1 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 20, 2005 SUBJECT: NOX Control Technologies for Stationary Diesel ICE FROM: Tanya Parise, Alpha Gamma Technologies, Inc.

TO: Sims Roy, EPA OAQPS ESD Combustion Group The purpose of this memorandum is to present information on different types of nitrogen oxides ( NOx) controls that can be applied to stationary internal combustion engines ( ICE) operating on diesel fuel.

Introduction Several control technologies capable of reducing NOx emissions from stationary ICE are discussed within this memorandum. Add on or post combustion controls ( also referred to as secondary methods of control) for NOx are control methods designed to treat the exhaust emissions from stationary ICE once NOx emissions have formed. Onengine or in cylinder controls ( also referred to as primary methods of control) for NOx are control methods designed to minimize the amount of NOx formed. Control methods that are commercially available and control technologies that are under development are discussed. Table 1 presents a summary of the NOx emissions reductions that can be achieved for the control methods discussed in this paper.

Commercially Available Add On Control Selective Catalytic Reduction Selective catalytic reduction ( SCR) has been on the market and proven reliable for over 15 years. However, it has not been widely used for engines. Miratech, Johnson Matthey, Engelhard, RJM, Wartsila and Catalyst Products are some manufacturers that make SCR. Selective catalytic reduction is often used in combination with an oxidation catalyst and is the only commercially proven secondary NOx reduction method for lean burn gas and diesel engines. The following requirements and difficulties are associated with applying SCR: Table 1. Summary of NOx Controls for Stationary Diesel ICE Control Method NOx Reduction (%) Applicable Engines Cost Other Pollutant Reductions (%) Concerns/ Requirements Commercially Available Add On Controls Selective Catalytic Reduction > 90 Lean Burn, Diesel, and Dual Fuel $ 121/ hp ( capital) 1 $ 36/ hp ( annual) 1 PM: 0 30, HC: 50 90,

CO: 50 90 ( with oxidation catalyst) Ammonia slip a concern. Requires < 500 ppm sulfur fuel.

NOxTech ® 90 95 Diesel and Lean Burn Natural Gas PM: 60 80, VOC: 90,

CO: 50 70 Trace ammonia of < 2 5 ppmv.

Commercially Available On Engine Controls Ceramic Coating 40 Diesel 2 CO: 80, NMHC: 60 Ignition/ Injection Timing Retard 0 40 ( RB)

0 20 ( LB)

15 30 ( CI) All Engines $ 12,000$ 25,000 ( capital) 3 $ 6,300$ 81,000 ( annual) CO and HC: Little effect for SI engines, no definite trend in diesel,

and slight increase in dual fuel. Combustion instability, loss of power, impacts exhaust valve life and turbocharger performance.

Increase in brake specific fuel consumption.

Water Injection 25 35 All Engines 4 No HAP Reduction Exhaust Gas Recirculation 48 80 All Engines No HAP Reduction Under Development NOx Adsorber > 90 5 Diesel and Gasoline ( EMx   : Natural Gas and Diesel) PM: 10 30, HC: 90, CO:

90 6 Sulfur degradation and catalyst durability.

Requires < 15 ppm sulfur fuel.

Ozone Injection 85 95 All Engines Typically includes a heat recovery steam generator and economizer.

Lean NOx Catalyst < 30 7,8 Lean Burn and Diesel CO: 60, NMHC: 60 1 Based on averaging cost information from NESCAUM and from Diesel & Gas Turbine Worldwide.

2 Tests are underway to determine the effect on gas fired engines.

3 Costs are based on installing an ignition system, however in certain cases the ignition system is standard equipment and no purchased equipment is required. In this case, capital costs are expected to be $ 4,000 or less.

4 Note that in Table 4 of the NJ SOTA Manual for RICE, water injection is listed as not applicable to SI lean burn engines.

5 Note that in information from EC/ R's update to EPA's ACT, EMx   has been shown to reduce NOx by 95 percent from lean burn engines and 98.9 percent from diesel engines.

6 Note that according to EC/ R's update to EPA's ACT, SCONOx ® has been shown to reduce CO and VOC by up to 95 percent in lean burn engine exhaust.

7 Note that information from the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association stated that one stationary diesel engine has been equipped with a lean NOx catalyst and NOx emissions are being reduced by 80 percent.

8 Note that in Table 5 of the NJ SOTA Manual for RICE, the NOx efficiency for CI diesel and dual fuel engines is listed as greater than 90 percent. 3   Requires sulfur levels of less than 500 parts per million ( ppm),   Fuel penalty: urea consumption approximately 4 percent of fuel use,   Infrastructure,   Requires engine integration: NOx sensor or engine NOx map,   Ammonia slip, and   Possible vanadium emissions.

Emissions Reductions Selective catalytic reduction is capable of achieving greater than 90 percent reduction for NOx, a 0 30 percent reduction for particulate matter ( PM), a 50 90 percent reduction for hydrocarbons ( HC), and a 50 90 percent reduction for carbon monoxide ( CO) ( with oxidation catalyst).

Costs Information from the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management ( NESCAUM) and from Diesel & Gas Turbine Worldwide was used to estimate the costs associated with the purchase, installation, and operation of SCR on an engine. The information from NESCAUM was based on a 1,030 horsepower ( hp) diesel engine equipped with SCR at the National Steel and Shipbuilding Company in San Diego, California. The total capital cost including installation for this system was about $ 179,000. The total annual cost was about $ 44,000. The information from Diesel & Gas Turbine Worldwide indicated that the total capital cost including installation for an SCR system applied to a 2,336 hp engine, achieving a 90 percent reduction in NOx emissions, was $ 160,000 with annual costs of about $ 67,000. The cost information from both sources was averaged together to obtain average costs per hp. Capital costs associated with SCR were estimated to be $ 121/ hp with an annual cost estimated to be $ 36/ hp. Costs include capital recovery, operation and maintenance, fuel penalty, and urea. An oxidation catalyst and a NOx continuous emissions monitoring system ( CEMS) can help to reduce ammonia slip. The capital cost for a NOx CEMS is $ 158,000 with an annual cost of $ 43,000.

Cost information is available from EC/ R's update on NOx control technologies report which was obtained from a vendor who calculated costs for two scenarios involving 2,600 hp natural gas fired SI engines. For the first scenario, three engines each operating 400 hours were used. For the first scenario, capital costs were calculated at $ 187,000. For the second scenario, one engine operated 2,000 hours per year. The capital cost for this scenario was calculated at $ 68,000. Capital costs include catalyst, urea control, injectors, engine map, startup assistance, reagent tank, and installation. The annual costs for the first scenario were calculated at $ 48,200 based on capital recovery ( equipment life of 7 years and 10 percent interest rate) and reagent costs. The annual costs for the second scenario using the same assumptions, except that an equipment life of 5 years was used, were calculated at $ 35,680. Note that these costs do not include all cost elements typically included by EPA. For example, no 4 indirect installation costs are included in the capital costs. Also, operating and maintenance costs are not included in the annual costs.

The RJM Corporation, a provider of emission control technologies, was contacted to obtain cost information about their SCR products. This company provided SCR technology to a number of diesel fired engines in the country. The product RJM installs on diesel engines for NOx control is the RJM ARIS   SCR Technology. The capital costs for the SCR system for a 2,336 hp diesel engine range from $ 140,000 to $ 160,000 depending on the amount of control ( 50 to 90 percent NOx reduction). The cost effectiveness for the RJM SCR varies depending on number of hours of operation and amount of control desired. For 90 percent NOx control from a 2,336 hp diesel engine the cost effectiveness is $ 3,130 per ton of NOx removed based on 1,000 hours of operation and ranges to $ 738 per ton of NOx removed based on 8,000 hours of operation. For 75 percent NOx control from a 2,336 hp diesel engine the cost effectiveness is $ 3,422 per ton of NOx removed based on 1,000 hours of operation and ranges to $ 775 per ton of NOx removed based on 8,000 hours of operation.

Caterpillar indicated that its SCR system is capable of reducing NOx emissions by 90 percent from diesel engines, or down to a level of about 0.7 grams per horsepower hour ( g/ hp hr) from a 7.0 g/ hp hr engine. The cost for a 1.7 megawatt ( MW) ( 2,278 hp) diesel genset package with SCR is $ 228,000, or $ 130/ ekw. Caterpillar indicated that this cost includes the SCR itself for $ 133,000, plus the urea tank, control system, connections, and packaging for $ 95,000. Caterpillar also provided some information on an SCR installation at EXAR, a semiconductor manufacturer in Freemont, California. At this facility, SCR had been installed on Caterpillar gas engines to meet 2003 California rules on NOx emissions, according to Caterpillar. The total SCR and related capital costs were $ 450,000, or $ 473/ ekw, for a plant totaling 950 ekw in size, according to Caterpillar. These costs include building modifications, civil works, fixed piping and assembly. According to Ralph Renee ( facilities manager at EXAR), the actual SCR cost was about $ 230/ ekw. Maintenance costs at this facility were estimated at about $ 0.01/ ekw hr, with the assumption of a urea price of $ 2 5 per gallon. According to Caterpillar, $ 0.01/ ekw hr would probably cover the total SCR system over time.

Experience Information from EPA's Alternative Control Techniques ( ACT) Document identified a total of 23 SCR installations with lean burn engines in the United States. A total of nine SCR installations with diesel engines and 27 installations with dual fuel engines were identified in the United States. Note that EPA's ACT was published in 1993.

More recent information from EC/ R's report ( published in 2000), which was a partial update of EPA's 1993 ACT indicated that at least 44 engines have had SCR installed since 1991. Of these, 38 are compression ignited ( CI) engines, of which 31 are fired with diesel fuel, four are fired with distillate fuel oil (# 2), one is fired with 5 residual fuel oil (# 6), and one dual fuel engine is fired with diesel and natural gas. The remaining seven engines are lean burn spark ignited ( SI) engines burning natural gas.

Information was received from catalyst vendor Miratech. Miratech indicated that there are basically no problems applying SCR to either CI or SI engines. The vendor stated that worldwide it has expertise with more than 1,000 SCR installations on engines and within the United States 70 80 SCR installations on engines.

Information regarding SCR was requested from catalyst vendor Engelhard. Engelhard referred the request to Stephen Frasch, an independent consultant and distributor of emission control systems who has used Engelhard products for the last 10 years and who is also hired by Engelhard for installation and warranty work in the western United States. Stephen indicated that they have successfully installed SCR systems on both diesel and lean burn natural gas engines and that they have met 0.15 g/ bhp hr for NOx for both fuel types with 10 ppm or less ammonia slip. According to Stephen, there are over 100 SCR installations on engines across the United States. Stephen projects to install 10 or more SCR systems in 2004.

NOxTech ® Emission Control System According to EC/ R's report, NOxTech Inc. has developed the NOxTech ® emission control system, which involves chemically treating exhaust gases with a nonhazardous liquid chemical. The system can be applied to both diesel and lean burn natural gas fired engines. It replaces the exhaust silencer on engines with a reaction chamber. At temperatures between 1,400 to 1,500 ° F the non catalytic chemical reagent is injected into the exhaust. Nitrogen, water vapor, and CO are formed from the reaction between NOx and the injected reagent. There is no toxic waste associated with this process, however, there are trace ammonia emissions of less than 2 5 ppm by volume. The NOxTech ® system is fully automated, installation requires no major modifications, and the system can be installed in 2 to 3 weeks. To achieve the temperatures required for the reactions associated with the NOxTech ® system, the exhaust gas must be heated. A heat exchanger is placed downstream from the reactor to reclaim and reuse this heat energy. According to information on NOxTech Inc's website, the system can be applied to both retrofit and new engines. The system is a muffler size device made of sheet metal and other readily available materials and parts, which can be installed easily.

Emissions Reductions Information in EC/ R's report indicated that according to NOxTech Inc., the emission control system has been proven to remove 90 95 percent of NOx emissions, 60 80 percent of PM, 90 percent VOC, and 50 70 percent of CO from the exhaust of the 4,000 hp diesel powered generator on Catalina Island. According to NOxTech Inc, emissions of gaseous organic, PM, and CO can be reduced by greater than 80 percent. 6 Costs According to literature available from NOxTech Inc. website, NOxTech ® system capital costs are about $ 50 150/ bhp hr for diesel engines. The company also states on their website that NOxTech ® treatment costs are not expected to exceed about $ 1,000/ ton of NO2 equivalent NOx reduction. The company claims that the NOxTech ® system can provide the end use a 50 percent cost reduction in comparison with SCR systems.

Experience According to EC/ R's report, the NOxTech ® system is operating on several diesel generators owned by Southern California Edison. At its Catalina Island facility, NOxTech ® is used on 2.5 MW ( 3,350 hp) and 3.8 MW ( 5,092 hp) diesel electric generators. At its Pebbly Beach generating station, NOxTech ® is used on 1.5 MW ( 2,010 hp) and 2.8 MW ( 3,752 hp) diesel generators.

On Engine Control Methods Ceramic Coating Ceramic engine coatings have been used for several years in stationary and mobile diesel engines to reduce PM emissions. Ceramic engine coatings improve combustion by reflecting heat away from coated components back into the combustion gas path.

Emissions Reductions According to the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association ( MECA), testing indicated that ceramic engine coating combined with an oxidation catalyst may reduce NOx emissions from a diesel engine, by allowing the engine timing to be retarded, by 40 percent. According to MECA, reductions of 60 and 80 percent for nonmethane hydrocarbons ( NMHC) and CO, respectively, are possible with an oxidation catalyst and engine coatings. One manufacturer of ceramic coatings for diesel engines stated that significant HC and CO reductions can be achieved, however, an estimate of the percent reductions are not available. More tests are underway to better determine the effect of ceramic engine coatings on diesel as well as gas fired engines.

Experience According to MECA's report regarding emission control technology for stationary internal combustion engines from 1997, ceramic engine coatings have been used for almost 5 years in well over 200 stationary and mobile diesel engines.

Ignition/ Injection Timing Retard 7 Ignition timing retard can be applied to all new or existing rich and lean burn engines. This method delays initiation of combustion to later in the power cycle, leading to a volume increase of the combustion chamber and a reduced residence time. This may lead to reduced NOx formation. The extent to which the ignition timing can be retarded to reduce NOx emissions varies with each engine. Ignition timing increases exhaust temperatures, which may adversely impact exhaust valve life and turbocharger performance, and extreme levels of ignition timing retard may result in combustion instability and a loss of power. Brake specific fuel consumption ( BSFC) increases.

Injection timing retard applied to CI engines reduces NOx emissions by the same principles as those for SI engines. Injection timing can be adjusted on all new or existing CI engines. Retarding the injection timing leads to the fuel igniting entirely during expansion rather than igniting initially during compression and then mostly igniting during expansion. Lower combustion temperature and lower thermal NOx is the result, however, this also causes increased fuel consumption. In addition, certain engines may experience problems with high CO and soot emissions as a result of these changes.

Ignition and injection timing retard modifications can be performed with a very low capital cost and may also require a few hours of mechanics time. Some additional hardware or testing is often recommended, resulting in a total cost of a few thousand dollars. Similar NOx reductions as those obtained with injection timing retard can be achieved with ignition timing retard. However, SI engines are typically more sensitive to timing retard than CI engines, and more operational problems are associated with SI engines when applied. Therefore, the level of NOx reduction achievable for SI engines can be more limited than for CI engines.

Injection timing retard adjustment is not possible on all engines. Excessive timing retard results in combustion instability and engine misfire. The BSFC also increases with increasing levels of injection timing retard for both diesel and dual fuel engines.

Emissions Reductions The NOx reductions from applying ignition timing retard range from no reduction to 40 percent for rich burn engines and 0 20 percent reduction for lean burn engines. Ignition timing retard has little effect on CO and HC emissions. For CI engines, retarding the injection timing by about 4 degrees can reduce NOx by 15 30 percent, however achievable NOx reductions are engine specific. There is no definite trend for CO and HC emissions for moderate levels of ignition retard in diesel engines and there is a slight increase in these emissions in dual fuel engines.

Costs Costs for ignition and injection timing retard were provided in EPA's ACT from 1993. For rich burn engines, the capital costs associated with ignition timing retard 8 range from $ 12,000 to $ 25,000 with annual costs ranging from $ 6,300 to $ 80,000. For lean burn engines, the capital costs are similar, estimated to range from $ 12,000 to $ 24,000, with annual costs ranging from $ 7,200 to $ 81,000. To obtain and maintain effective NOx reduction with changes in engine load and ambient conditions, it is required that the engine be equipped with an electronic ignition control system to automatically adjust the ignition timing. In certain cases, the ignition system is standard equipment, in which case no purchased equipment is required, and capital costs are expected to be about $ 4,000 or less. Annual costs associated with ignition timing retard are due to an increase in maintenance due to the electronic ignition control system, an increase in BSFC, emission compliance testing, and capital recovery.

For diesel engines, injection timing retard is estimated to have capital costs ranging from $ 12,000 to $ 24,000 and annual costs ranging from $ 6,200 to $ 78,000, based on varying engine sizes between 80 8,000 hp operating 8,000 hours per year. For dual fuel engines, the capital costs range from $ 12,000 to $ 24,000, with annual costs ranging from $ 10,000 to $ 57,000, based on engines from 700 to 8,000 hp in size operating 8,000 hours per year. It is anticipated that injection timing retard will require an automated electronic control system similar to ignition timing adjustment for SI engines. Capital costs are estimated on the same basis as ignition timing retard for SI engines. Similarly, annual costs for injection timing retard are estimated using the same methodology that was used for SI engines for ignition timing retard.

The Status Report on NOx Controls developed by NESCAUM presented a case study based on Tennessee Gas Pipeline's facility in Mercer, Pennsylvania. Ignition timing retard was retrofitted at this facility on six 1,100 hp Cooper GMV 10 2 stroke natural gas fired engines to meet Pennsylvania reasonably available control technology ( RACT) requirements. The cost of the retrofit, including commissioning was $ 4,000 per engine. The annual cost associated with this project was estimated at about $ 21,200.

Water Injection Water injection as a control method can be used on any engine, but has been applied primarily to diesel engines for the reduction of NOx. Only a few engines have been retrofitted to utilize water injection. However, several engine manufacturers have recently offered such control systems as techniques on their new engines. Water vapor acts as a heat sink to reduce peak temperatures, thereby reducing NOx formation.

Emissions Reductions The SOTA Manual for RICE developed by the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection stated that NOx reductions of 25 35 percent can be achieved with water injection.

Exhaust Gas Recirculation 9 Exhaust gas recirculation can be used on all engine types. It has been widely used on gasoline and diesel motor vehicle engines for NOx reduction. This method of control reduces NOx emissions by decreasing peak combustion temperatures through two mechanisms: dilution and increased heat absorption. Emissions Reductions The SOTA Manual for RICE from the State of New Jersey stated that NOx reductions of 48 80 percent can be achieved with EGR on diesel engines.

Under Development Add On Controls NOx Adsorber A NOx adsorber is a catalyst technology for removing NOx in a lean exhaust environment for diesel and gasoline fired engines. The technology is currently on the market for mobile gasoline fired engines, but still in the research and development phase for diesel. It is expected to be on the US market 2007 at the earliest. NOx adsorbers consist of ceramic monolith containing parallel channels, coated with precious metal catalysts. During lean operation, NOx is stored in the form of nitrates produced by reactions between the NOx and catalyst. At regular intervals, a momentary reducing condition ( switching to rich burn) is produced inside the monolith by injecting reductant, causing the nitrates to decompose to nitrogen.

Emissions Reductions A NOx adsorber is capable of achieving greater than 90 percent NOx reduction, 10 30 percent reduction of PM, 90 percent reduction of HC, and 90 percent reduction of CO. Ultra low sulfur diesel fuel (< 15 ppm) is required to achieve these reductions. This is the technology that the Office of Transportation and Air Quality ( OTAQ) is relying on for nonroad diesel engines to meet the Tier 4 standards. The following requirements and difficulties are associated with NOx adsorbers:

  Requires sulfur levels of less than 15 ppm,   Sulfur degradation and catalyst durability,   Requires engine integration,   Requires a means for supplemental fuel injection,   Currently have no information on fuel penalty, performance penalty or costs,   Tremendous system complexity & packaging, and   Costs of precious metals.

Costs Based on information from the regulatory impact analysis for nonroad diesel engines for NOx adsorber system costs, EPA developed NOx adsorber costs for 10 stationary CI engines. These costs were presented in the memorandum entitled " Control Costs for NOx Adsorbers and CDPF for CI Engines," included in the rulemaking docket ( Docket ID No. OAR 2005 0029). The EPA estimated average total annual control costs for NOx adsorbers at $ 1/ hp and capital control costs of $ 7/ hp. For example, for a 1,000 hp engine, annual capital control costs are estimated at $ 1,000 per engine, with capital control costs of $ 7,000 per engine.

Experience The EMx   ( SCONOx ® ) system was developed by Goal Line Technologies ( now Emerachem) and uses a single catalyst to remove NOx, CO, and VOC emissions. The system was originally applied to gas turbines, but has now been developed for use on natural gas and diesel fired engines. The EMxTM process uses no hazardous materials and all utilities required to operate the system ( natural gas, steam, water, ambient air, and electricity) are often available at the site. At temperatures between 300 and 700 ° F, nitrogen dioxide ( NO2) is absorbed onto the catalyst surface through the use of a potassium carbonate coating, which reacts with the NO2 to form potassium nitrites. Maximum NOx absorption is maintained by periodic regeneration of the EMxTM catalyst. The catalyst is regenerated by passing a controlled mixture of regeneration gases across the catalyst surface in the absence of oxygen. Water and elemental nitrogen are formed by the reaction between the regeneration gases and nitrites. The regeneration gas contains CO2 which reacts with potassium nitrites to form potassium carbonate, the absorber coating that was on the catalyst surface prior to the oxidation process.

Information from EC/ R's report indicated that the vendor tested the EMxTM system which showed that NOx, CO, and VOC were reduced by up to 95 percent in lean burn engine exhaust. Three EMxTM systems were purchased for natural gas fired engines and were scheduled to go on line in May 2000. Preliminary testing of the EMxTM system conducted by Cummins Engine Company for use on mobile and stationary diesel engines showed that NOx emissions were reduced by 98.9 percent down to 0.4 g/ bhp hr. Three EMxTM for diesel fired units have been sold but have not yet been commissioned.

Ozone Injection Ozone injection can be applied to all engine types. This control technique oxidizes NOx to nitrous pentoxide ( N2O5). A water or caustic scrubber is used to remove the N2O5 that is highly water soluble. A heat recovery steam generator and economizer are typically used to reduce the temperature below 350 ° F. Temperatures below 350 ° F inhibit ozone disassociation and ensure that the efficiency of the NOx oxidation is optimal.

According to the Status Report on NOx Controls, technologies such as electrocatalytic oxidation and ozone injection are emerging and offer the potential for high NOx emission reduction, as well as reduction of emissions of other pollutants. However, 11 because there is much less experience with these technologies, available cost information is limited.

Emissions Reductions The SOTA Manual for RICE from the State of New Jersey stated that NOx reductions of 85 95 are achievable with ozone injection.

Lean NOx Catalyst Lean NOx catalysts are being developed to reduce NOx emissions in the oxygen rich exhaust of lean burn engines, particularly diesel engines. There are two types of lean NOx catalysts; " active" and " passive" lean NOx catalysts. The " active" lean NOx catalyst injects a reductant that converts NOx contained in the exhaust gases into nitrogen and oxygen. Diesel fuel is typically used as the reductant. The presence of the reductant provides locally oxygen poor conditions which allows NOx emissions to be reduced by the catalyst.

Emissions Reductions According to OTAQ, active lean NOx catalysts can achieve NOx reductions up to 30 percent. The passive lean NOx catalyst does not employ reductant injection. It is therefore more limited in its ability to reduce NOx emissions. Passive lean NOx catalysts are able to reduce NOx emissions less than 10 percent. OTAQ noted in its report that lean NOx catalysts cannot provide the significant NOx reductions necessary for compliance with the proposed Tier 4 standards.

Information from the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association's status report on emission control technology for stationary engines, indicated that one stationary diesel engine was equipped with a lean NOx catalyst and NOx emissions were being reduced by 80 percent, CO by 60 percent, and NMHC emissions by 60 percent.

According to the SOTA Manual for RICE from the State of New Jersey, lean NOx catalysts are capable of achieving NOx reductions of 90 percent or greater for CI diesel and dual fuel engines. 12 References 1. Status Report on NOx Controls for Gas Turbines, Cement Kilns, Industrial Boilers, Internal Combustion Engines. Technologies & Cost Effectiveness. Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management. December 2000.

2. Alternative Control Techniques Document  NOx Emissions from Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. Report. EPA 453/ R 93 032. July 1993.

3. Steve Strong, Miratech to Tanya Ali, Alpha Gamma Technologies. Email. Questions Regarding SCR and NSCR for Stationary IC Engines. January 28, 2004.

4. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines. Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA420 R 03 008. April 2003.

5. State of the Art ( SOTA) Manual for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. Effective Date: 2003. State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

6. Steve Strong, Miratech to Tanya Ali, Alpha Gamma Technologies. Email. Questions Regarding SCR and NSCR for Stationary IC Engines. February 13, 2004.

7. Emission Control Technology for Stationary Internal Combustion Engines. Status Report. Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association. July 1997.

8. Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines Updated Information on NOx Emissions and Control Techniques. Revised Final Report. EC/ R Incorporated. September 1, 2000.

9. Tanya Ali, Alpha Gamma Technologies to Stephen Frasch, Stephen Frasch Consulting. Telecon. Information Regarding SCR and NSCR for Stationary Engines. February 4, 2004.

10. Stephen Frasch, Stephen Frasch Consulting to Tanya Ali, Alpha Gamma Technologies. Email. IC Engine SCR and NSCR. February 9, 2004.

11. Stationary Diesel Engines in the Northeast: An Initial Assessment of the Regional Population, Control Technology Options and Air Quality Policy Issues. Northeastern States for Coordinated Air Use Management. June 2003.

12. SCR Economics for Diesel Engines. Diesel & Gas Turbine Worldwide. July August 2001. 13 13. NOxTech Inc. http:// www. noxtech. com. March 17, 2004.

14. Nick Huff, Miratech to Jennifer Snyder, Alpha Gamma Technologies. Email. SCR Questions for RICE MACT. October 23, 2003.

15. Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines Technical Support Document for NOx SIP Call. Doug Grano and Bill Neuffer, EPA, October 2003.

17. Interstate Ozone Transport: Response to Court Decisions on the NOx SIP Call, NOx SIP Call Technical Amendments, and Section 126 Rules; Final Rule. 40 CFR Parts 51, 78, and 97. 69 FR 21604, April 21, 2004.

18. Gordon Gerber, Caterpillar to Melanie Taylor, Alpha Gamma Technologies. Email. Cost of Caterpillar SCR System. April 22, 2004.

19. Exhaust Emission Controls Available to Reduce Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines. Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association. April 2003.

20. Caterpillar Engine Research Diesel & Emissions Technology. 2002.


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

General Comment:A 75 day period of time to review the proposed regulations is insufficient.  We are requesting that the review period be extended to 180 days.

While I still have occasional traditional cigarettes, I have quit cigarettes more effectively than ever in my life, and I've been smoking since I was 15 - a long time. The reason it's worked so well this time? Electronic cigarettes.

Currently this is a booming business where small local shops around the country (there's even one in Bristol) construct appealing flavors in the much safer medium of the vapor format. We can select our levels of nicotine, and most companies even allow us to exclude or minimize the propylene glycol content, which is the only controversial ingredient currently. Even nicotine on its own is even safer than caffeine. This is and has been a path for millions of smokers to quit, and it's created a whole new industry with tons of jobs as well.

The only companies that could afford to exist in such a market as proposed are the current big tobacco companies. While I don't disagree that these products should be regulated, categorizing them as such is, again, a huge mistake. The health arguments are a smokescreen for big business interests.

Please keep this vital tool in the hands of citizens and small business, and out of the hands of the people that willfully addicted generations of our population to their products.


This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document
that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2791.01. You can
find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here.
    The EPA is proposing requirements for storage vessels including
periodic inspections based on the type of storage vessel. This
information will be collected to assure compliance with NSPS subpart
Kc.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of VOL storage
vessels.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart Kc).
    Estimated number of respondents: 588.
    Frequency of response: Initially and Semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 16,394 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2,009,357 (per year), includes $528,240 in
annualized capital and no operation or maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
[email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than November 3,
2023. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final
rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small
businesses and small governmental jurisdictions. The Agency has
determined that small entities may experience an impact of likely below
1 percent relative to sales for any affected small entity, and an even
larger margin before it would approach a 1 percent impact for a
substantial number of small entities. Details of this analysis are
presented in the memorandum Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for the Volatile Organic Liquid
Storage Vessels (Tanks) included in the docket.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments or the
private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It would not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This proposed action does have Tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. NSPS subpart Kb includes provisions for storage
vessels that already have impacts on Tribal Governments that have tanks
in excess of 20,000 gallons that meet the vapor pressure cutoffs for
general rule applicability or control applicability. The NSPS subpart
Kc proposal includes some updates to the VOC standards and monitoring
requirements for storage vessels that meet the revised vapor pressure
cutoffs for control. Additionally, basic requirements for recordkeeping
and good air pollution control practices are being proposed for all
storage vessels greater than 20,000. These changes would only impact
storage vessels that are constructed, modified, or reconstructed after
the proposal date. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA will offer government-to-
government consultation with tribes and will conduct additional
outreach to inform them of the content of the proposed rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) directs Federal
agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of
the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety
standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially
effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically
significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA
does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by
this action present a disproportionate risk to children. These proposed
revisions would reduce emissions of VOCs, some of which may also be
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). These standards would help to reduce
atmospheric ozone concentrations and reduce health effects associated
with high levels of ozone.
    However, EPA's Policy on Children's Health applies to this action.
Information on how the Policy was applied is available under
``Children's Environmental Health'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this preamble.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51

    This action for Kb and Kc involves technical standards. Therefore,
the EPA conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards. However, the Agency identified no such standards.
Searches were conducted for EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 3A, 3B,
3C, 4, 6, 10, 15, 16, 16A, 18, 21, 22, and 25A of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A. The EPA has decided to use EPA Methods 21, 22, and 25A.
Additional information

for the voluntary consensus standard search and determinations can be
found in the memorandum titled, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results
for Review of Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid
Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels). All
potential standards were reviewed to determine the practicality of the
voluntary consensus standards (VCS) for this rule. Although there were
no applicable voluntary consensus standards identified, we are amending
40 CFR 60.17 to incorporate by reference two ASTM methods as discussed
in section III.M. These include the following:
     ASTM D6377-20, ``Standard Test Method for Determination of
Vapor Pressure of Crude Oil: VPCRx (Expansion Method). The
method is an automated device method for measuring vapor pressures for
crude oils samples between 29 kPa and 180 kPa at 37.8 [deg]C. The
method is suitable for testing with a 4:1 vapor-liquid ratio.
     ASTM D6378-22, ``Standard Test Method for Determination of
Vapor Pressure (VPX) of Petroleum Products, Hydrocarbons, and
Hydrocarbon-Oxygenate Mixtures (Triple Expansion Method). The method is
an automated device method for measuring vapor pressures between 7 kPa
and 150 kPa at 37.8 [deg]C for tested samples with boiling points at 0
[deg]C. The method is suitable for volatile organic liquids,
hydrocarbons and liquid petroleum products sampled at a 4:1 vapor-
liquid ratio.
    The ASTM standards are available from the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box
C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See https://www.astm.org.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All

    The EPA believes that it is not practicable to assess whether the
human health or environmental conditions that exist prior to this
action result in disproportionate and adverse effects on communities
with EJ concerns. Over the next 5 years, the EPA estimates that 1,440
new tanks and 27 modified tanks will be subject to NSPS subpart Kc.
However, the locations of any new VOL storage vessels that would be
subject to NSPS subpart Kc are not known. Furthermore, there is
insufficient data available regarding the locations of existing VOL
storage vessels is also not known. The EPA estimates that there are
approximately more than 10,000 existing vessels subject to NSPS subpart
Kb, but do not have a list of specific units and their locations.
Therefore, we cannot perform a proximity demographic analysis of
populations near existing units as a proxy for units that may be
modified or reconstructed and become subject to NSPS subpart Kc.
Finally, because we based the analysis of the impacts and emission
reductions on model plants, we are not able to ascertain specifically
how the potential benefits of this rule would be distributed across the
population. Thus, we are limited in our ability to estimate the
potential EJ impacts of this rule.
    The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained
in in section IV.E. All pertinent supporting documents such as the
technical memo, ``Control Options for Storage Vessels'' which discusses
the costs and environmental impacts of the regulatory options
considered have been placed in the docket.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-21976 Filed 10-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 54)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 12105-12106]
[DOCID:fr23mr09-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 240

[Docket No. FRA-2008-0091, Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130-AB95

Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineers;
Miscellaneous Revisions

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public hearing and reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: By notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on December
31, 2008 (73 FR 80349), FRA proposed revisions to its regulations
governing the qualification and certification of locomotive engineers.
This document announces a public hearing to provide interested parties
the opportunity to comment on the NPRM and announces a thirty (30) day
reopening of the comment period, which closed March 2, 2009, to
commence on the date of the public hearing. The extension provides
interested parties the opportunity to comment on NPRM and to respond to
matters that arise at the public hearing related to the NPRM.

DATES: Public Hearing: A public hearing will be held on the date and at
the location listed below to provide interested parties the opportunity
to comment on the proposed revisions contained in the NPRM. A thirty
(30) day extension of the comment period will commence on the date of
the hearing. The date of the public hearing is as follows: Tuesday,
April 14, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. in Washington, DC.
    Reopening of Comment Period: The comment period will reopen
Tuesday, April 14, 2009 and written comments must be received by
Thursday, May 14, 2009. Comments received after that date will be
considered to the extent possible without incurring additional expenses
or delays.

ADDRESSES: Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held at the
following location:
    Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building
Ground Floor, Media Center--Room W11-130, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20905.
    Reopening of Comment Period: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-
2008-0091, may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251;
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590;
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays; or
     Electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal,
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket
name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for
this rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act section of this
document.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John L. Conklin, Program Manager,
Locomotive Engineer Certification, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Railroad Administration, Mail Stop 25, West Building 3rd Floor
West, Room W38-208, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590
(telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>); or John Seguin, Trial Attorney, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office
of Chief Counsel, RCC-10, Mail Stop 10, West Building 3rd Floor, Room
W31-217, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:
202-493-6045).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FRA has received written comments submitted
by interested parties related to various parts of the NPRM and a
written request for a hearing on the NPRM. Although FRA believes that
the topics addressed in the written comments containing the request for
a hearing are outside of the scope of the NPRM, FRA is holding a public
hearing to permit the exchange of information and concerns regarding
FRA's purposed amendments. The public hearing is meant to allow
interested parties to fully develop and articulate the issues and
concerns they have with the NPRM so that these concerns can be fully
addressed in any final rule that is developed. Interested parties are
invited to present oral statements and proffer evidence at the hearing.
The hearing will be informal and will be conducted by a representative
designated by FRA in accordance with FRA's Rules of Practice (49 CFR
211.25). The hearing will be a non-adversarial proceeding; therefore,
there will be no cross examination of persons presenting statements or
proffering evidence. An FRA representative will make an opening
statement outlining the scope of the hearing. After all initial
statements have been completed, those persons wishing to make a brief
rebuttal will be given the opportunity to do so in the same order in
which the initial statements were made. Additional procedures, as
necessary for the conduct of the hearing, will be announced at the
hearing.
    On April 14, 2009, the comment period for the NPRM will reopen for
thirty (30) days so that the FRA can make the public hearing transcript
available for review and comment by the general public, interested
parties can provide additional comments and documents related to the
NPRM, and interested parties can provide responses to matters that
arise at the public hearing.

Public Participation Procedures

    Any person wishing to participate in the public hearing should
notify the Docket Clerk by mail or at the address or fax number
provided in the ADDRESSES section at least five (5) working days prior
to the date of the hearing. The notification should identify the party
the person represents, and the particular subject(s) the person plans
to address. The notification should also provide the Docket Clerk with
the participant's mailing address and other contact information. FRA
reserves the right to limit participation in the hearings of persons
who fail to provide such notification.

Privacy Act

    FRA wishes to inform all potential commenters that anyone is able
to search the electronic form of all comments received into any agency
docket by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing
the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or
you may visit

http://www.regulations.gov/search/footer/privacyanduse.jsp.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 16, 2009.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
 [FR Doc. E9-6114 Filed 3-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES December17, 2002 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: EFED response to HACCO's errors only comments on the Agency document " Comparative Risks of Nine Rodenticides to Birds and Nontarget Mammals"

TO: John Pates, Chemical Review Manager Susan Lewis, Branch Chief FROM: William Erickson, Biologist Douglas Urban, Senior Biologist Environmental Risk Branch III, Environmental Fate and Effects Division THRU: Stephanie Irene, Acting Chief Environmental Risk Branch III, Environmental Fate and Effects Division The Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( EFED) has reviewed HACCO's " errors only" response to the Agency document " Comparative Risks of Nine Rodenticides to Birds and Nontarget Mammals" dated October 3, 2001. HACCO's comments of December 6, 2001 were prepared by J. A. Thompson, Registration Manager, Rodenticides. As stated in the Agency's October 23, 2001 cover letter for the assessment, the registrants' 30 day response should address only mathematical, computational, typographic, or other similar errors. Matters of policy, interpretation, or applicability of data will be addressed after the public comment period in accordance with the Agency's reregistration process for pesticides.

In response to error comments by HACCO, other rodenticide registrants, and the Rodenticide Registrants Task Force, EFED has made necessary computational and/ or typographical corrections. However, EFED notes that many comments relate to policy, interpretation, or applicability of data, and those comments will be addressed along with public comments after the 60 day public comment period. 2 Re: Preliminary Comparative Ecological Risk Assessment for Rodenticides Dear Mr. Pates:

I am writing to address several very serious concerns that HACCO, Inc has with EPA* s " Preliminary Comparative Ecological Risk Assessment for Nine Rodenticides" ( PRA) dated October 3, 2001. The compounds included in the assessment are: brodifacoum, difethethialone, bromadiolone, diphacinone, chlorophacinone, warfarin, zinc phosphide, bromethalin and cholecalciferol. HACCO, Inc. holds active registrations for the following rodenticide active ingredients included in this Assessment: Diphacinone, Brodifacoum, Warfarin and Zinc Phosphide.

We, HACCO, Inc,. are members of the Rodenticide Registrants Task Force ( RRTF) and of the Zinc Phosphide Consortium along with many other rodenticide registrants. We have been active in presenting the Agency with added information in regards to rodenticide benefits, usage, toxicity, and relative safety. However, the present version of the PRA contains significant errors and does not incorporate many of the RRTF* s comments submitted in response to EPA* s October 19, 1999, meeting regarding risks to birds and non target mammals. HACCO strongly urges that the Agency does not release this PRA to the public. This PRA needs to be revised substantially before it can be released to the public.

HAZARD COMPARISON VERSUS RISK ASSESSMENT In reading this document, the overall concern is that this PRA is a hazard comparison and not a risk assessment. EPA does not address and characterize exposure. EPA does not address the facts that these active ingredients are used differently and that formulations of these compounds may vary the characterization of exposure. Certain formulations and bait forms may reduce exposure under certain use patterns. The Agency assumes that all exposures are equal in its equations to evaluate risk. In examining field uses, however, the Agency in the PRA gives an example of how a bait form could vary a " risk" through limiting " exposure" when it addresses the desirability of broadcasting a 6 gram pellet to protect birds from primary exposure. As another example of how formulation and form will affect exposure, a broadcast use of grain bait might be preferred where the concern is primary exposure of non target canines. The Agency gave the first example listed above, but the Agency does not characterize exposure components in its equations to evaluate risk. The Agency needs to address exposure to do a " risk" assessment. The Agency needs to broaden the way it looks at rodenticides to include use patterns in the United States, sales volume, formulations and bait forms, identification and behavior of non targets within the vicinity of an application, so that an examination of the actual exposure of non targets can be made. Risk should not be estimated without an adequate characterization of exposure.

EFED response: This has been addressed in the revised document. It is well known that rodenticide baits are formulated to be lethal to rodents and a few other small mammals, and they are not selective to the target species. Although many factors influence which nontarget animals might be exposed to baits, many nontarget organisms are attracted to 1 See December 8 9, 1998 http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ 1998/ index. htm 2 See Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment ( EPA/ 630/ R 95/ 002F, 1998) at http:// cfpub. epa. gov/ ncea/ cfm/ recordisplay. cfm? deid= 12460 3 and consume grain based baits. Predators and scavengers also feed on rats and mice or other target species, and they are not likely to avoid feeding on those that have eaten rodenticide bait. Thus, rodenticide baits also pose potential secondary risks. EFED believes that the potential for risks to birds and nontarget mammals is well established for some of these rodenticides.

The risk assessment is based on the available data. Registrants have not submitted the data that would be needed to assess the probability of exposure. These data have been outlined in a section on Uncertainty and Data Needs in the revised assessment. The methodology used is similar to that used in the Agency's " Comparative Analysis of Acute Risk From Granular Pesticides" ( EPA 1992) and " A Comparative Analysis of Ecological Risks from Pesticides and Their Use: Background, Methodology, Case Study" ( EPA 1998) 1; both were reviewed by a FIFRA Scientific Review Panel. Concerning the latter analysis, the Panel noted the many scientific uncertainties in the method, yet agreed that it was a useful screening tool that provides a rough estimate of relative risk. The Panel made a number of helpful suggestions to improve the utility of the method, most of which are included here.

Risk conclusions are presented in tabular and graphical form based on two analyses of the available data. The first is a comparative ranking of the potential risk based on a comparative analysis model, and the second is a tabular comparative rating of potential risk based on a qualitative " weight of evidence" assessment. Quantitative estimates of risk are used in both; however, the " weight of evidence" assessment includes qualitative assessments of secondary risk based on mortality and other adverse effects reported in laboratory and field studies, operational control programs, and incident reports, as well as toxicokinetic data and residue levels reported in primary consumers. This approach is in concert with EPA's risk assessment guidelines2, where professional judgement or other qualitative evaluation techniques may be used to rank risks using categories such as low, medium, and high when exposure and effects data are limited or are not easily expressed in quantitative terms.

COST/ BENEFITS OF USING RODENTICIDES Since FIFRA is a cost/ benefit statute, EPA should address the benefits of using rodenticides in this document. EPA summarized in its Rodenticide Cluster RED of July, 1998, the benefits of rodenticides specifically to include 1) health benefits  prevention of disease transmission, 2) 4 prevention of property damage and 3) prevention of rodent attacks on humans. I would like to add the benefit of rodenticides in restoring threatened and endangered species to island ecological systems.

In regards to item 1), the CDC presented a report at the Rodenticide Stakeholder* s working group, June, 1999, that rodents directly cause hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, leptospirosis, ratbite fever, salmonellosis, yersinia pseudotuberculosis, lymphocytic choriomeningitis, trichinosis and toxoplasmosis. Rodents indirectly ( through harboring hosts such as fleas and mites) cause plague, rickettsialpox, Colorado tick fever, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Lyme* s disease, relapsing fever, babesiosis, western equine encephalitis, California encephalitis, murine typhus, human granulocytic ehrlichiosis and cutaneous leishmaniasis.

Concerning item 2) rodents are estimated to consume or contaminate with urine or droppings $ 1 billion of food in the U. S. annually. As noted in the above mentioned RED, rodents damage structures by gnawing on integral parts and contaminating them with bodily excretions. Rodents are also believed to account for 50% of fires of unknown origin by gnawing on electrical wiring. This was discussed by Dr. Robert Corrigan at a meeting of the above mentioned Rodenticide Stakeholder* s Working Group In regards to item 3) per the above mentioned RED, the number of cases of rats biting humans is estimated to be 14,000 per year. The CDC collected data showed that between 1986 and 1994, 809 non work related rat bites were reported to the New York City Department of Health. Two percent of rat bites require hospitalization and 95% require treatment.

Finally, I would like to mention that Rodenticides are used in the restoration of natural ecosystems. Uninhabited islands in the United States have used brodifacoum to control rats. Hawaii is currently using diphacinone in its ecosystem restoration program. Non indigenous rodents ( often rats) threaten indigenous birds and plants. Rodenticides have been used and plans are being made to use them in the future to protect threatened indigenous birds and plants.

EFED response: The Agency will be considering benefits later in the reregistration process, and the document has been modified to clarify that this is EFED's assessment of potential risks.

OTHER ERROR CORRECTIONS In conclusion, I would like to add that HACCO has given its page by page review to the RRTF for inclusion with the RRTF* s comments and believes that itemization in this correspondence would be unnecessary repetition. However, we do want to emphasize, once again, that diphacinone* s acute oral toxicity for rats should be listed as 7.0 mg/ Kg. This is the number that should be used in EPA* s equations for ecological effects. It shows a bias on the Agency* s part to continue to list and to always use in its equations the rat acute oral LD50 of 2.5 and 2.1 mg/ Kg, the results of an unacceptable study. The Agency notified the registrants that this study was unacceptable. Our letter from EPA on the unacceptability of this study is dated February 6, 1992. 5 In the letter, it was stated that if the Agency* s question could not be answered, the Agency required that a replacement study be done. The accepted replacement study found the combined acute oral LD50 in rats to be 7.0 mg/ Kg.

EFED response: HACCO provides no supporting documentation that this study is " unacceptable". The study is categorized as " supplementary" in the EPA/ OPP Health Effects Division's toxicity database; data from supplementary studies are used in OPP risk assessments.

IN SUMMARY We urge EPA not to issue publicly this erroneous and incomplete document as EPA* s current statement of its Ecological Risk Assessment of Rodenticides, but rather to review our comments and the comments soon to be submitted by the RRTF and to make revisions accordingly.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 9, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27150-27151]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11133]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 240

[Release No. 34-66910; File No. S7-08-07]
RIN 3235-AJ85

Amendments to Financial Responsibility Rules for Broker-Dealers

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is
reopening the comment period for proposed amendments to its net
capital, customer protection, books and records, and notification rules
for broker-dealers under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act''), which was issued by the Commission on March 9,
2007. The original comment period for the proposed amendments closed on
May 18, 2007, and the Commission extended the public comment period
until June 18, 2007. The Commission did not act on the rules at that
time. The Commission is presently reconsidering the proposed rule
amendments. Given the passage of time since the amendments were
proposed, the Commission is reopening for 30 days the time period in
which to provide the Commission with comments.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before June 8, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed);
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number S7-08-07 on the subject line; or
     Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

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 S7-08-07. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
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/proposed). Comments will also be available
for public inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days
between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. All comments received will be
posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael A. Macchiaroli, Associate
Director, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; Thomas K. McGowan, Deputy Associate
Director, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; Randall Roy, Assistant Director, at (202)
551-5522; Raymond A. Lombardo, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
Sheila Dombal Swartz, Special Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; Division of
Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-7010.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 9, 2007 (Exchange Act Release No.
55431, 72 FR 12862 (Mar. 19, 2007)), the Commission requested comment
on proposed amendments to the Commission's net capital, customer
protection, books and records, and notification rules for broker-
dealers under the Exchange Act.\1\ Specifically, the proposed
amendments are designed to address several areas of concern regarding
the financial requirements for broker-dealers. They also would update
the financial responsibility rules and make certain technical
amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Exchange Act Release No. 55431, 72 FR 12862 (Mar. 19,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission originally requested that comments on this proposal
be received by May 18, 2007, and subsequently extended the public
comment period to June 18, 2007.\2\ The Commission is reconsidering
these proposals presently. Given economic events since the rule
amendments were proposed, as well as regulatory developments, comments
received on the proposed amendments, the continuing public interest in
the proposed amendments and the passage of time, the Commission
believes that it would be appropriate to facilitate additional public
comments on the proposed rule amendments. Accordingly, the Commission
is reopening the public comment period for 30 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Exchange Act Release No. 55777 (May 17, 2007), 72 FR
28908 (May 23, 2007).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By the Commission.

    Dated: May 3, 2012.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-11133 Filed 5-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1261-1263]
[FR Doc No: 2016-251]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76831; File No. SR-BX-2015-088]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Delay of
Implementation of Kill Switch

January 5, 2016.
    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 December 23, 2015, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the implementation timeframe for
adopting an optional Kill Switch protection.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 proposal is to extend the implementation of the
timeframe to adopt a new risk protection, a Kill Switch, applicable to
all BX Participants. In its rule change adopting this new risk
protection in Chapter VI, Section 6, the Exchange stated, ``The
Exchange proposes to implement this rule within ninety (90) days of the
implementation date.'' \3\ The Exchange stated that it will issue an
Options Trader Alert in advance to inform market participants of such
date. At this time, the Exchange desires to extend the implementation
of this rule change to 120 days from the operative date. The Exchange
will announce the date of implementation by issuing an Options Trader
Alert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76116 (October 8,
2015), 80 FR 62146 (October 15, 2015) (SR-BX-2015-050) [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, the Kill Switch will allow BX Participants to
remove quotes and cancel open orders and prevent new order submission.
The BX Options Kill Switch is an optional tool that enables
Participants to initiate a message(s) \4\ to the System to: (i)
Promptly remove quotes; and/or (ii) promptly cancel orders.
Participants may submit a request to the System to remove/cancel quotes
and/or orders based on certain identifiers on either a user or group
level. Participants may elect to remove quotes and cancel orders by
Exchange account, port, and/or badge or mnemonic (``Identifier'') or by
a group (one or more Identifier combinations),\5\ which are provided by
such Participant to the Exchange. Participants may not remove quotes/
orders by symbol. The System will send an automated message to the
Participant when a Kill Switch request has been processed by the
Exchange's System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ BX Participants will be able to utilize an interface to send
a message to the Exchange to initiate the Kill Switch or they may
contact the Exchange directly.
    \5\ The type of group permissible would be within a broker-
dealer. For example, this could be including but not limited to all
market maker accounts or all order entry ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Participant selects quotes to be cancelled utilizing the
Kill Switch, the BX Participant must send a message to the Exchange to
request the removal of all quotes requested for the certain specified
Identifier(s). The BX Participant will be unable to enter any
additional quotes for the affected Identifier(s) until re-entry has
been enabled pursuant to proposed section (d)(iii).\6\ If the
Participant selects orders to be cancelled utilizing the Kill Switch,
the BX Participant must send a message to the Exchange to request the
cancellation of all orders requested for the certain specified
Identifier(s). The BX Participant will be unable to enter additional
orders for the affected Identifier(s) until re-entry has been enabled
pursuant to section (d)(iii). The BX Participant will be unable to
enter additional quotes and/or orders for the affected Identifier(s)
until the BX Participant has made a request to the Exchange and
Exchange staff has set a re-entry indicator to enable re-entry.\7\ Once
enabled for re-entry, the System will send a Re-entry Notification
Message to the BX Participant. The applicable Clearing Participant for
that BX Participant also will be notified of the re-entry into the
System after quotes and/or orders are removed/cancelled as a result of
the Kill Switch, provided the Clearing Participant has requested to
receive such notification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Sweeps will also be cancelled. A sweep is a one-sided
electronic quote submitted over the Specialized Quote Feed, which is
the market making quoting interface.
    \7\ The BX Participant must directly and verbally contact the
Exchange to request the re-set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest,
by enhancing the risk protections available to Exchange members. The
proposal promotes policy goals of the Commission which has encouraged
execution venues, exchange and non-exchange alike, to enhance risk
protection tools and other mechanisms to decrease risk and increase
stability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The delay of the implementation of BX Rules at Chapter VI, Section
6 will permit the Exchange an additional thirty days within which to
implement this risk protection that will be utilized by BX
Participants.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal does not impose an
undue burden on inter-market competition because all BX Participants
may avail themselves of the Kill Switch, which functionality will be
optional. The proposed rule change is meant to protect BX Participants
in the event the BX Participant is suffering from a systems issue or
from the occurrence of unusual or unexpected market activity that would
require them to withdraw from the market in order to protect investors.
The ability to control risk at either the user or group level will
permit the BX Participant to protect itself from inadvertent exposure
to excessive risk at the each level. Reducing such risk will enable BX
Participants to enter quotes and orders without any fear of inadvertent
exposure to excessive risk, which in turn will benefit investors
through increased liquidity for the execution of

their orders. Such increased liquidity benefits investors because they
receive better prices and because it lowers volatility in the options
market. For these reasons, the Exchange does not believe this proposal
imposes an undue burden on inter-market competition, rather, the
proposed rule change will have no impact on competition.
    The delay of the implementation of BX Rules at Chapter VII, Section
6(f) will permit the Exchange additional time to implement this risk
protection that will be utilized by BX Participants.

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 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 from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BX requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
because the extension will provide the Exchange with the additional
time it requires to implement the Kill Switch program. The Commission
further notes that BX's proposal to adopt the Kill Switch \12\ was
approved by the Commission \13\ and that the extension of the
implementation period does not affect the parameters of the Kill Switch
program. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposed rule
change to be operative upon filing.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75744 (Aug. 20,
2015), 80 FR 52068 (Aug. 27, 2015) (SR-BX-2015-050).
    \13\ See note 3.
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2015-088 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2015-088. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2015-088 and should be
submitted on or before February 1, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) and (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-251 Filed 1-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P