[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58852-58853]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23159]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2014-88]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before October 20, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2014-
0720 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the

comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for 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).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 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: Jake Troutman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20951.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 24, 2014.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2014-0720
    Petitioner: Northern Virginia OmniVersatile Solutions, LLC
    Section of 14 CFR: Parts 21 Subpart H, 45.23, 45.29, 61.113,
61.133, 91.9, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.203(a) and (b), 91.151,
91.401, 91.403, 91.405, 91.407, 91.409, 91.411, 91.413, 91.415, and
91.417.
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner is seeking an
exemption to commercially operate their 5.5 pound N-Cognito unmanned
aircraft system (UAS) over private property, with the permission of the
land owner, to conduct precision photogrammetry and crop scouting at
the resolutions necessary for precision agriculture.
[FR Doc. 2014-23159 Filed 9-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 161 (Monday, August 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50187-50189]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20317]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67654; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-81]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change With Respect to the Authority of the
Exchange or NASDAQ Execution Services To Cancel Orders When a Technical
or Systems Issue Occurs on the Exchange's NASDAQ OMX PSX Facility and
To Describe the Operation of an Error Account for NES

August 14, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On June 27, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Exchange'' or ``Phlx'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
amend Phlx Rule 3315 by adding a new paragraph (d) that addresses the
authority of the Exchange or Nasdaq Execution Services LLC (``NES'') to
cancel orders when a technical or systems issue occurs on the
Exchange's NASDAQ OMX PSX facility (``PSX'') and describes the
operation of an error account for NES. The proposed

rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on July
10, 2012.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters regarding the
proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67343 (July 3, 2012), 77
FR 40684 (July 10, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-81) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    NES, a broker-dealer that is a facility and an affiliate of Phlx,
provides outbound routing services from the Exchange to other market
centers pursuant to Phlx rules.\4\ In its proposal, Phlx states that a
technical or systems issue may occur at Phlx, NES, or a routing
destination that causes the Exchange or NES to cancel orders, if the
Exchange or NES determines that such action is necessary to maintain a
fair and orderly market.\5\ Phlx also states that a technical or
systems issue that occurs at the Exchange, NES, a routing destination,
or a non-affiliate third-party Routing Broker \6\ may result in NES
acquiring an error position that it must resolve.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Notice, 77 FR at 40685 n.3 and accompanying text, and
text accompanying n.4. See also Phlx Rule 3315.
    The Exchange also has authority to receive equities orders
routed inbound to PSX by NES from The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(``NASDAQ'') and, on a pilot basis, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'').
See Notice, 77 FR at 40685 n.4. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 66178 (January 18, 2012), 77 FR 3539 (January 24, 2012)
(SR-Phlx-2011-170); and 65553 (October 13, 2011) 76 FR 64987
(October 19, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-138).
    \5\ See Notice, 77 FR at 40685. For examples of some of the
circumstances in which the Exchange or NES may decide to cancel
orders, see Notice, 77 FR at 40685-86.
    \6\ The Exchange states that, from time to time, it also uses
non-affiliate third-party broker-dealers to provide outbound routing
services. In its proposal, the Exchange refers to these broker-
dealers as ``third-party Routing Brokers.'' See Notice, 77 FR at
40685 n.3.
    \7\ See Notice, 77 FR at 40685. Specifically, Phlx Rule
3315(d)(2) defines ``error positions'' as ``positions that result
from a technical or systems issue at Nasdaq Execution Services, the
Exchange, a routing destination, or a non-affiliate third-party
Routing Broker that affects one or more orders.''
    For examples of some of the circumstances that may lead to error
positions, see Notice, 77 FR at 40685-86.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New paragraph (d) to Phlx Rule 3315 provides Phlx or NES with
general authority to cancel orders to maintain fair and orderly markets
when a technical or systems issue occurs at the Exchange, NES, or a
routing destination. It also provides authority for NES to maintain an
error account for the purpose of addressing, and sets forth the
procedures for resolving, error positions. Specifically, paragraph
(d)(1) of Phlx Rule 3315 authorizes Phlx or NES to cancel orders as
either deems necessary to maintain fair and orderly markets if a
technical or systems issue occurs at Phlx, NES, or a routing
destination. Phlx or NES will be required to provide notice of the
cancellation to all affected members as soon as practicable.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Phlx Rule 3315(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (d)(2) of Phlx Rule 3315 will allow NES to maintain an
error account for the purpose of addressing error positions that result
from a technical or systems issue at Phlx, NES, a routing destination,
or a non-affiliate third-party Routing Broker.
    For purposes of Phlx Rule 3315(d), an error position will not
include any position that results from an order submitted by a member
to Phlx that is executed on the Exchange and automatically processed
for clearance and settlement on a locked-in basis.\9\ NES will not be
permitted to (i) accept any positions in its error account from a
member's account or (ii) permit any member to transfer any positions
from the member's account to NES's error account.\10\ In other words,
NES may not accept from a member positions that are delivered to the
member through the clearance and settlement process, even if those
positions may have been related to a technical or systems issue at
Phlx, NES, a routing destination, or a non-affiliate third-party
Routing Broker.\11\ If a member receives locked-in positions in
connection with a technical or systems issue and experiences a loss in
unwinding those positions, that member may seek to rely on Phlx Rule
3226, which provides members with the ability to file claims against
Phlx ``for losses directly resulting from the [PSX] system's actual
failure to correctly process an order, message, or other data, provided
PSX has acknowledged receipt of the order, message, or data.'' \12\ If,
however, a technical or systems issue results in the Exchange not
having valid clearing instructions for a member to a trade, NES may
assume that member's side of the trade so that the trade can be
automatically processed for clearance and settlement on a locked-in
basis.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Phlx Rule 3315(d)(2)(A).
    \10\ See Phlx Rule 3315(d)(2)(B).
    \11\ See Notice, 77 FR at 40686 n.11. This provision would not
apply if NES incurred a short position to settle a member's
purchase, as the member would not have had a position in its account
as a result of the purchase at the time of NES's action. Similarly,
if a systems issue occurs that causes one member to receive an
execution for which there is not an available counterparty, action
by NES would be required for the positions to settle into that
member's account. See id.
     If error positions result in connection with the Exchange's use
of a third-party Routing Broker for outbound routing and those
positions are delivered to NES through the clearance and settlement
process, NES would be permitted to resolve those positions. If,
however, such positions were not delivered to NES through the
clearance and settlement process, then the third-party Routing
Broker would resolve the error positions itself, and NES would not
be permitted to accept the positions. See Notice, 77 FR at 40685
n.3.
    \12\ See Notice, 77 FR at 40686 n.11.
    \13\ See Phlx Rule 3315(d)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (d)(3) of Phlx Rule 3315 permits the Exchange or NES, in
connection with a particular technical or systems issue, to either (i)
assign all resulting error positions to members or (ii) have all
resulting error positions liquidated. Any determination to assign or
liquidate error positions, as well as any resulting assignments, will
be made in a nondiscriminatory fashion.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Phlx Rule 3315(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phlx and NES will be required to assign all error positions
resulting from a particular technical or systems issue to the members
affected by that technical or systems issue if Phlx or NES:
    (i) Determines that it has accurate and sufficient information
(including valid clearing information) to assign the positions to all
of the members affected by that technical or systems issue;
    (ii) Determines that it has sufficient time pursuant to normal
clearance and settlement deadlines to evaluate the information
necessary to assign the positions to all of the members affected by
that technical or systems issue; and
    (iii) Has not determined to cancel all orders affected by that
technical or systems issue in accordance with Phlx Rule 3315(d)(1).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Phlx Rule 3315(d)(3)(A)(i)-(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If Phlx or NES is unable to assign all error positions resulting
from a particular technical or systems issue to all of the affected
members, or if Phlx or NES determines to cancel all orders affected by
the technical or systems issue, then NES will be required to liquidate
the error positions as soon as practicable.\16\ NES will be required to
provide complete time and price discretion for the trading to liquidate
the error positions to a third-party broker-dealer, and would be
prohibited from attempting to exercise any influence or control over
the timing or methods of such trading.\17\ Further, NES will be
required to establish and enforce policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to restrict the flow of confidential and
proprietary information between the third-party broker-dealer, on one
hand, and the Exchange and NES, on the other, associated with the
liquidation of the error positions.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Phlx Rule 3315(d)(3)(B).
    \17\ See Phlx Rule 3315(d)(3)(B)(i).
    \18\ See Phlx Rule 3315(d)(3)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, paragraph (d)(4) of Phlx Rule 3315 requires the Exchange
and NES to

make and keep records to document all determinations to treat positions
as error positions; all determinations to assign error positions to
members or to liquidate error positions; and the liquidation of error
positions through the third-party broker-dealer.

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act
\19\ and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\20\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\21\
which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest; and are not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. In addition, the Commission
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
11A(a)(1)(C) of the Act \22\ in that it seeks to assure economically
efficient execution of securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission recognizes that technical or systems issues may
occur, and believes that Phlx Rule 3315, in allowing Phlx or NES to
cancel orders affected by technical or systems issues, should provide a
reasonably efficient means for Phlx to handle such orders, and appears
reasonably designed to permit Phlx to maintain fair and orderly
markets.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Commission notes that Phlx states that the proposed
amendments to Phlx Rule 3315 are designed to maintain fair and
orderly markets, ensure full trade certainty for market
participants, and avoid disrupting the clearance and settlement
process. See Notice, 77 FR at 40687. The Commission also notes that
Phlx states that a decision to cancel orders due to a technical or
systems issue is not equivalent to the Exchange declaring self-help
against a routing destination pursuant to Rule 611 of Regulation
NMS. See 17 CFR 242.611(b). See also Notice, 77 FR at 40686 n.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that allowing the Exchange to resolve
error positions through the use of an error account maintained by NES
pursuant to the procedures set forth in the rule, and as described
above, is consistent with the Act. The Commission notes that the rule
establishes criteria for determining which positions are error
positions,\24\ and that Phlx or NES, in connection with a particular
technical or systems issue, will be required to either (i) assign all
resulting error positions to members or (ii) have all resulting error
positions liquidated.\25\ Also, Phlx or NES will assign error positions
that result from a particular technical or systems issue to members
only if all such error positions can be assigned to all of the members
affected by that technical or systems issue.\26\ If Phlx or NES cannot
assign all error positions to all members, NES will liquidate all of
those error positions.\27\ In this regard, the Commission believes that
the new rule appears reasonably designed to further just and equitable
principles of trade and the protection of investors and the public
interest, and to help prevent unfair discrimination, in that it should
help assure the handling of error positions will be based on clear and
objective criteria, and that the resolution of those positions will
occur promptly through a transparent process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Phlx Rule 3315(d)(2).
    \25\ See Phlx Rule 3315(d)(3).
    \26\ See Phlx Rule 3315(d)(3)(A).
    \27\ See Phlx Rule 3315(d)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Commission notes that it has previously expressed
concern about the potential for unfair competition and conflicts of
interest between an exchange's self-regulatory obligations and its
commercial interest when the exchange is affiliated with one of its
members.\28\ The Commission is also concerned about the potential for
misuse of confidential and proprietary information. The Commission
believes that the requirement that NES provide complete time and price
discretion for the liquidation of error positions to a third-party
broker-dealer, including that NES not attempt to exercise any influence
or control over the timing or methods of such trading, combined with
the requirement that Phlx establish and enforce policies and procedures
that are reasonably designed to restrict the flow of confidential and
proprietary information to the third-party broker-dealer liquidating
such positions, should help mitigate the Commission's concerns. In
particular, the Commission believes that these requirements should help
assure that none of Phlx, NES, or the third-party broker-dealer is able
to misuse confidential or proprietary information obtained in
connection with the liquidation of error positions for its own benefit.
The Commission also notes that Phlx and NES would be required to make
and keep records to document all determinations to treat positions as
error positions; all determinations to assign error positions to
members or liquidate error positions; and the liquidation of error
positions through the third-party broker-dealer.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65455
(September 30, 2011), 76 FR 62119 (October 6, 2011) (SR-NYSEArca-
2011-61) at 62120 n.16 and accompanying text.
    \29\ See Phlx Rule 3315(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission notes that the proposed procedures for
canceling orders and the handling of error positions are consistent
with procedures the Commission has approved for other exchanges.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67281 (June
27, 2012), 77 FR 39543 (July 3, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-057); 66963
(May 10, 2012), 77 FR 28919 (May 16, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-22);
67010 (May 17, 2012), 77 FR 30564 (May 23, 2012) (SR-EDGX-2012-08);
and 67011 (May 17, 2012), 77 FR 30562 (May 23, 2012) (SR-EDGA-2012-
09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\31\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2012-81) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-20317 Filed 8-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11640-11641]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03748]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0039; FRL 9526-5]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements of
the HCFC Allowance System (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an
existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below,
describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated
burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 21,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0039 to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0039,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail
to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Burchard, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, 6205J,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 343-2338; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On September 10, 2012 (77 FR 55470), EPA sought comments on
this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0039, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation
Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-
1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is 202-
566-1742.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at www.regulations.gov as EPA receives
them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted
material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information
whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further
information about the electronic docket, go to www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements of the HCFC
Allowance System (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2014.04, OMB Control No. 2060-0498.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on 2/28/2013. Under OMB
regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. 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 EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The international treaty The Montreal Protocol on
Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol) and Title VI of the
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) established limits on total U.S.
production, import, and export of class I and class II controlled ozone
depleting substances. Under its

Protocol commitments, the United States was obligated to cease
production and import of class I controlled substances (e.g.,
chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs) with exemptions for essential uses,
critical uses, previously-used material, and material that is
transformed, destroyed, or exported to developing countries. The
Protocol also establishes limits and reduction schedules leading to the
eventual phaseout of class II controlled substances (i.e.,
hydrochlorofluorocarbons or HCFCs).
    The U.S. is obligated to limit HCFC consumption (defined by the
Protocol as production plus imports, minus exports). The schedule
called for a 35 percent reduction on January 1, 2004, followed by a 75
percent reduction on January 1, 2010, a 90 percent reduction on January
1, 2015, a 99.5 percent reduction on January 1, 2020, and a total
phaseout on January 1, 2030. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is responsible for administering the phaseout.
    To ensure U.S. compliance with these limits and restrictions, EPA
established an allowance system to control U.S. production and import
of HCFCs by granting control measures referred to as baseline and
calendar-year allowances. Baseline allowances are based on the
historical activity of individual companies. Calendar-year allowances
allow holders to produce and/or import controlled substances in a given
year and are allocated as a percentage of baseline. There are two types
of baseline and calendar-year allowances: Consumption and production
allowances. Since each allowance is equal to 1 kilogram of HCFC, EPA is
able to monitor the quantity of HCFCs being produced, imported and
exported. Transfers of production and consumption allowances among
producers and importers are allowed and are tracked by EPA.
    The above-described limits and restrictions are monitored by EPA
through the requirements established in the regulations in 40 CFR part
82, subpart A. To submit required information, regulated entities can
download reporting forms from EPA's Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ozone/record), complete them, and send them to EPA electronically, via mail,
courier, or fax. Almost all of the large regulated companies use the
EPA reporting forms.
    Upon receipt of the reports, the data is entered into the Ozone
Depleting Substances (ODS) Tracking System. The ODS Tracking System is
a secure database that maintains the data submitted to EPA and helps
the agency: (1) Maintain oversight over total production and
consumption of controlled substances; (2) monitor compliance with
limits and restrictions on production, imports, and trades and specific
exemptions from the phaseout for individual U.S. companies; and (3)
assess, and report on, compliance with the U.S. obligations under the
Montreal Protocol.
    EPA has implemented an electronic reporting system that allows
regulated entities to prepare and submit data electronically. Coupled
with the widespread use of the standardized forms, electronic reporting
has improved data quality and made the reporting process efficient for
both reporting companies and EPA. Most reporting is done
electronically.
    Pursuant to regulations in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, reporting
businesses are entitled to assert a business confidentiality claim
covering any part of the submitted business information as defined in
40 CFR 2.201(c). EPA's practice is to manage the reported information
as confidential business information.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Companies that produce, import, and
export class II controlled ozone depleting substances.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 49.
    Frequency of Response: Annually, quarterly, occasionally.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 1,601 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $161,793, includes $1,365 in O&M
costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 259 hours in the
total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease reflects the expansion of the
electronic reporting program.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-03748 Filed 2-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 156 (Thursday, August 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48518-48519]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19889]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2883-008]

Aquenergy Systems, LLC; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of
the Traditional Licensing Process

    Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    Project No.: 2883-008.
    Date Filed: May 28, 2015.
    Submitted By: Aquenergy Systems, LLC.
    Name of Project: Fries Hydroelectric Project.
    Location: On the New River, in Grayson County, Virginia. No federal
lands are occupied by the project works or located within the project
boundary.
    Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    Applicant Contact: Beth Harris, One Tech Drive, Suite 220, Andover,
MA 01810;<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 100; email--mailto:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    FERC Contact: Nick Ettema at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Aquenergy filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing
Process on May 28, 2015. Aquenergy provided public notice of its
request on June 8, 2015. In a letter dated August 6, 2015, the Director
of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Aquenergy's request to
use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, part
402. We are also initiating consultation with the Virginia State
Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National
Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    With this notice, we are designating Aquenergy as the Commission's
non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation
pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and consultation
pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    Aquenergy filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a
proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18
CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in paragraph h.
    The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application
for a new license for Project No. 2883. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9,
and 16.10 each application for a new license and any competing license
applications must be filed with the Commission at

least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All
applications for license for this project must be filed by May 31,
2018.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: August 6, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-19889 Filed 8-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 182)]
[Notices]
[Page 53768-53769]
[DOCID:fr20se07-41]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8471-3]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Consent Decree; Request for Public Comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a
proposed consent decree. On February 3, 2006, the Center for Biological
Diversity and four other plaintiffs (collectively, ``Plaintiffs'')
filed an amended complaint alleging that EPA failed to perform its
mandatory duty under CAA section 109(d)(1) to periodically review the
air quality criteria for nitrogen oxides (``NOX'') and
sulfur oxides (``SOX'') and the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (``NAAQS'') for nitrogen dioxide (``NO2'') and
sulfur dioxide (``SO2''), to make such revisions to these
air quality criteria and NAAQS as may be appropriate, and to promulgate
such new NAAQS as may be appropriate. Center for Biological Diversity,
et al. v. Johnson, No. 05-1814 (D.D.C.). The proposed consent decree
establishes a schedule for EPA's review and, if appropriate, revisions
of the air quality criteria for SOX and NOX and
the NAAQS for NO2 and SO2 NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by October 22, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2007-0962, online at http://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method); by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>mailed to EPA Docket Center,

Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: M. Lea Anderson, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    Under section 109(d) of the CAA, EPA is required to periodically
review air quality criteria and NAAQS and to make such revisions as may
be appropriate. Plaintiffs allege that EPA has failed to do this by the
deadline set forth in the CAA. The proposed consent decree establishes
a schedule for EPA's review and, if appropriate, revisions of the air
quality criteria for NOX and SOX and the
NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. The schedule establishes dates
for issuance of Integrated Science Assessments (document containing air
quality criteria) addressing the human health effects of
NOX, the human health effects of SOX, and the
public welfare effects of NOX and SOX. The
proposed consent decree also establishes a schedule for EPA's issuance
of notices of proposed rulemaking and final rules concerning its review
of the primary and secondary NO2 and SO2 NAAQS.
The consent decree provides that EPA will sign a notice setting forth
its decision concerning its review of (1) the primary NO2
NAAQS no later than December 18, 2009; (2) the primary SO2
NAAQS no later than March 2, 2010; and (3) the secondary NO2
and SO2 NAAQS no later than October 19, 2010.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to
the proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties
or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree
if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines, based on any comment which may be submitted, that
consent to the consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the
decree will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How Can I Get A Copy of the Consent Decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2007-0962) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree.

The official public docket is available for public viewing at the
Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
http://www.regulations.gov. You may use the www.regulations.gov to submit or

view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select
``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov without change, unless

the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI
and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including
copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed
in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA

electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(e-mail) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through
http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address is automatically captured and

included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: September 14, 2007.
Richard B. Ossias,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E7-18573 Filed 9-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 169 (Friday, September 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 60447]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18961]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-2712-000]

North Bend Wind Project, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
North Bend Wind Project, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is September 18, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: August 28, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-18961 Filed 8-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES October 15, 20004 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Summary and Response to Comments on, " Cypermethrin: Occupational and Residential Exposure and Risk Assessment for the Reregistration Elegibility Decision ( RED) Document." ( DP Barcode: 298692; Chemical No. 109702)

FROM: Seyed Tadayon, Chemist Reregistration Branch III Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

THRU: Danette Drew, Branch Senior Scientist Reregistration Branch III Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

TO: Cathryn O'Connell Chemical Review Manager Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508W)

This document contains a response to comments submitted in a memorandum, " Cypermethrin RED: from FMC, Syngenta, United Phosphorus, Inc., and Valent Biosciences Corporation to Mark Seaton ( SRRD), dated October 22, 2003. Only comments regarding occupational and residential exposure ( ORE) to cypermethrin are addressed in this document. Comments relevant to the ORE assessment are presented below, followed by a description of the action or approach taken in response by the Agency. FMC, Syngenta, United Phosphorus, Inc., and Valent BioSciences Corporation Error Only Comments Cypermethrin Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment ( Oct. 22, 2003)

Location in Document ( comment #) Comment HED Response General Comments ( 1) The occupational and residential use of zetacypermethrin was not included in this document. Since exposure to zeta cypermethrin could cooccur with exposure to cypermethrin, both sets of risks should be examined in this document. Please ensure that zeta cypermethrin uses are included in the appropriate discussions, risk assessments, and tables throughout the Occupational and Residential Assessment document. Zeta cypermethrin was included in the document ( 2) In order to avoid confusion, the indoor use patterns for cypermethrin products must be clearly identified throughout this document. For dilutable ( EC) or WP/ WSB formulations, there are no indoor broadcast scenarios allowed in inhabitable areas. In these areas, only crack and crevice or spot treatments can be made with these formulations. In addition to the EC and WP/ WSB formulations, there are two distinct types of aerosol products: RTU Total Release Aerosols ( TRA) and RTU aerosol space sprays ( used for flying insects, crawling insects, crack & crevice/ spot). The distinction between TRAs and aerosol space sprays should be maintained throughout the document. HED has distinguished between aerosol can applications and indoor fogger applications in this document.

( 3) This should be revised to show that zetacypermethrin also is included in the assessment Zeta cypermethrin was included in the document ( 4) This should be revised to show that zetacypermethrin also is included in this process. Zeta cypermethrin was included in the document ( 5) General Revise to include zeta cypermethrin Zeta cypermethrin was included in the document ( 6) Paragraph 1 The correct chemical name contains   3 phenoxyphenylmethyl  Cypermethrin formulations include liquid and wettable powder concentrates  We are unaware of any hose end sprayer uses for cypermethrin. The risk assessment does not seem to include any such uses. HED corrected the spelling of the chemical name.

HED added the word " powder" to the document.

HED removed the reference to hose end sprayer uses. Location in Document ( comment #) Comment ( 7) Exposure Data Used in Assessment, paragraph 1 " No handler exposure data are available to assess exposures to ready to use pump trigger sprayers or indoor foggers, therefore PHED data for applying with an aerosol can is used as a reasonable worsecase surrogate." If better data is needed, a proprietary study ( MRID 44739301) was used in a recent bifenthrin TRED to give RTU spray bottle dermal and inhalation unit exposure numbers. The inhalation unit exposure was 53.6 µ g/ lb ai. HED used the unit exposure values from the proprietary propoxur study for this assessment. The inhalation unit exposure is 123 µ g/ lb ai ( 8) Hazard concerns, paragraph 1 Typographical error: " long term inhalation endpoint of concern ( 0.1 mg/ L " should read "  0.01 mg/ L " Typographical error: " neuratoxicity" should be " neurotoxicity" HED fixed these typographical errors.

( 9) Hazard concerns, paragraph 2 The target ARI is 1, therefore ARIs of less than 1 indicate  HED fixed this typographical error.

( 10) Hazard concerns, paragraph 3 The document states, " The Agency is applying an FQPA safety factor of 10X for non occupational exposures to cypermethrin due to the lack of a developmental neurotoxicity study". This is a contradiction to the statement in Section 6, Subsection C. of the HIARC report that indicates " the special FQPA safety factor should be 1X since there are no residual uncertainties for pre and/ or post natal toxicity". Please indicate which statement is correct. CHANGE WAS MADE ( 11) Hazard concerns, paragraph 4 The cypermethrin HIARC does not identify a developmental neurotoxicity datagap for cypermethrin. While the Agency apparently has required a DNT study on zeta cypermethrin from one registrant and apparently has told that one registrant that the zeta cypermethrin study will also apply to cypermethrin, that position has not been publicly stated or communicated to any other registrants. The wording in this sentence needs to be revised to correctly reflect the requirement. CHANGE WAS MADE ( 12) Hazard concerns, paragraph 5 The document states relative to non occupational uncertainty factors that, " an uncertainty factor of 3000 has been applied to long term inhalation exposures." The appropriate long term inhalation uncertainty factor for non occupational exposures is defined in the HIARC report ( pg 21 and 30) to be 1,000. Please clarify which uncertainty factor should be applied for the long term inhalation risk evaluations. HED has re affirmed that the uncertainty factor of 3000 applies to non occupational long term inhalation exposures. ( 13) Occupational Handler Risks, paragraph 1 The last sentence is a fragment, perhaps intended to part of the preceding sentence. Please reword for clarity.

In the fragment sentence, the implication is that the ready to use ( RTU) scenario presented in the preceding sentence is considered to represent the worst case. As per comment 2, please specify what type of aerosol ( TRA or space spray) is being used for the comparison. HED reworded this sentence.

HED has clarified in the document between aerosol spray can applications and ready touse indoor fogger applications.

( 14) Occupational Handler Risks, paragraph 3 In the 3rd sentence, the statement about mixing/ loading/ applying EC formulations for termiticide applications with baseline PPE is moot as Pesticide Regulation Notice 96 7 directs that " chemical resistant gloves shall be included in the PPE statement for all termiticide products" ( i. e. is a PPE requirement for each Toxicity category). All current labels already require the use of chemicalresistant gloves for this activity, with waterproof gloves after dilution therefore, it is not necessary to access termiticide handlers at baseline PPE ( without gloves). HED removed the exposure values for " no gloves" in the termiticide injector assessment.

( 15) " commercial pest control officials" should be " commercial pest control operators" This typographical error was fixed.

( 16) Some of the MOEs will change due to changes in the appendices. When MOEs changed, these are reflected in the text. ( 17) Occupational Handler Risks, paragraph 4 In the fourth paragraph, which starts, " Aggregated long term " it is stated that the long term risks were below the Agency's level of concern was for all scenarios, except mixing/ loading/ applying wettable powders as termiticides with a low pressure handwand sprayer to lawns.

The WP labels do have use patterns where termites are controlled with a spray mostly via injection techniques into wall voids or trees. The termite control uses on these labels restrict applications to above ground uses only and also indicate that these treatments are not to be used as a substitute for soil treatment. It should be noted that the traditional soil residual termiticide label uses are covered by the labeling guidance in Pesticide Regulation Notice 96 7 where both pre and post construction application techniques are covered by either a broadcast spray or trenching and rodding techniques ( soil treatment techniques). These use patterns cover large volume application scenarios.

No cypermethrin WP labels have typical soil residual application use directions and accordingly, these applications would not use the high volumes ( e. g. 500 gallon) associated with soil applications. The WP use volumes for lawn applications would therefore be consistent with low pressure handwand/ backpack ( 40 gal), or spot treatment scenarios ( 1,000 ft2).

Please revise assessment accordingly. HED changed the assessment to 40 gallons for low pressure handwand equipment.

( 18) Residential Postapplication Risk, paragraph 1 The document states, " Postapplication inhalation risks following indoor applications at residential sites may pose a concern, however, these risks were not assessed at this time due to lack of exposure data." However, a postapplication inhalation risk scenario was evaluated and was not of concern. See section 3.2.3, Residential Postapplication Exposure and Risk Estimates, Residential Postapplication Risk, and Table 9. HED changed this language to indicate that indoor postapplication inhalation risks were evaluated ( 19) Residential Postapplication Risk, paragraph 2 The document indicates the turf to hand to mouth risks from Wettable powder applications were not acceptable ( MOE = 900). This value is based upon an application rate of 0.74 lbs ai/ A. Syngenta, FMC, and United Phosphorous Inc, have communicated ( letter to LCDR Mark J. Seaton dated May 29, 2003) to the agency that the residential lawn labels should be capped at a maximum application rate of 0.0138 lbs ai/ 1000 ft2 HED revised the risk assessment to reflect the reduced rate for wettable powder applications to residential lawns. ( 0.60 lbs ai/ A). The Revised cypermethrin use closure memo ( June 2, 2003) acknowledges the agreed upon capped maximum rate to be submitted by Registrants during Phase 5 of the RED processes. Please revise to the agreed upon maximum rate. ( 20)   and paragraph 5 Paragraphs 2 and 5 will change based on assumptions present later in this document. HED has made these changes.

( 21) Overall Risk Summary The document states, " Residential handler and postapplication risks are of concern for some use patterns and no practical risk mitigation measures are available to the Agency to reduce these risks." This should be changed to: Residential handler and postapplication risks are of concern may be mitigated through label language clarifying uses rates and application methods. HED has revised this language.

( 22) The document states " The Agency is applying an FQPA safety factor of 10X for nonoccupational risk exposures to cypermethrin due to a lack of a developmental neurotoxicity study." As indicated in point 1 above, this statement is not consistent with HIARC report. NO CHANGES MADE ( 23) Next to last sentence: The cypermethrin HIARC does not identify a developmental neurotoxicity datagap for cypermethrin. While the Agency apparently has required a DNT study on zeta cypermethrin from one registrant and apparently has told that one registrant that the zeta cypermethrin study will also apply to cypermethrin, that position has not been publicly stated or communicated to any other registrants. The wording in this sentence needs to be revised to correctly reflect the requirement. NO CHANGES MADE ( 24) Section 1.3, paragraph 6 It is stated, " The total uncertainty factors that have been applied to risk assessments is 100 for occupational scenarios and 1000 for nonoccupational assessments." However, for occupational assessments this is true only for short and intermediate term assessments. For long term occupational assessments, the uncertainty factor should be 300 per HIARC. HED has corrected this statement.

( 25) Section 1.3, Table 1 Under long term inhalation, the LOC for MOE for residential is incorrect. The MOE of 3000 should be 1000, per HIARC NO CHANGE MADE ( 26) Footnote " a" is incorrectly listed on the shortand intermediate and the long term inhalation residential MOE HED fixed the footnote.

( 27) Footnote " b" appears to be in error as it contradicts footnote " a" and the determined dermal absorption factor HED fixed the footnote. ( 28) Section 1.3, paragraph 7 The document states, " However, the HIARC document notes that cypermethrin can cause the " pyrethroid reaction" or a local site of contact sensation that is indicated by tingling and other signs and can result in scratching and secondary infections. The document recommends that dermal exposure to cypermethrin should be minimized and the products labeled to provide instructions to avoid contact with skin." To which HIARC document is this quote referring? It is not the February 2003 HIARC document included with this package. NO CHANGE MADE ( 29) Section 1.4, paragraph 1 The referenced report by J. Blondell does not include any suggestions that cypermethrin can cause asthma or asthma like symptoms. NO CHANGE MADE ( 30) Section 1.5.1 Table 3 The table does not include any zetacypermethrin products, please ensure zetacypermethrin products are included.

Reg. No. 279 3026 is the technical, not a manufacturing product. See the following corrected tables. Zeta cypermethrin has been incorporated into th The tables have been adjusted to match the table ( 31) Please include products for z cypermethrin. These formulations include liquid concentrates and ready to use eartags. Table 4A outlines the formulations and the EPA registrations numbers for labels of zcypermethrin end use products according to PPLS. Many of the products described in Table 4A can be used in a variety of settings ranging from agriculture crops to commercial, industrial, and residential premises. Zeta cypermethrin has been incorporated into t assessment.

( 32) Section 1.5.3, Occupati onal Use Sites and The registered uses for zeta cypermethrin need to be added to the appropriate sections. These are summarized in appendix 1. Please revise this section accordingly. Zeta cypermethrin has been incorporated into the assessment.

( 33) Homeow ne ential Use Sites Occupational Use Si tes Terrestrial Food Crop Head and Stem Brassica Vegetables do not include broccoli raab, but do include Chinese ( napa) cabbage and Chinese mustard cabbage. Brassica Leafy vegetables include broccoli raab but do not include lettuce. Chinese cabbage is the same as bok choy. Cypermethrin is not registered on fruiting vegetables. HED made these changes.

( 34) Section 1.5.3, paragraph 3 Under Homeowner/ Residential Use Sites: " commercial pest control officials" should be " commercial pest control operators" HED fixed this typographical error. ( 35) Under Homeowner/ Residential Use Sites:

As stated in comment 2, the indoor use patterns for cypermethrin products must be clearly identified throughout this document. For dilutable ( EC) or WP/ WSB formulations, there are no indoor broadcast scenarios allowed in inhabitable areas. Please clarify what is being considered as " broadcast" for indoor residential scenarios.

Also, the aerosol products are not included in this section. Please include both types of aerosol treatment ( TRA and space spray). If the broadcast scenario is related to an aerosol application, please specify the type of aerosol product this is related to. HED clarified these use patterns in the text ( 36) Please add " s" to premise. ( Indoor and Outdoor Permises ) HED fixed this typographical error ( 37) Section 2.1, paragraph 1 There are distinct job functions or tasks related to pesticide applications and exposures that can vary depending on the specifics of each task. HED fixed this typographical error ( 38) Section 2.1.1 Short and Intermediate term Scenarios Scenario 16, Wettable powder formulations: termiticide injector should be removed. This scenario assessed is for termite control in trees, utility poles, fence posts and building voids. As currently assessed, the amount handled per day is 500 gallons which is not logical for the type of application being assessed.

The 500 gallon volume is reasonable for the higher volume soil residual applications ( e. g. rodding / trenching) but these do not apply in this case, as the WP labels only allow for above ground uses.

Further, while the application equipment is listed as an injector on some of the product labels, the type of injection tool is an attachment used with low pressure handwands, or backpack sprayers to allow delivery into the area being treated. As such, this scenario is already covered by scenarios 11 and 12. Accordingly, please remove Scenario 16.

It would be appropriate to have Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator scenario for liquid products ( e. g. EC used as a soil residual termiticide).

Also, some liquid product labels with termite and other wood infesting insects allow for broadcast application indoors. However, these broadcast applications are limited to attics, crawl spaces, unfinished basements and similar unfinished unoccupied areas.

Based upon the comments above, please revise this section to more accurately reflect use rates for occupational handler scenarios. HED removed the termiticide injector scenario for wettable powder formulations and added it to the liquid formulations in the assessment.

HED altered the postapplication risk assessment to reflect the fact that broadcast application indoors with liquid ( nonaerosol and non fogger) formulations are spot and crack/ crevice only.

( 39) Section 2.1.2, Bullet 4 The product labels used to determine the application use rates presented in this section should be specified for each scenario. HED did not list the registration numbers of specific labels, but did include the application rates from the use closure memo whenever appropriate.

( 40) Section 2.1.2, paragraph 2, Bullet 4, subbullet 7 For turfgrass treatments at residential, commercial and industrial sites, the maximum application rate is listed as 0.74 pounds active ingredient per gallon acre. As acknowledged by the Agency in the Revised Cypermethrin Use Closure Memo ( June 2, 2003), the maximum lawn application rate being supported by the registrants is 0.6 lbs ai per acre. This application rate is for WP formulations only. The maximum EC turf rate is 0.44 lbs ai per acre. Please correct the maximum turfgrass WP rate to 0.6 lbs ai per acre as per comment 19. This change should also be reflected in the relevant summary tables in the document. HED altered the risk assessment to reflect the new maximum application rate for wettable powders on residential lawns. 41 Section 2.1.2, paragraph 2, Bullet 4, subbullet 8 As per comment 2, please consistently distinguish the type of aerosol ( RTU or surface spray) throughout the document in order to ensure clarity about the type of product being evaluated.

The application rate and type of aerosol application that the corresponding rate applies to is not identified and cannot be readily reproduced. As written, the ready to use surface treatment maximum application rates is described as 0.09 lbs active/ 16 oz aerosol can. This rate is equivalent to a 9% ( w/ w) cypermethrin RTU aerosol. We are not aware of any RTU aerosol label with this high rate. For crack & crevice/ spot aerosols, the highest RTU spray we are aware of is 0.15% cypermethrin. The highest Total Release Aerosol ( room fogger) that we are aware of is 1.7% ( in 1.5 oz cans). Given these percentages, the application rate for an aerosol spray could be no more than 0.0015 lbs ai/ 16 oz can for the crack & crevice, and not more than 0.0032 lbs ai for a TRA. Further, it should be noted that for TRA applications, the applicator does not stay in the room. Please identify which use label has this concentration for aerosols sprays in a RTU form. Note: One potential explanation for the rate in question ( 0.09 lbs active/ 16 oz aerosol can) is the possibility that the Agency has confused one of the RTU Ear Tag labels as an aerosol. HED added text to the document to clarify between the aerosol spray can and indoor fogger scenarios.

HED adjusted the assessment to reflect a maximum application rate for RTU aerosol as 0.15% active ingredient.

( 42) Section 2.1.2, paragraph 2, Bullet 6 " However, no standard values are available for scenarios involving livestock treatments, aerosol cans or termiticide treatments in and around premises. HED altered the text to reflect the wording change.

( 43) Section 2.1.2, paragraph 2, Bullet 6, subbullet 4 Some of the usage assumptions described in this sub bullet do not agree with the parameters specified in the revised Science Advisory Council for Exposure Policy 9. This section should be corrected as shown below to include the correct use assumptions.

" For premises treatments, 40 gallons per day is used for low pressure handwand and backpack scenarios, 500 gallons 5 acres per day is used for handgun sprayer applications, and 500 gallons per day is used for termiticides injection applications ( liquid formulations only), and 5 gallons per day is used for paint brush applications." HED made these changes in the text and in the assessment.

( 44) Section 2.1.2, paragraph 2, Bullet 6, subbullet 6 For ready to use applications, EPA assumes that professionals use four 8 two 16 ounce aerosol cans or one 1 gallon pump trigger sprayer. HED made these changes in the text and in the assessment. ( 45) Section 2.1.2, Table 5 The Unit Exposure Values for LCO Turfgun application based upon ORETF studies are presented. The values do not match those in MRID 449722 01 ( ORETF report OMA002). It is not clear where the cited unit exposure values are found in the referenced ORETF document. Please clarify how the unit exposure values were determined. Additionally, the EC and WSB data were also used in this risk assessment, but not included in Table 5. This data should be added. Also, the table says " no glove data were not back calculated," but this is included in the table. The unit exposures for the ORETF studies reflect the most recent decisions on the values for this study.

HED made these changes in the text and in the assessment.

( 46) Section 2.1.3, paragraph 2 ( daily exposure) Where: Daily Dermal Exposure ( mg ai/ day) = Unit Exposure( mg ai/ lb ai) x Application Rate ( lb ai/ lb of seed )

x Daily amount Treated ( lbs) HED made these changes in the text.

( 47) Section 2.1.3, paragraph 3 ( daily dose) The 3rd and 2nd to last sentences of the paragraph are misleading. Please rephrase the sentences to state that no absorption factor is needed for inhalation based on the identified NOAEL of 2.7 mg/ kg/ day from the study. HED made these changes in the text.

( 48) After the formula, it is suggested to add " Inhalation daily doses were calculated in a similar manner." HED made these changes in the text.

( 49) The equation that describes the process for calculating the Daily dermal or inhalation dose needs to be corrected as follows: Where: Daily dermal or inhalation dose ( mg/ kg/ day) = daily dermal HED made these changes in the text.

( 50) Section 2.1.3, Margins of Exposure heading The equation that describes the process for calculating the dermal or inhalation MOE needs to be corrected as follows:

Where: Dermal or inhalation MOE= Daily Dermal Dose ( mg/ kg/ day)/ Dermal NOAEL( mg/ kg/ day) HED made these changes in the text.

( 51) Section 2.1.3, Margins of Exposure heading Paragraph 2 " The target MOEs for long term occupational workers are 100 for dermal and 300 for inhalation risk. The following sentence is not clear as it is written: " The effects seen at both dermal and inhalation by loss of body weight " Please reword this sentence to make it clear what is intended. HED made these changes in the text.

HED reworded this section. ( 52) Section 2.1.3, ( Occupational Risk Summary) Table 6 general comments The uses for zeta cypermethrin need to be added to table 6. These data are presented in Appendix 2. Many of the application use parameters presented in this table are inconsistent with those presented in section 2.1.2, 4th main bullet ( reference comment 43). Further, the sources of the application rates are unknown and for some scenarios are not consistent with those presented in section 2.1.2. Please identify the labels used as sources of application rates. Also, the turf grass application rate should be capped at 0.6 lbs ai per acre, as per comments 19 and 40. Zeta Cypermethrin has been added to this document HED has altered certain text and application rates in this document to reflect the use closure memo and to make section consistent with one another.

( 53) Section 2.1.3, ( Occupational Risk Summary), Table 6 Scenarios 7 and 8 Lawn uses: Please clarify how the lawn application rate was determined.

As per comment 2, dilutable ( EC) or WP/ WSB formulations, allow for no indoor broadcast scenarios in inhabitable areas. These products are limited to crack and crevice or spot treatments only in inhabitable indoor areas. HED has altered the lawn use rate as reflected in the use closure memo.

HED made these changes in the text and in the assessment.

( 54) Section 2.1.3, ( Occupational Risk Summary) Table 6 Scenario 10 The use rate is correctly identified. However, the amount handled per day is incorrectly identified and should be corrected to state 5 acres, not 5 gallons. HED made this change in the text.

( 55) Section 2.1.3, ( Chronic Risk Summary) Chemical resistant gloves already are required for all mixing/ loading/ application of EC formulations on all labels, with waterproof gloves after dilution or with closed systems. Additionally as stated in comment 14, PRN 96 7 mandates that " chemical resistant gloves shall be included in the PPE statement for all termiticide products". With the requirement to wear gloves already present on the EC/ TC labels, an assessment with baseline PPE is not appropriate. HED removed the baseline " no glove" scenario for those scenarios for which the " no glove" unit exposure had to be backcalculated since no data existed for a baseline scenario. Otherwise, HED left in the baseline scenario as is consistent with other assessments.

( 56) Section 2.1.3, ( Chronic Risk Summary), paragraph 1 When data were available to assess risks, risks to occupational handlers are below the Agency's level are not below the Agency's level of concern for risk assessments ( i. e., ARI> 1) at either baseline attire ( i. e., long sleeve shirt, long pants, shoes, and socks), or with the addition of personal protective equipment for dermal protection ( i. e., chemical resistant gloves). HED made these changes in the text. ( 57) Section 2.1.3, ( Chronic Risk Summary), Table 7, Scenario 1 and 2 Baseline dermal MOE values should be shown as " N/ A" since all labels require the used of chemical resistant gloves for these applications, with waterproof gloves after dilution or with closed systems.

Many of the application use parameters presented in this table are inconsistent with those presented in section 2.1.2, 4th main bullet ( as per comment 43). Further, the sources of the application rates are unknown and for some scenarios are not consistent with those presented in section 2.1.2. Please identify the labels used as sources of application rates. Also, the turf grass application rate should be capped at 0.6 lbs ai per acre, as per comments 19 and 40 HED removed the baseline " no glove" scenario for those scenarios for which the " no glove" unit exposure had to be backcalculated since no data existed for a baseline scenario. Otherwise, HED left in the baseline scenario as is consistent with other assessments.

HED altered these sections to make them consistent with one another. HED also, when appropriate, altered the maximum use rates to reflect the use closure memo.

( 58) Section 3.1.2, Bullet 3, subbullet 4 Consistent with SAP 12, the number of animals to be treated when applying to pet horses is one not two. HED altered the assessment to reflect one horse.

( 59) Section 3.1.3, Table 8 Scenario 5 The ready to use surface treatment maximum application rates is described as 0.09 lbs active/ 16 oz aerosol can. This rate is equivalent to a 9% ( w/ w) cypermethrin RTU aerosol. We are not aware of any RTU label with this high rate. The highest RTU aerosol we are aware of is 0.15% cypermethrin. Please indicate what label has this concentration in a RTU form. HED altered the assessment to reflect a 0.15% aerosol can.

( 60) Section 3.1.3, paragraph 4 It should read MOE's, not MOE, s. HED fixed this typographical error.

( 61) Section 3.1.4, Paragraph 1 If required, there is proprietary unit exposure data for trigger pump sprayers that was used for a bifenthrin TRED; MRID 44739301. See comment ( 6). HED used the proprietary data for propoxur to assess exposure to pump trigger sprayers.

( 62) Section 3.2.1, paragraph 2 The document states, " Postapplication inhalation risks following indoor applications at residential sites may pose a concern, however, these risks were not assessed at this time due to lack of exposure data." A postapplication inhalation risk scenario was evaluated and was not of concern. ( See section 3.2.3, Residential Postapplication Exposure and Risk Estimates, Residential Postapplication Risk, and Table 9.) HED altered the text to reflect this comment. ( 63) Section 3.2.2, Bullet 1, subbullets 1 & 2, and subullet 6 The document states that, " measured TTR values   even if available   are not used because of differences in Transferability versus what would be expected during hand tomouth behaviors." A similar statement is included for object to mouth behaviors. Section 3.2.4 however recommends additional data, " such as TTR data which are more appropriate for handto mouth and object to mouth exposures". These two statements should be harmonized, as they are contradictory.

subbullet 6   please correct: object to mouth exposures are based upon 25 cm2 / day surface area HED altered the text to reflect this comment.

HED altered the text to reflect this comment.

( 64) Section 3.2.3, paragraph 2, hand to mouth and object to mouth calculations based upon contact with treated turf: For all equations: The application rates ( AR) in the equations should be in units of lb ai/ A For the conversion factor ( CF) of 11.2 see following corrections. CF = conversion factor ( 11.2) to convert lb ai/ A to µ g/ cm2 should be calculated as follows: ( 1 lb ai/ A x  4.54E+ 8 µ g/ lb x 2.47E 8 A/ cm2 = 11.2 µ g A/ lb cm2)

F = fraction of residue dislodgeable from to wet hands ( unitless) BW = 70 kg HED altered the text to reflect this comment.

HED altered the text to reflect this comment.

( 65) Section 3.2.3, oral exposure from hand to mouth activity upon treated indoor hard surfaces and carpet The units in the equation should be based on surface residue ( SR) in µ g/ cm2 and not the application rate ( AR) in lb/ 1000 ft2. There is no conversion factor included to give the proper units. Thus the assumption should be that an application rate of 0.000017 lb ai/ ft2 equals 8.31 µ g/ cm2.

Further, the SR ( surface residue component) used in this section appears to be from a general broadcast application. However, the current use labels only allow for crack & crevice/ spot treatments in living areas. As per comment 2, please identify what is meant by broadcast and how the application rate used in the calculations were determined. HED altered the text to reflect this comment.

HED adjusted the assessment by applying a 50% adjustment factor for the application to crack and crevices rather than as a broadcast treatment and altered the text to reflect this comment.

( 66) Section 3.2.3, paragraph 3, object to mouth The equation for object to mouth exposure includes exposure time ( ET) in the assumptions section. This term not utilized in object to mouth calculations as the temporal component is covered by the SA term ( cm2/ day). Please correct.

Please also correct the SA term to be 25 cm2/ day not 20 cm2/ day, as per Science Advisory Council on Exposure policy # 12. HED altered the text to reflect this comment.

HED altered the text to reflect this comment. ( 67) Section 3.2.3, paragraph 7, ( Residential Postapplicati on Risk) The reference to M. Collantes, 12/ 04/ 2001 is unclear. No document form M. Collantes on that date could be located. Perhaps the reference is to the 12/ 04/ 01 document " PP# 0F06207 FQPA Human Health Risk Assessment for the Use of Z Cypermethrin on Sorghum, Wheat, Soybean, Legumes and Fruiting Vegetables," DP Barcode: D279025 by Y. Donovan. Please indicate which document is being referenced. The indoor inhalation assessment done using a study titled Exposure Evaluation during homeowner use of laser products. The pyrethroid group are well aware of this study and is used in several pyretheroid risk assessment. This study is conducted using cyfluthrin.

( 68) Section 3.2.3, paragraph 7, 8, 9 ( Residential Postapplicati on Risk) In the 3 paragraphs preceding Table 9, the text indicates that Post application short term inhalation exposures from an indoor fogger treatments were assessed based upon a cyfluthrin fogger study. Additionally it is stated that a " house model" was used to estimate the emission rate based upon dilution features of the model. At two earlier points in the document ( Executive summary ( residential post application section and section 3.2.1), it is stated that indoor exposures and postapplication exposures were not being assessed due to a lack of data. If the post application inhalation risks were assessed, then the previous two points are incorrect. If the data were subjected to a " house model", the model utilized should be identified. Multi Chamber Consumer Exposure Model ( MCCEM) was used by the pyretheroid group to estimate an emission rate which was based on the dilution features of the model.

( 69) Section 3.2.3, paragraph 9 ( Residential Postapplicati on Risk) In the paragraph immediately preceding Table 9, it is stated that ALL of the risk calculations for the various cypermethrin assessments are included in appendix B for the turf and indoor scenarios. Appendix B only contains post application risk data for oral exposures ( toddler) and not all of the risk calculations in particular the calculations cited in Table 9. HED has added all scenarios to the appendices .

( 70) There is a typographical error in footnote " b"   daily dose should be mg/ kg/ day rather than mg/ jg/ day. Please correct. HED fixed this typographical error.

( 71) Section 3.2.3, Table 9 The application rate used in this section appears to be from a general broadcast application. However, the current use labels contain a crack & crevice/ spot use pattern in living areas. As per comments 2, 41, and 65, please indicate what is meant by broadcast and how the application rate was determined. HED altered the assessment to reflect the crack and crevice use pattern, rather than the broadcast spray.

( 72) Section 3.2.3, Tables 9& 10 Hand to mouth from indoor surfaces, The source of the application rate ( 0.000017 lb ai/ sqft) is unclear. Please clarify how this rate was determined. Also please indicate if application was made as general broadcast, what type of product is being assessed ( reference comment 2). HED altered the assessment to reflect the crack and crevice use pattern, rather than the broadcast spray.

( 73) Section 3.2.3, Table 10 The residential lawn application rate for the WP formulation is indicated as 0.74 lbs ai/ A. The registrants have agreed to an application rate cap of 0.60 lbs ai/ A as discussed in comment 19. Please correct to the cap rate and modify tables and appendices as appropriate. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

( 74) Section 3.2.3, Table 10 Turf uses: The maximum WP application rate to turf per the Use Closure Memo is 0.6 lb ai/ A ( comment 19), which yields an MOE of 1100. Please revise accordingly.

As per comments 2, 41, and 65, please explain HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

HED made alterations in the text to explain this as a ( 75) Section 3.2.3, Table 11 The second and fourth rows under both shortterm and intermediate term exposures need to be clarified to show that these refer to EC uses ( table currently says " spray", even though both WP and EC formulations are sprayed)

The indoor surface spray component needs to be revised as discussed in comment 2, 41, and 65 as there are no registered indoor broadcast applications for cypermethrin. Please revise as appropriate. HED made this change in the text.

HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

( 76) Section 3.2.3, Table 11 Please add the zeta cypermethrin uses to Tables 10 and 11. These are summarized and presented in Appendix 2 of this errors only document. Zeta cypermethrin was added to this document.

( 77) Section 3.2.3, Statements following Table 11 Conclusions about aggregate risk estimates for MOEs < 1000 should be revised following correction of risk assessments for the lack of broadcast indoor surface spray treatments. All indoor treatments are crack & crevice/ spot uses. Please revise per comments 2, 41, and 65 HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

( 78) Appendix A/ Table A1 The table includes both dermal and inhalation exposure information, however, dermal exposure was not considered for short and intermediate term risk. The data source is listed as PHED V1.1 In addition, the EPA SAC Policy 9.1 was used to obtain the standard assumptions. This change was not made.

( 79) Appendix A/ Table A1 Scenarios The respirator protection factor of 10 was not used. HED made this change in the text.

( 80) Appendix A/ Table A1 Scenarios 7 13 and 16 Under PPE it states that " Respiratory protection not required for this assessment," yet the assessment was done with the respirator protection factor of 5, and in some cases was required. The same statement used under scenarios 1 6 should be included. HED made this change in the text.

( 81) Appendix A/ Table A1 Scenarios 10, 14, The amount handled daily should be 5 acres and not 500 gallons for lawn handgun applications in accordance with SAP 9. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

( 82) Appendix A/ Table A1 Scenario Although no data was available, paintbrush data was used in Table A2. HED made this change in the text. ( 83) Appendix A/ Table A2 The zeta cypermethrin uses need to be included in this table. Zeta cypermethrin was added to this document ( 84) Appendix A/ Table A2 Scenario 1d The MOE for baseline inhalation should be corrected to 39,000. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

( 85) Appendix A/ Table A2 Scenario 2a d The unit exposure for the engineering control is the same as the liquid. Instead, the WSB unit exposure data should be used, which gives a value of 0.24 ug/ lb ai handled. All engineering control MOEs should be amended. HED made these changes in the text and in the assessment.

( 86) Appendix A/ Table A2 Scenario 4 The unit exposure value for the engineering control should be 0.43 ug/ lb ai. All engineering control MOEs should be amended. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

( 87) Appendix A/ Table A2 Scenario 7 Lawn Uses: The basis for the lawn use rate at 0.0034 lb ai/ gal cannot be identified. As stated previously ( comment 19) the maximum lawn application rate being supported by the registrants is 0.6 lbs ai per acre for the WP formulations and 0.44 lbs ai per acre for the EC formulations. Please correct the maximum WP turfgrass rate to 0.6 lbs ai per acre for risk assessments and modify report/ tables as needed.

Non termite indoor: please revise per comment 2 to reflect that EC and WP formulations can only be applied indoors as crack & crevice or spot treatments. They are not labeled for indoor applications as general broadcast sprays. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

( 88) Appendix A/ Table A2 Scenario 7 and 8 We were unsure how the agency arrived at the use rates for the horse and soil applications. These values are do not reflect realistic use rates. As an example, the rate quoted for horse would be equivalent to treating 100 horses per day ( label rate 2 oz/ animal), which for one individual is logistically impossible. Please explain the source for these rates. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

( 89) In the Termites: building perimeter section, the application rate is 0.08 lbs ai per gallon ( equivalent to 1%). This rate is not correct, the correct application rate is 0.1% ( 0.008 lbs/ gal) for EC/ TC formulations on Outdoor surfaces and around buildings. Voids may be treated at 1% for certain pests but this would be done using injection equipment and not low pressure handwand. Please revise as needed. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment. ( 90) Appendix A/ Table A2 Scenario 8 The basis for the lawn use rate at 0.0034 lb ai/ gal cannot be identified. As stated previously ( comment 18) the maximum lawn application rate agreed upon by EPA and the registrants is 0.6 lbs ai per acre for the WP formulations and 0.44 lbs ai per acre for the EC formulations. Please correct the maximum turfgrass rate to 0.6 lbs ai per acre for risk assessments and modify report/ tables as needed. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

( 91) Appendix A/ Table A2 Scenario 9 The crop or target of " lawns" with application directed at " outside surfaces" is inconsistent; outside surfaces of structures are not lawns. Please ensure that this use rate is not used for " lawn" application exposure assessments. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

( 92) The unit exposure values should be 280 ug/ lb ai for baseline and 56 ug/ lb ai for PPE. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

( 93) Appendix A/ Table A2 Scenario 10 Since the lawn use rate is correctly given in lb ai/ acre, the amount handled daily also should be in acres ( 5 acres, not 5 gallons). HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

( 94) Appendix A/ Table A2 Scenario 11 The lawn MOEs should be corrected to 290 and 1400 for baseline and PPE, respectively. These rates will be changed additionally with the incorporation of the WP 0.6 lbs ai/ A maximum ca p r at e. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

( 95) Appendix A/ Table A2 Scenario 13 The unit exposures for paintbrush applications should be 280 and 56 ug/ lb ai for baseline and PPE, respectively. The MOEs should be amended. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

( 96) The unit exposure value is listed as 323 µ g/ lb ai and attributed to the PHED database. The inhalation unit exposure value in PHED for paint brush applications ( PHED Scenario 22) is 280 µ g/ lb ai. Please correct as necessary. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

( 97) The " Amount Handled" should be 5 Acres. The unit exposures could not be verified based on the ORETF study. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

The ORETF values reflect the most recent decisions by HED. ( 98) Appendix A/ Table A2 Scenario 14 The unit exposure value is listed as 62 µ g/ lb ai and attributed to the ORETF. The inhalation unit exposure value for handgun with WP in the ORETF summary document ( 0MA005) is 65.4 µ g/ lb ai. The ORETF values reflect the most recent decisions by HED.

( 99) Appendix A/ Table A2 Scenario 15 The maximum WP allowable use rate on lawns per the use closure memo is 0.6 lb ai/ A. The " Amount Handled" should be 5 Acres. The unit exposures could not be verified based on the ORETF study report. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

The ORETF values reflect the most recent decisions by HED.

( 100) Appendix A/ Table A2 Scenario 20 The application rate and type of aerosol application that the corresponding rate applies to is not identified and cannot be reproduced. As per comments 2 and 41, please clarify how the application rate was determined and what type of product is being assessed ( e. g. TRA or space spray). HED made this change in the text and in the assessment. ( 101) The basis for the lawn use rate at 0.0034 lb ai/ gal cannot be identified. Please clarify where this rate is derived from. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

( 102) Appendix A/ Table A4 Scenario 1 The preconstruction wood baseline dermal + inhalation MOE is 97. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

( 103) Appendix A/ Table A4 Scenario 2 The basis for the lawn use rate at 0.0034 lb ai/ gal cannot be identified. Please clarify where this rate is derived from. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

( 104) Appendix A/ Table A4 Scenario 3 The unit exposures should be 180, 280 and 21 ug/ lb ai for baseline dermal, baseline inhalation and PPE dermal exposures, respectively. Some MOEs should be adjusted based on this change.

It is unclear why the application rate for the preconstruction wood scenario lists " treats 10 sq ft." Please clarify. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

HED made this change in the text.

( 105) Appendix A/ Table A4 Scenario 7 The unit exposures should be 180, 280 and 21 ug/ lb ai for baseline dermal, baseline inhalation and PPE dermal exposures, respectively. Some MOEs should be adjusted based on this change. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

( 106) Appendix A/ Table A4 Scenario 8 and 9 As discussed in comment 18, the maximum allowable cypermethrin use rate on lawns for WP formulations per the use closure memo is 0.6 lb ai/ A. Also, the unit exposures could not be verified based on the ORETF study report. Please confirm. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

The ORETF values reflect the most recent decisions by HED.

( 107) Appendix A/ Table A5 The table includes both dermal and inhalation exposure information. However, dermal exposure was not considered for short and intermediate term risk.

The data source is listed as SOPs for Residential Exposure Assessments ( 12/ 97). In addition, PHED V1.1 was used to obtain unit exposure data. HED did not alter this table.

( 108) Appendix A/ Table A6 Scenarios 4 6 The inhalation Unit Exposure value for aerosol can applicators was taken from PHED and is incorrectly listed as 2,400 µ g/ lb ai. The correct inhalation unit exposure value from PHED for aerosol applicators is 1,300 µ g/ day. Please correct as necessary. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

( 109) Appendix A/ Table A6 Scenario 5 Comment same as comment for 100. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

( 110) Appendix B/ Table B1 The application rate of 0.000017 lb ai/ ft2 is equivalent to a 1.5% RTU aerosol product, which does not exist. As per comments 2, 41, and 65, please clarify how the application rate was determined. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment. ( 111) Appendix B/ Table B2 The maximum allowable WP use rate on lawns per the use closure memo is 0.6 lb ai/ A. The MOEs should be adjusted accordingly.

The equation should have AR in lb ai/ A.

For the conversion factor ( CF), there should be no 1 lb ai/ A included to allow the units to cancel in the Oral Dose equation. It should be 4.54E+ 8 ug/ lb, and the units are 11.2 ug A/ lb cm2.

Should F be the fraction of residue dislodgeable from turf to wet hands? HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

HED fixed this typographical error.

HED fixed this typographical error.

HED made this change in the text.

112 Appendix B/ Table B3 The maximum allowable WP use rate on lawns per the use closure memo is 0.6 lb ai/ A ( see comment 18). The MOEs should be adjusted accordingly.

The equation should have AR in lb ai/ A. FQ is not included in this equation. SA is in cm2/ day. For the conversion factor ( CF), there should be no 1 lb ai/ A included to allow the units to cancel in the Oral Dose equation. It should be 4.54E+ 8 ug/ lb, and the units are 11.2 ug A/ lb cm2. F is the fraction of residue dislodgeable from the turf. SA is the surface area of turf mouthed per day.

Assumptions SA is the approximate surface area from which a child may grasp a handful of grass, 25 cm2. F is the fraction of residue dislodgeable for the grass, 20%. HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

( 1 1 3 ) Remove the exposure time ( ET) from the assumptions section as the temporal component is covered by SA ( cm2/ day) term.

Please correct surface area to 25 cm2 per day not 20 cm2/ day. ( note 25 cm2 was apparently correctly used in the actual calculation) HED made this change in the text.

( 114) Appendix B/ Table The maximum WP allowable use rate on lawns per the use HED made this change in the text and in the assessment.

B4 closure memo is 0.6 lb ai/ A. The MOEs should be adjusted accordingly. The equation should include 4.54E+ 8 ug/ lb. CF2 is to convert surface area units from Acres to cm2.