1 PC Code: 32501 DP Barcode 267486 MEMORANDUM TO: Christina Scheltema PM Team Reviewer Betty Shackleford Chief Reregistration Branch 3 Special Review and Registration Branch 7508C FROM: James K. Wolf Soil Scientist THRU: Arnet Jones Chief Environment Risk Branch 3 Environmental Fate and Effects Division 7507C RE: The Interagency Study of the Impact of Pesticide Use on Ground Water in North Carolina. March 4, 1997 (Ground water contamination from disulfoton use on Christmas trees in NC was the only topic considered in this assessment).

DATE: July 28, 2000 Conclusions:

Based upon this monitoring study and OPP's understanding of the use practices of disulfoton (e. g., hand broadcast below a tree) associated with Christmas tree production in North Carolina, no additional ground water monitoring for disulfoton resulting from Christmas tree production is necessary at this time. This recommendation could change depending upon the results of other monitoring efforts (e. g., NAWQA) associated with other uses (e. g., high frequency of detections) or concern for degradates not considered in the monitoring study. Detection limits or limits of quantification should be lower in any broader base sampling.

There were no detections of disulfoton, disulfoton sulfoxide, and disulfoton in the ground water monitoring study conducted in North Carolina. Efforts were made to place the wells in vulnerable areas where the pesticide use was known, so that the pesticide analyzed for would reflect the use history around the well. Limitations of the study include that sites were sampled only twice and the limits of detections were high (e. g., > 1.0 µg/ L) for some of disulfoton analytes. Uncertainties associated with the study include whether two samples from eight wells are adequate to represent the ground water concentrations of disulfoton residues, did 2 DRASTIC correctly identify a site's vulnerability, and were the wells placed down gradient of the use areas.

General:

The North Carolina Departments of Agriculture (NCDA) and Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR) conducted a cooperative study under the direction of the North Carolina Pesticide Board. The purpose of the statewide study was to determine if the labeled uses of pesticide products were impacting the ground water resources in North Carolina.

The study was conducted in two phases. In phase I, 55 wells in the DEHNR Ground Water Section's ambient monitoring network representing the major drinking water aquifers of the state were sampled at least twice and analyzed for selected pesticides. In phase II, 97 cooperator monitoring wells were installed and subsequently sampled at least twice in 36 counties across the North Carolina. Sites for the cooperator monitoring wells were chosen based on an evaluation of the vulnerability of ground water to risk of contamination from the use of pesticides.

Monitoring wells were located adjacent to and down gradient from areas where pesticides were reported to have been applied (within 300 feet) during the previous five years. Wells were constructed so that the shallowest ground water could be collected for analysis. The objective of these criteria was to use a scientific method for determining monitoring well locations so that the results could be used as an early indication of the potential for problems associated with pesticides leaching to ground water. The study authors make the following statement, "Results cannot be interpreted as representing the quality of ground water near pesticide use areas statewide because the study methods targeted areas of highly vulnerable ground water".

The study used tools and information available at the time of the study to identify vulnerable locations for well placement. This included statewide agricultural data from the N. C. Agricultural Statistics which were used to identify crop growing areas, the USEPA DRASTIC method (Aller et al., 1987) was used to locate the most vulnerable locations in the target crop growing areas, and local county agents of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) helped identify cooperators farmers for placement of wells. The Pesticide Study staff and county agents also met with the cooperators to obtain pesticide use information. Other studies have shown that DRASTIC is not as good a method to identify vulnerable areas as hoped. The study appeared to QA/ QC practices.

Wells were sampled in two rounds in phase II, approximately six months apart. If a chemical was detected in any well, a follow up sample was collected from the same well and analyzed for the same chemical.

Seven of the 55 ambient monitoring wells in phase I had pesticide residues detected in at least one sample collected. In the cooperator phase (II) of the study, 26 of 97 wells had pesticide 3 detected in at least one water sample collected from each well. None were disulfoton residues.

Disulfoton:

Disulfoton, disulfoton sulfone, and disulfoton sulfoxide represented three analytes measured in the study. Two different labs conducted the analysis of water samples. The stated limits of quantification were 1.0 µg/ L, 2.3 µg/ L, and not established for disulfoton, disulfoton sulfone, and disulfoton sulfoxide, respectively for the Division of Environmental Management Laboratory. The second lab's limits of quantification were 0.3 µg/ L, 3.8 µg/ L, and 0.38 for disulfoton, disulfoton sulfone, and disulfoton sulfoxide, respectively for the North Carolina Department of Agricultural Laboratory.

Disulfoton residues were monitored for in five North Carolina counties, Alleghany, Ash, Beaufort, Madison, and Robeson. Seven wells were located in Christmas Tree growing areas, one in wheat growing county, and 2 in tobacco areas. The breakout of wells sampled and analyzed for disulfoton in each county by crop are summarized in the Table 1. There were no detections of disulfoton residues in any samples collected in the study. Simazine and lindane were detected at two of the Christmas tree sites Table 1. Summary of sites samples for disulfoton or Christmas tree growing area in North Carolina.

County Crop Disulfoton Use Ground Water Detection Alleghany Christmas Trees no no Ash Christmas Trees no no Ash Christmas Trees yes no Ash Christmas Trees yes no Alleghany Christmas Trees yes no Alleghany Christmas Trees yes no Ash Christmas Trees yes no Beaufort Wheat yes no Madison Tobacco yes no Robeson Tobacco yes no Aller, L. T., T. Bennett, J. H. Lehr, R. J. Petty, and G. Hackett. 1987. DRASTIC: A Standardized 4 System for Evaluating Ground Water Pollution Potential Using Hydrogeologic Setting. USEPA Document # EPA/ 600/ 2 85 018.


[Federal Register: October 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 194)]
[Notices]
[Page 51888-51890]
[DOCID:fr08oc09-89]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60774; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-062]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Update Certain Cross-References Within Certain
FINRA Rules

October 2, 2009.
    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 September 18, 2009, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') 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 FINRA. FINRA has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule
change under paragraph (f)(6) of

Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon
receipt of this filing by the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to update certain cross-references within
certain FINRA rules to reflect changes adopted in the consolidated
FINRA rulebook.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    FINRA is in the process of developing a new consolidated rulebook
(``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook'').\4\ That process involves FINRA
submitting to the Commission for approval a series of proposed rule
changes over time to adopt rules in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook.
The phased adoption and implementation of those rules necessitates
periodic amendments to update rule cross-references and other non-
substantive technical changes in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The current FINRA rulebook consists of (1) FINRA Rules; (2)
NASD Rules; and (3) rules incorporated from NYSE (``Incorporated
NYSE Rules'') (together, the NASD Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules
are referred to as the ``Transitional Rulebook''). While the NASD
Rules generally apply to all FINRA members, the Incorporated NYSE
Rules apply only to those members of FINRA that are also members of
the NYSE (``Dual Members''). The FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA
members, unless such rules have a more limited application by their
terms. For more information about the rulebook consolidation
process, see Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook
Consolidation Process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change updates references to NASD Rule 2820
(Variable Contracts of an Insurance Company) to reflect the
incorporation of NASD Rule 2820 into the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook as
FINRA Rule 2320. This rule change was made in FINRA-2009-023, which was
approved by the Commission on June 10, 2009 and will become effective
on Oct. 19, 2009.\5\ In addition, the proposed rule change amends FINRA
Rule 9217 (Violations Appropriate for Disposition Under Plan Pursuant
to SEA Rule 19d-1(c)(2)) to delete references to NYSE Rules 134(c) and
(e) and 440I. NYSE Rules 134 and 440I were repealed in an approved
FINRA rule change that became effective on August 17, 2009.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60086 (June 10,
2009), 74 FR 28743 (June 17, 2009) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2009-023).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60367 (July 22,
2009), 74 FR 38077 (July 30, 2009) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2009-038).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. The implementation date will be October 19, 2009, the
effective date of FINRA-2009-023.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\7\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes the proposed rule change will provide
greater clarity to members and the public regarding FINRA's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is 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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor 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 after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, it has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \8\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
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.
FINRA has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2009-062 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-FINRA-2009-062. 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, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2009-062 and should be
submitted on or before October 29, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-24265 Filed 10-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                         COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS

                               February 18, 2021

TO:
FROM:	CEA STAFF
SUBJECT: Continuing OSHA emergency temporary standards (ETSs)

Summary

OSHA emergency temporary standards (ETSs) require employers to assign workers that are potentially contagious to safe work remotely or in isolation, or to provide them with a compensated leave. The level of compensation for this leave must balance (1) being high enough to incentivize reporting; and (2) not being too costly. The costs could be manifested in the raw replacement rate or through increasing the number of employees reporting exposure through incentives to falsify this information or through disincentives to take precautions against exposure.

Recommendation

If the policy tool is constrained to a full replacement rate for workers below a set threshold and zero for those above, then a threshold above $1300/week will balance the costs and benefits of the program given the current situation. This number would provide coverage to approximately 70% of workers at an expected cost to employers of $500 per week.  It is important to provide a high threshold given that workers well into the middle class are liquidity constrained -- they may have financial assets but they have large current debt liabilities that make them effectively living paycheck by paycheck.

A threshold of $1300 should be considered a lower bound given the following ameliorating considerations:

 The cost of raising the threshold to higher earners is offset by the fact that they are more likely to be able to work safely from home or otherwise distanced at the workplace.
 Rapid testing would reduce the amount of time a worker would need to isolate to as little as 5 days. These tests could be targeted to reduce the cost to employers with high worker exposure.
 CDC guidelines have directed that individuals who have been vaccinated to not need to quarantine

These considerations imply that the marginal cost of expanding the threshold would be modest and short lived as vaccination progress continues. It is also important to include considerations about vaccinations, rapid testing, and evolving CDC guidelines in any type of policy.

Empirical Motivation

Employment levels and weekly earnings are calculated from the 2019 CPS. The share that can work either socially distanced and in the work place or that can work from home are taken from Mongey, Pilossoph, and Weinberg (2020) and then adjusted to reflect the share of workers who did report working from home during COVID in the ATUS.

                           Decile of Weekly Earnings
                         Max weekly earnings in decile
                       Average weekly earnings in decile
                       Share that cannot work from home
              Share that cannot work socially distanced in person
         Share that can neither work from home nor socially distanced
                                                                              1
                                                                        $384.62
                                                                        $286.10
                                                                          89.2%
                                                                          61.4%
                                                                          56.2%
                                                                              2
                                                                        $500.00
                                                                        $457.42
                                                                          91.3%
                                                                          58.9%
                                                                          56.1%
                                                                              3
                                                                        $634.62
                                                                        $575.91
                                                                          89.3%
                                                                          58.4%
                                                                          56.5%
                                                                              4
                                                                        $769.23
                                                                        $715.47
                                                                          83.1%
                                                                          56.1%
                                                                          51.0%
                                                                              5
                                                                        $923.08
                                                                        $856.94
                                                                          74.3%
                                                                          54.7%
                                                                          44.6%
                                                                              6
                                                                      $1,076.92
                                                                        $998.75
                                                                          69.3%
                                                                          54.3%
                                                                          42.7%
                                                                              7
                                                                      $1,307.69
                                                                      $1,189.45
                                                                          66.2%
                                                                          53.5%
                                                                          41.1%
                                                                              8
                                                                      $1,634.62
                                                                      $1,470.00
                                                                          56.5%
                                                                          51.4%
                                                                          35.3%
                                                                              9
                                                                      $2,211.54
                                                                      $1,898.99
                                                                          44.2%
                                                                          49.2%
                                                                          28.1%
                                                                             10
                                                                      $5,978.26
                                                                      $3,166.90
                                                                          33.6%
                                                                          46.1%
                                                                          21.5%
Table 1: CEA calculations using 2019 CPS and Mongey, et al (2020)
Table 1 shows that workers in higher weekly earnings deciles are more likely to be able to either work from home or be socially distanced in the work place. This is important when thinking about the budgetary costs of ETS to an employer. An employer with employees having higher weekly earnings will have to pay more to replace an employee's earnings if they can't work due to exposure. However, this is offset by the fact that an employee with higher earnings is more likely to be able to work from home or work in isolation at the work place. In this case the expected cost to an employer is lower where the expected cost is defined according to the following formula:

Expected cost = Replacement Rate * Weekly Wage * Probability the employee cannot continue work safely

                           Decile of Weekly Earnings
                         Max weekly earnings in decile
                        Expected Cost @100% replacement
                                       1
                                    $384.62
                                    160.65
                                       2
                                    $500.00
                                    256.55
                                       3
                                    $634.62
                                    325.52
                                       4
                                    $769.23
                                    364.67
                                       5
                                    $923.08
                                    382.15
                                       6
                                   $1,076.92
                                    426.11
                                       7
                                   $1,307.69
                                    489.02
                                       8
                                   $1,634.62
                                    519.13
                                       9
                                   $2,211.54
                                    533.80
                                      10
                                   $5,978.26
                                    681.18
Table 2: CEA calculations using 2019 CPS and Mongey, et al (2020). Expected cost = Replacement Rate * Weekly Wage * Probability the employee cannot continue work safely
Table 2 shows the expected weekly cost for replacing the income of a single employee while taking into consideration that employee may be able to work safely at home or distanced in the workplace. Observe that the expected cost grows more slowly than the weekly earnings across decile. Moving from the 10[th] to the 70[th] decile, mean weekly earnings increase four-fold while the expected replacement cost considering work from home capability increases by three-fold.
The next consideration is whether higher earners require a high replacement rate to incentivize truthful reporting of exposure. To address this issue, consider Table 3. It shows that the proportion of households spending their stimulus payments declines as we move up in the income distribution. However, over two-thirds of households below $200,000 either spent their stimulus check or used it to pay down debt. This suggests that liquidity constraints -- the need for income now-- would continue to affect the decision to stay home for less pay for a majority of individuals all along the income distribution.
                                 Family Income
               % that mostly spent or used stimulus to pay debt
    $25,000 - $34,999
                                     81.9%
    $35,000 - $49,999
                                     81.5%
    $50,000 - $74,999
                                     76.8%
    $75,000 - $99,999
                                     73.1%
    $100,000 - $149,999
                                     66.9%
    $150,000 - $199,999
                                     65.1%
    $200,000 and above
                                     59.8%
    Did not report
                                     76.3%
      Table 3: CEA calculations from census pulse survey
Finally, what are the opportunity costs of work across income levels? This is a very similar concept to a Frisch elasticity: how likely people are to exit the labor force temporarily in response to a temporary reduction in wage. Estimates put the labor supply response of the lowest 25% of earners to a change in wage to be 1.2. The response of the next 25% is 0.77 and of the third quartile is 0.39. This means that if wages are increased by one percent then labor force participation of the lowest quartile is increased by 1.2% and so on. This can broadly be interpreted as the lowest quartile would be very likely to report to not report exposure if it meant they would lose two weeks' pay. The same for the next quartile. The large drop off thereafter implies that the top half of the distribution is largely well compensated by simply having time off and would not require a high replacement rate on pay.
Additional Considerations not Included in this Analysis

The following additional considerations are complex and not included in the present analysis. They are listed along with whether it is expected that their inclusion would raise or lower the replacement rate on average and for which groups.

 The net short term cash benefit of working is less than salary due to costs associated with working.
 This lowers the required replacement rate.
 Some examples are: transportation cost, child care, food away from home, and opportunity costs of foregone leisure or time to do work around the home.
 These costs are usually thought to be proportional to income and so this consideration does not bite disproportionably more for the high- or low-income group.

 The net long term benefit of working is greater than current salary due to promotions and building transferrable skills. Both increase wages and job security.
 This lowers the required replacement rate.
 Essentially, the current wage is a smaller consideration in the decision to go to work than the whole package of having a job and how this will increase future earnings.
 This is less true for lower-skilled positions with shorter duration and flatter promotion structure.

 The job security provision can lower the replacement threshold required to encourage reporting.
 This lowers the required replacement rate.
 A job is an asset valued much more than the current wage. If the fear of losing the asset is there, then workers would require a very high current payment to report.
 However, the law does not ensure that retaliation does not exist through the promotion ladder or further down the road.
 For lower skilled jobs that tend to have a shorter duration and a flatter promotion structure, this provision could tip the scales towards over-reporting.

 Those with pre-commitments on spending and low liquidity require a higher replacement rate.
 This raises the required replacement rate
 If cash is absolutely needed today and the job is the only means, then a near full replacement rate will be needed.
 This includes not only low-income individuals, but also individuals who live paycheck to paycheck due to high debt payments. Recent research has identified these "wealth hand-to-mouth" individuals with low liquidity as being prevalent even in the middle class.
 This is only slightly off-set by the reduced monetary costs of physically going to work.


[Federal Register: March 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 52)]
[Notices]
[Page 12789]
[DOCID:fr19mr07-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator or Foreigen
Utility Company Status

March 13, 2007.

High Prairie Wind Farm II, LLC...  EG07-19-000
Wayzata California Power Holding,  EG07-20-000
 LLC.
Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LLC.....  EG07-21-000
Dogwood Energy LLC...............  EG07-22-000
Reliant Energy Ormond Beach, Inc.  EG07-23-000
Camp Grove Wind Farm LLC.........  EG07-24-000
Fenton Power Partners I, LLC.....  EG07-25-000
Buena Vista Energy, LLC..........  EG07-26-000
Nuovo Pignone s.p.a..............  FC07-6-000

    Take notice that during the month of February 2007, the status of
the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign
Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's
regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4986 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P