional incidents data or
comments submitted in response to this docket.

Labels and Products:

The sole registered product with Chitin as an active ingredient follows:

CLANDOSAN 618 (25% a.i.)        EPA Reg. No. 54137-1 (formerly EPA Reg.
No. 58200-9)

Labels for the above products can be obtained from the Pesticide Product
Label System (PPLS) website:   HYPERLINK
"http://oaspub.epa.gov/pestlabl/ppls.home"
http://oaspub.epa.gov/pestlabl/ppls.home .

III. CHITOSAN FACT SHEET

Chitosan Background Information:

Registration review case number:  6063

Chemical Name:  Poly-D-Glucosomine

PC Code:  128930

CAS#:  9012-76-4

Source material:  Chitin derived from the shells of crustaceans

End-use product registrants:  Plant Defense Boosters, Inc; Chem-tex,
Laboratories, Inc.

Chitosan was first approved for use as a Plant Growth Regulator (PGR) in
a registered product in 1986.

Chitosan was registered for use as an antimicrobial agent in a
registered product in 2003.

Not subject to reregistration (no Reregistration Eligibility Decision
[RED])

Exemption from The Requirement of a Tolerance:  40 CFR 180.1072; was
reassessed July 3, 2002.

Registration Review Lead:  Chris Pfeifer;   HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Description of the Active Ingredients:

Chitosan is a naturally occurring chain of glucose molecules that is
structurally related to cellulose.  It is one of the most common
compounds in nature.  Commercially, Chitosan is prepared through the
deacetylation of Chitin.  Chitosan has several biomedical applications.
It is considered to be a hemostatic agent that is hypoallergenic and is
known to possess anti-bacterial properties.  These properties also allow
for its use as an active ingredient in anti-microbial pesticides.
However, as a pesticidal active ingredient, Chitosan is best known as a
plant growth regulator that boosts the ability of plants to defend
against fungal infections.

* This diagram of the chemical structure of Chitosan is presented for
illustrative purposes, and is intended primarily as a generalized point
of comparison with Chitin.  The actual chemical structure of Chitosan is
subject to substantial variations based on the degree of deacetylation
of Chitin.

Chitosan Use Information:

As a pesticide, Chitosan is used as a Plant Growth Regulator (PGR),
fungicide and an antimicrobial agent.

As a PGR, Chitosan’s mode of action is characterized by its ability to
bolster plant resistance against fungal diseases.  Specifically, it
purports protection against downy mildew, powdery mildew, early blight,
late blight, gray mold, leaf spot, anthracnose and blast.

PGR use sites include: agricultural fields, nurseries, greenhouses,
commercial turf grasses, and home gardens (food and ornamental).

As a PGR, it is produced in aqueous form and is applied by spray to
plants throughout the growing season, with applications every one to two
weeks as needed.

Chitosan is the active ingredient in ELEXA-4, which is the sole
registered PGR product containing this active ingredient.

As an antimicrobial pesticide, Chitosan employs anti-bacterial
properties to protect fabrics from bacterial and fungal growth.

The antimicrobial pesticide is produced as an aqueous solution and is
either applied by spray or added to laundry’s wash cycle.

Chitosan is the active ingredient in ChitoSante, which is the sole
antimicrobial pesticide containing this active ingredient.

Recent Actions:

There have been no recent significant regulatory activities regarding
either Chitosan product, (i.e. tolerance related actions, changes of use
patterns, submission of toxicology studies or incident reports).

Ecological Risk Assessment Status:

As an active ingredient, Chitosan is employed in three distinct use
patterns – as a PGR, as a fungicide on plants, and as an antimicrobial
agent.  Ecological effects were considered with regard to each use
pattern.

With regard to Chitosan’s initial use as a PGR, ecological effects
were first considered in 1986 when the applicant Natural AG submitted a
mix of general animal toxicity data and waiver requests to fulfill their
non-target data requirements in support of EPA Reg. No. 56437-1.
Subsequent registrations for Hyga, ELEXA, and ELEXA-4 were all granted
waivers for their non-target requirements based on like rationales.
The most recent review of non-target waiver requests occurred for
ELEXA-4 in March of 2000.  The review took place in the Biopesticides
and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) and reflects the most current
thinking on ecological effects relative to Chitosan.  In that review, it
was determined that under normal conditions, the proposed end uses would
pose minimal hazards to non-target organisms.  BPPD noted the following
as grounds for its waivers:  1) copious amounts of historical data on
Chitosan demonstrating negligible toxicity on humans and animals; 2) a
ubiquity of Chitosan in nature such that proposed application rates
would likely fall within the existing range of background
concentrations; and 3) the ability of Chitosan to decompose.  As a
result of these considerations, the Agency does not anticipate the need
to conduct an ecological risk assessment for the use of Chitosan as a
PGR, nor as a fungicide used on plants.

With regard to Chitosan’s use as an antimicrobial agent, the Agency
has also found that ecological risk is unlikely.  An August 2007 memo
from the Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch of the
Antimicrobials Division notes the following in support of this position:
 1) Most uses are indoors and allow for minimal environmental exposure.
2) Available information and the prevalent use of Chitosan in food and
drugs support the case for Chitosan’s relative nontoxicity.  3)
Chitosan is a naturally occurring compound that is common in nature.  In
sum, the Agency anticipates that no ecological risk assessment will be
necessary for Chitosan when it is used as an antimicrobial active
ingredient on fabrics.

Endangered Species Act:  An endangered species assessment for Chitosan
is expected to be completed in October of 2007.  The assessment document
will be added to the docket at that time.  Potential commenters will
also have full opportunity to make comments during the 60 day comment
period when the assessment document is posted in the docket for the
Proposed Registration Review Decision for Chitin (FY 2008, 3rd Quarter).

Human Health Risk Assessment Status:

Human health effects were considered with regard to each use pattern of
Chitosan.  As a PGR and fungicide applied to plants, the Agency
anticipates that no additional human health effects data will be
required for Chitosan.  Summary reviews indicate that data were
sufficient to fulfill all current biochemical pesticide toxicology data
requirements for Chitosan.  Health effects data for Chitosan were first
found sufficient for the registration of EPA Reg. No. 56437-1 and the
issuance of an associated exemption from the requirement of tolerance in
1986.  The exemption, found under 40 CFR 180.1072, was reaffirmed once
more in a 1995 review.   The review based its approval on the following
information: 1) the original literature and data submitted in 1986
characterizing Chitosan’s lack of toxicity; 2) approval by the FDA for
use of Chitosan as a food additive; 3) an extensive history of human use
and exposure, without record of incident; and 4) the relatively low
application rates.  With regard to the recent standards of the Food
Quality Protection Act, a tolerance reassessment involved product
specific toxicological data and all applicable biochemical pesticide
toxicology data requirements.  Studies were submitted and approved for
all Tier I biochemical toxicology data requirements.  Waiver requests
were made and accepted for all other toxicological data requirements.
The Agency completed tolerance reassessment for Chitosan on July 3,
2002.  Accordingly, the Agency does not anticipate that a human health
risk assessment will be needed for Chitosan when it is used as a PGR or
as a fungicide used on plants.

With regard to Chitosan’s use as an antimicrobial agent, the Agency
has considered all applicable toxicology data requirements.  A July 2003
summary memo notes the following toxicological profile for the sole
end-use product, Chitosante:  Acute Dermal Toxicity, Acute Oral
Toxicity, Acute Inhalation Toxicity and Skin Irritiation are accepted as
Toxicity Category IV; Acute Eye is accepted as Toxicity Category III;
and Chitosante is deemed a Non-sensitizer.  Based on the toxicity
profile of the end-use product and summary reviews characterizing the
health effects of Chitosan, the Agency anticipates that no human health
risk assessment will be necessary when Chitosan is used on fabrics as an
antimicrobial active ingredient.

Incidents:

The National Pesticides Information Center (NPIC) database indicates
that there have been no reports of human and domestic animal incidents
for products containing Chitosan.  The Agency will consider any
additional incidents data or comments submitted in response to this
docket.

Labels and Products:

The following products have Chitosan as an active ingredient:

ELEXA-4 (4% a.i.)						    	EPA Reg. No. 81045-2

ChitoSante (6% a.i.)							EPA Reg. No. 81446-1

Labels for the above products can be obtained from the Pesticide Product
Label System (PPLS) website:   HYPERLINK
"http://oaspub.epa.gov/pestlabl/ppls.home"
http://oaspub.epa.gov/pestlabl/ppls.home .

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-EPA-2006-0566

www.regulations.gov

 PAGE

 PAGE   11

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-EPA-2006-0566

www.regulations.gov


[Federal Register: May 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 95)]
[Notices]
[Page 23399-23400]
[DOCID:fr19my09-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 606-027-CA]

Kilarc-Cow Creek Hydroelectric Project; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests,
Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments,
Recommendations, and Terms and Conditions

May 12, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Surrender of License.
    b. Project No.: 606-027.
    c. Date Filed: March 13, 2009.
    d. Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    e. Name of Project: Kilarc-Cow Creek Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Old Cow Creek and South Cow Creek in Shasta County,
California.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Randal S. Livingston, Vice-President of
Power Generation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. Box 770000,
MC-N11E, San Francisco, CA 94177-0001. Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
recommendations, and preliminary terms and conditions, is 60 days from
the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from
the issuance date of this notice. All documents (original and eight
copies) should be filed with: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include
the project number (P-606) 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 whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy
of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the applicant specified in a particular application.
    k. Description of Request: The applicant proposes to surrender the
license for the Kilarc-Cow Creek Hydroelectric Project. In addition,
the applicant proposes to decommission and remove project facilities,
as described in its proposed decommissioning plan. In general, the
licensee proposes to (1) remove diversion dams stop water diversions
and to allow for free passage of fish and sediment; (2) leave in place
some diversion dam abutments and foundations to protect stream banks
and provide grade control; (3) secure and leave in place powerhouse
structures (keeping an option for future reuse of the powerhouse
structures be preserved); (4) remove electric generators, turbines and
other equipment; (5) grade and fill forebays; and (6) leave in place,
breach, or fill in canal segmentsin consultation with affected
landowners, and remove metal and wood flume structures. The applicant
consulted with federal, state, local agencies, and other parties with
potential interest, during the license surrender application process.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Mailing list: Individuals desiring to be included on the
Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the
Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see item (j) above).
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'', ``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' or
``TERMS AND CONDITIONS''; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions
to intervene or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and
otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments,
motions to intervene or

protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the
license surrender. Agencies may obtain copies of the application
directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to
intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant
specified in the particular application. If an intervenor files
comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an
issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource
agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource
agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application
must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the
service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in
accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    p. As provided for in 18 CFR 4.34(b)(5)(i), the applicant must
file, no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of this
notice of acceptance and ready for environmental analysis: (1) A copy
of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for
certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying
agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality
certification.
    q. e-Filing: Comments, motions to intervene, protests,
recommendations, or terms and conditions 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 at http://www.ferc.gov
under the ``e Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11571 Filed 5-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 6, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61104-61106]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21333]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 748

[Docket No. 160810722-6722-01]
RIN 0694-AH05

Amendments to Existing Validated End-User Authorization in the
People's Republic of China: Boeing Tianjin Composites Co. Ltd.

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends
the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to revise the existing
Validated End-User (VEU) list for the People's Republic of China (PRC)
by updating the list of eligible destinations (facilities) for VEU
Boeing Tianjin Composites Co. Ltd. (BTC). Specifically, BIS amends
supplement No. 7 to part 748 of the EAR to change the written address
of BTC's existing facility. The physical location of the facility has
not changed. BIS updated the facility address after receiving
notification of the change from BTC. The End-User Review Committee
reviewed and authorized the amendment in accordance with established
procedures. The updated address contributes to maintaining accurate
location information for BTC's VEU.

DATES: This rule is effective September 6, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chair, End-User Review Committee,
Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of
Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Phone: 202-482-
5991; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Authorization Validated End-User

    Validated End-Users (VEUs) are designated entities located in
eligible destinations to which eligible items may be exported,
reexported, or transferred (in-country) under a general authorization
instead of a license. The names of the VEUs, as well as the dates they
were so designated, and their respective eligible destinations
(facilities) and items are identified in supplement No. 7 to part 748
of the EAR. Under the terms described in that supplement, VEUs may
obtain eligible items without an export license from BIS, in conformity
with Sec.  748.15 of the EAR. Eligible items vary between VEUs and may
include commodities, software, and technology, except those controlled
for missile technology or crime control reasons on the Commerce Control
List (CCL) (part 774 of the EAR).
    VEUs are reviewed and approved by the U.S. Government in accordance
with the provisions of Sec.  748.15 and supplement Nos. 8 and 9 to part
748 of the EAR. The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of
representatives from the Departments of State, Defense, Energy,
Commerce, and other agencies as appropriate, is responsible for
administering the VEU program. BIS amended the EAR in a final rule
published on June 19, 2007 (72 FR 33646), to create Authorization VEU.

Amendment to Existing VEU Authorization for Boeing Tianjin Composites
Co. Ltd. (BTC) in the People's Republic of China

Revision to the List of ``Eligible Destinations'' for BTC

    In this rule, BIS amends supplement No. 7 to part 748 to revise
BTC's VEU authorization. Specifically, in this rule, BIS updates the
written address of BTC's facility in the People's Republic of China to
which the company's eligible items may be exported, reexported or
transferred (in-country). The physical location of the facility has not
changed.
    The amendment to the address of BTC's facility is in response to a
request from BTC. This amendment was approved by the ERC. The revision
is as follows:

Revision to Address of BTC's Eligible Destination (Facility)

    Current address: Boeing Tianjin Composites Co. Ltd., No. 4-388
Hebei Road, Tanggu Tianjin, China.
    New address: Boeing Tianjin Composites Co. Ltd., 4566 Hebei Road,
Marine Hi-Tech Development Area, Tanggu District, Tianjin, China
300451.

Export Administration Act

    Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001,
the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR,
2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March
8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of
August 4, 2016, 81 FR 52587 (August 8, 2016), has continued the Export
Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the
Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted
by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222 as amended by Executive Order
13637.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
    2. This rule involves collections previously approved by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) under Control Number 0694-0088, ``Multi-
Purpose Application,'' which carries a burden hour estimate of 43.8
minutes to prepare and submit form BIS-748; and for recordkeeping,
reporting and review requirements in connection with Authorization VEU,
which carries an estimated burden of 30 minutes per submission. This
rule is expected to result in a decrease in license applications
submitted to BIS. Total burden hours associated with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA) and OMB Control
Number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase significantly as a result
of this rule. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person is
required to respond to, nor be subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of
the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently
valid OMB Control Number.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
    4. Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), BIS finds good cause to waive the otherwise applicable
requirement that this rule be subject to notice and the opportunity for
public comment because it is unnecessary. In determining whether to
grant VEU designations, a committee of U.S. Government agencies
evaluates information about and commitments made by candidate
companies, the nature and terms of which are set forth in 15 CFR part
748, supplement No. 8. The criteria for evaluation by the committee are
set forth in 15 CFR 748.15(a)(2). The information, commitments, and
criteria for this extensive review were all established through the
notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment process (71 FR 38313
(July 6, 2006) (proposed rule), and 72 FR 33646 (June 19, 2007) (final
rule)). Given the similarities between the authorizations provided
under the VEU program and export licenses (as discussed further below),
the publication of this information does not establish new policy. In
publishing this final rule, BIS amends the authorization for an
existing eligible VEU to update the address of the eligible destination
(facility). This change has been made within the established regulatory
framework of the VEU program. Further, this rule does not abridge the
rights of the public or eliminate the public's option to export under
any of the forms of authorization set forth in the EAR.
    Publication of this rule in other than final form is unnecessary
because the authorizations granted in the rule are consistent with the
authorizations granted to exporters for individual licenses (and
amendments or revisions thereof), which do not undergo public review.
In addition, as with license applications, VEU authorization
applications contain confidential business information, which is
necessary for the extensive review conducted by the U.S. Government in
assessing such applications. This information is extensively reviewed
according to the criteria for VEU authorizations, as set out in 15 CFR
748.15(a)(2). Additionally, just as license applications are reviewed
through an interagency review process, the authorizations granted under
the VEU program involve interagency deliberation and result from review
of public and non-public sources, including licensing data, and the
measurement of such information against the VEU authorization criteria.
Given the nature of the review, and in light of the parallels between
the VEU application review process and the review of license
applications, public comment on this authorization and subsequent
amendments prior to publication is unnecessary. Moreover, because, as
noted above, the criteria and process for authorizing and administering
VEUs were developed with public comments, allowing additional public
comment on this amendment to individual VEU authorizations, which was
determined according to those criteria, is unnecessary.
    Section 553(d) of the APA generally provides that rules may not
take effect earlier than thirty (30) days after they are published in
the Federal Register. However, BIS finds good cause to waive the 30-day
delay in effectiveness for this rule pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)
because the delay would be contrary to the public interest. BIS is
simply amending the authorization of an existing VEU to update the
address of the eligible destination (facility). BIS amends the EAR in
this rule consistent with established objectives and parameters
administered and enforced by the responsible designated departmental
representatives to the End-User Review Committee. Delaying this
action's effectiveness would likely cause confusion regarding which
items are authorized by the U.S. Government to be shipped to which
eligible destination (facility), which would stifle the purpose of the
VEU Program. Accordingly, it is contrary to the public interest to
delay this rule's effectiveness.
    No other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an
opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a
notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are
not required under the APA or by any other law, the analytical
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
are not applicable. As a result, no final regulatory flexibility
analysis is required and none has been prepared.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 748

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, part 748 of the EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended
as follows:

PART 748--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 748 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O.
13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR
44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 4, 2016, 81 FR
52587 (August 8, 2016).

0
2. Amend supplement No. 7 to part 748 by revising the entry for
``Boeing Tianjin Composites Co. Ltd.'' in ``China (People's Republic
of)'' to read as follows:

  Supplement No. 7 to Part 748--Authorization Validated End-User (VEU): List of Validated End-Users, Respective
                   Items Eligible for Export, Reexport and Transfer, and Eligible Destinations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Validated  end-   Eligible items (by       Eligible
           Country                  user               ECCN)           destination    Federal Register  citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Nothing in this Supplement shall be deemed to supersede other provisions in the EAR, including but not limited
                                              to Sec.   748.15(c).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
                              Boeing Tianjin   1B001.f, 1D001        Boeing Tianjin   72 FR 59164, 10/19/07.
                               Composites Co.   (limited to           Composites Co.  74 FR 19382, 4/29/09.
                               Ltd.             ``software''          Ltd., 4566      77 FR 10953, 2/24/12.
                                                specially designed    Hebei Road,     77 FR 40258, 7/9/12.
                                                or modified for the   Marine Hi-Tech  81 FR [INSERT PAGE
                                                ``use'' of            Development      NUMBER],
                                                equipment             Area, Tanggu    September 6, 2016.
                                                controlled by         District,
                                                1B001.f), 2B001.b.2   Tianjin, China
                                                (limited to machine   300451.
                                                tools with
                                                accuracies no
                                                better than (i.e.,
                                                not less than) 13
                                                microns), 2D001
                                                (limited to
                                                ``software,'' other
                                                than that
                                                controlled by
                                                2D002, specially
                                                designed or
                                                modified for the
                                                ``use'' of
                                                equipment
                                                controlled by
                                                2B001.b.2), and
                                                2D002 (limited to
                                                ``software'' for
                                                electronic devices,
                                                even when residing
                                                in an electronic
                                                device or system,
                                                enabling such
                                                devices or systems
                                                to function as a
                                                ``numerical
                                                control'' unit,
                                                capable of
                                                coordinating
                                                simultaneously more
                                                than 4 axes for
                                                ``contouring
                                                control''
                                                controlled by
                                                2B001.b.2).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: August 30, 2016.
Kevin J. Wolf,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-21333 Filed 9-2-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register: September 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 184)]
[Notices]
[Page 55537-55539]
[DOCID:fr22se06-163]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54466; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-48]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change To Amend NYSE Arca Equities, Inc.'s Clearly
Erroneous Executions Rule To Include an Appeal Fee for the Archipelago
Exchange

September 18, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 11, 2006, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by NYSE Arca. 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

    NYSE Arca proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.10 governing
clearly erroneous executions (``CEE'') on the Archipelago Exchange, the
equities trading facility of NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE Arca
Equities''). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to assess a fee
associated with the appellate mechanism of NYSE Arca Equities Rule
7.10.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on NYSE Arca's
Web site (http://www.nysearca.com), at NYSE Arca's principal office,

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, NYSE Arca included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. NYSE Arca has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections
A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange amended NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.10 (Clearly
Erroneous Executions) to include subsections (c)(2)-(4), which
amendment became effective May 16, 2005. NYSE Arca Equities Rules
7.10(c)(2)-(4) provide for an appeals panel that includes the
Exchange's Chief Regulatory Officer (``CRO''), or a designee of the
CRO, and two representatives from Equity Trading Permit (``ETP'')
Holders (together with the CRO, the ``CEE Panel'') to review the
determination of clearly erroneous executions that are made by an NYSE
Arca Equities officer under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.10(c)(1).
    As part of its continuing efforts to enhance the appeal process,
the Exchange proposes to add NYSE Arca

Equities Rule 7.10(c)(5).\3\ Under the proposed rule, if the CEE Panel
votes to uphold the decision made pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule
7.10(c)(1), the Exchange would assess a $500.00 fee against the ETP
Holder(s) who initiated the request for appeal. The Exchange's
experience with the appeal process strongly indicates that some ETP
Holders are improperly taking advantage of the appeal opportunity
provided under the rule. The Exchange believes that assessing a $500.00
fee against the ETP Holder(s) who appeals a decision made under NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 7.10(c)(1) that is subsequently upheld by the CEE
Panel would discourage frivolous and abusive practices of the appeal
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Telephone Call between David Hsu, Special Counsel, Division
of Market Regulation, Commission, and Melanie Grace, Associate
General Counsel, NYSE Group, Inc., on September 8, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since NYSE Arca Equities Rules 7.10(c)(2)-(4) were adopted, the
Exchange has found that some ETP Holders have taken advantage of the
process by categorically appealing all decisions in which they are
involved, including decisions that involve a de minimis value.
According to the Exchange, in effect, these ETP Holders file appeals
simply to ``get a second bite at the apple.'' More specifically, in the
months of August and September 2005, three ETP Holders were responsible
for filing approximately 52% of all appeals filed at the Exchange. In
addition, on July 26, 2005, an ETP Holder appealed an Exchange ruling
to bust a 34-share transaction.
    Furthermore, under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.10(c)(1), an ETP
Holder may request that an NYSE Arca Equities officer review any
transaction the ETP Holder regards as erroneous. Accordingly, an
officer renders an official determination whether the transaction is
erroneous and, if so, whether it should be canceled or modified. The
initial determination made by the NYSE Arca Equities officer is done at
no charge to the ETP Holder, and the Exchange believes that any further
examination of the execution should incur a modest fee, in the event
the original decision is upheld, to reduce the number of frivolous and
abusive appeals.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the appeal process draws upon the resources
of not only the Exchange but also of the ETP Holders who volunteer as
appeal panelists pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.10(c)(2)(A).
Specifically, an appeal requires the efforts of two NYSE Arca Equities
employees to accept and process the appeal (i.e., contact members in
the pool of appeal panelists to determine their availability to serve
on the CEE Panel, write up the circumstances of the trade(s) leading up
to the appeal, moderate the actual appeal that is conducted by
conference call, contact the parties to the appeal after the CEE Panel
reaches a decision and document the process and decision). From start
to finish, the appeal process may take up to 1\1/2\ hours to complete.
    Moreover, the CEE Panel is largely dependent on ETP Holder
participation. Each panel member is a volunteer and dedicates his or
her own time to the CEE Panel, which often meets during the busiest
periods in a trading day. The Exchange believes that constant abuse of
this process would likely foster volunteer frustration and may lead
panelists to withdraw entirely from participating in the process.
    The Exchange believes that appeals such as those described above
represent an unintended use of the appeal process and demonstrate that
abuses can proliferate when ETP Holders incur no downside risk to
filing repeated appeals, whether valid or otherwise, and, in effect,
are given a free second bite at the apple. Therefore, the Exchange
believes that it is necessary to limit the abuse of the process and
reduce the number of frivolous and de minimis appeals by assigning a
modest fee for all appeals that are upheld.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Exchange amended NYSE Arca Equities 7.10(c)(2) to provide
for an appeals process, the Exchange did not intend for the CEE Panel
to serve as a redundant decision making mechanism, and it did not
anticipate that the CEE Panel would be called upon to meet as
frequently as it does today. Additionally, while the Exchange does not
have statistical data surrounding other self-regulatory organizations'
appeal processes, the Exchange understands that usage of their
appellate mechanism is done sparingly and is not exploited by their
members.
    The Exchange did not anticipate these effects when it proposed NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 7.10(c)(2)-(4). As a result, the Exchange deems it
necessary to propose a fee of $500 against each ETP Holder who appeals
a decision made under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.10(c)(1) and such
decision is confirmed by the CEE Panel.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \6\ of the
Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \7\ in
particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principals of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 purpose of the Act.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
); or     Send an e-mail to rule-comments@ sec.gov. Please include

File Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-48 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-48. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
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 fromsubmissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-48 and should be submitted on or before
October 13, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-8036 Filed 9-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

	1650 Arch Street

	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103

DATE:	April 25, 2010

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document – Commonwealth of Pennsylvania –
Control of Nitrogen Oxides from Portland Cement Kilns

			/s/

FROM:	Rose Quinto, Environmental Engineer

		Office of Air Program Planning

TO:		File

			/s/

THRU: 	Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director

Office of Air Program Planning

A.  BACKGROUND

On July 23, 2010, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
pertaining to the control of nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from
Portland cement kilns.  Portland cement manufacturing is an energy
intensive process in which cement is made by grinding and heating a
mixture of raw materials such as limestone, clay, sand, and iron ore in
a rotary kiln.  NOx emissions are generated during fuel combustion by
oxidation of chemically-bound nitrogen in the fuel and by thermal
fixation of nitrogen in the combustion air.  This SIP revision is based
on the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) control measure to reduce NOx
emissions from cement kilns.  The OTC members include Pennsylvania,
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and the District
of Columbia.  The OTC was created under section 184 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) to establish regulatory programs to reduce ozone precursor
emissions, which includes the reduction of NOx emissions from cement
kilns.

B.  STATE SUBMITTAL

The SIP revision amends the NOx emission standards in the Title 25 of
the Pennsylvania Code (25 Pa. Code) Chapter 145, Subchapter C,
“Emissions of NOx from Cement Manufacturing,” for Portland cement
kilns during the ozone season, from May 1 through September 30, 2011,
and for each year thereafter.

The SIP revision added new definitions and terms:

Calcine – To heat a substance to a high temperature, but below its
melting or fusing point, to bring about thermal decomposition or a phase
transition in its physical or chemical constitution.

Long dry-process cement kiln – A Portland cement kiln that employs no
preheating of the feed.  The inlet feed to the kiln is dry.

Long wet-process cement kiln – A Portland cement kiln that employs no
preheating of the feed.  The inlet feed to the kiln is slurry.

Precalciner cement kiln – A Portland cement kiln where the feed to the
kiln system is preheated in cyclone chambers and a second burner is used
to calcine material in a separate vessel attached to the preheater prior
to the final fusion in a kiln that forms clinker.

Preheater cement kiln – A Portland cement kiln where the feed to the
kiln system is preheated in cyclone chambers prior to the final fusion
in a kiln that forms clinker.

System-wide – Two or more Portland cement kilns under the common
control of the same owner or operator, or multiple owners, in the
Commonwealth.

The other definitions mentioned in this SIP revision were already
approved by EPA on December 10, 2009 (74 FR 65446): continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS), clinker, Portland cement, and Portland cement
kiln.  Therefore, these terms are not included in this action.

Standard Requirements

Section 145.143(b) was revised to provide that the owner or operator of
a Portland cement kiln cannot operate a Portland cement kiln that
results in NOx emissions in excess of its allowable emissions.  Section
145.143(b)(1) added a compliance date of May 1 through September 30,
2005, and each year thereafter, the owner or operator will determine
allowable emissions by multiplying the tons of clinker produced by the
Portland cement kiln for the period by 6 pounds per ton of clinker
produced.  Section 145.143(b)(2) was also revised to require the owner
or operator of a Portland cement kiln determine allowable emissions of
NOx by multiplying the tons of clinker produced by the Portland cement
kiln for the period from May 1 through September 30, 2011 and for each
year thereafter by:

 3.88 pounds of NOx per ton of clinker produced for long wet-process
cement kilns.

 3.44 pounds of NOx per ton of clinker produced for long dry-process
cement kilns.

 2.36 pounds of NOx per ton of clinker produced for preheater and
precalciner cement  kilns.

A minor change was made to section 145.143(c) clarifying that the owner
or operator of a Portland cement kiln subject to section 145.143(b)(1)
will install and operate a CEMS and report CEMS emissions data.

The other sections mentioned in this SIP revision under section 145.143
were already approved by EPA on December 10, 2009 (74 FR 65446):
Sections 145.143(a), 145.143(b)(1), and 145.143(d) through (h).
Therefore, these sections are not included in this action.

The following sections were added to the SIP revision:

Section 145.144. Compliance Determination Requirements

By April 15, 2011, the SIP revision requires the owner or operator of a
Portland cement kiln:

To install, operate and maintain CEMS for NOx emissions.

To report CEMS emissions data to PADEP in accordance with the CEMS
requirements of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 139, Subchapter C, relating to the
requirements for source monitoring for stationary sources.

Calculate actual emissions using the CEMS data reported to PADEP.

A data invalidated under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 139, Subchapter C will be
substituted either by the highest valid 1-hour emission value that
occurred under similar source operating conditions during the reporting
quarter for an invalid data period during that quarter, or an
alternative method of data substitution as approved by PADEP in writing.
 If no valid data were collected during the reporting quarter, the
highest valid 1-hour emission value that occurred under similar source
operating conditions during the most recent quarter for which valid data
were collected, or the highest valid 1-hour emission value that occurred
under similar source operating conditions during an alternative
reporting period, shall be reported to PADEP.

Additionally, under this section, the owner or operator of a Portland
cement kiln will submit to PADEP quarterly reports of CEMS monitoring
data in pounds of NOx emitted per hour, in a format approved by PADEP,
which is in compliance with 25 Pa. Code Chapter 139, Subchapter C.
Also, the CEMS for NOx installed under the requirements of this section,
must meet the minimum data availability requirements in 25 Pa. Code
Chapter 139, Subchapter C.

Section 145.145. Compliance Demonstration and Reporting Requirements

By October 31, 2011, and each year thereafter, the owner or operator of
a Portland cement kiln will submit a written report to PADEP which
includes the following:

The difference between the actual NOx emissions from the kiln during the
interval from May 1 through September 30 and the allowable emissions for
that period.

The calculations used to determine the difference in emissions,
including the CEMS data and clinker production data used to show
compliance with the allowable emission limits.  The clinker production
data must consist of the quality of clinker, in tons, produced per day
for each kiln.

The owner or operator of a Portland cement kiln must demonstrate
compliance with the emission requirements on a kiln-by-kiln basis, a
facility-wide basis or a system-wide basis among Portland cement kilns.

Section 145.146. Recordkeeping Requirements

The owner or operator of a Portland cement kiln must maintain an
operating log for each Portland cement kiln.  The operating log must
contain the following on a monthly basis:

The total hours of operation.

The type and quantity of fuel used.

The quantity of clinker produced.

The records maintained by the owner or operator of a Portland cement
kiln must include the following:

Source tests and operating parameters established during the initial
source test and subsequent testing.

The date, time and duration of any start-up, shutdown or malfunction of
a Portland cement kiln or emissions monitoring system.

The date and type of maintenance, repairs or replacements performed on
the kilns, control devices an emission monitoring systems.

Furthermore, the owner or operator of a Portland cement kiln must
maintain the records onsite for five years and be made available to
PADEP upon request.

C.  EPA EVALUATION

This regulation will reduce emissions of NOx from cement kilns to reduce
levels of ground-level ozone.  Ground-level ozone is not directly
emitted by pollution sources, but is created as a result of a chemical
reaction of NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of
light and heat.  The reduction of NOx emissions will also help protect
the public health from high levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5),
of which NOx is a precursor component.  PM2.5, as well as ozone, is
health hazards.  The reduction of NOx emissions also reduces visibility
impairment and acid deposition.

D.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION

The regulation to control NOx emissions from Portland cement kilns
adopted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will result in the reduction
of NOx emissions from cement kilns and will help the Commonwealth in
attaining compliance with the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5     national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).  EPA approval of the SIP revision
is recommended.

 PAGE

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2