[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 201 (Thursday, October 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72054-72055]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23091]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas and Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP24-39-000.
    Applicants: Fayetteville Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Housekeeping Filing on 10-12-
23 to be effective 11/12/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/12/23.
    Accession Number: 20231012-5033.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/24/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP24-40-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Gas Storage Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Housekeeping Filing on 10-12-
23 to be effective 11/12/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/12/23.
    Accession Number: 20231012-5064.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/24/23.

    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the
specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is
necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR23-69-001.
    Applicants: Dow Intrastate Gas Company.
    Description: Amendment Filing: Amended Statement of Operating
Conditions to be effective 9/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/12/23.
    Accession Number: 20231012-5002.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/2/23.
    Protest Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/2/23.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings

can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<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: October 12, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-23091 Filed 10-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 13, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15913-15920]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05812]

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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 372

[EPA-HQ-TRI-2012-0111; FRL-9785-9]
RIN 2025-AA35

Addition of ortho-Nitrotoluene; Community Right-to-Know Toxic
Chemical Release Reporting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to add ortho-nitrotoluene (o-nitrotoluene) to
the list of toxic chemicals subject to reporting under section 313 of
the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986
and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990. o-
Nitrotoluene has been classified by the National Toxicology Program in
their 12th Report on Carcinogens as ``reasonably anticipated to be a
human carcinogen.'' EPA believes that o-nitrotoluene meets the EPCRA
section 313(d)(2)(B) criteria because it can reasonably be anticipated
to cause cancer in humans. Based on a review of the available
production and use information, o-nitrotoluene is expected to be
manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in quantities that would
exceed the EPCRA section 313 reporting thresholds.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 13, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
TRI-2012-0111, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-TRI-
2012-

0111. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, avoid any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This
Docket Facility 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>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel R. Bushman, Environmental
Analysis Division, Office of Information Analysis and Access (2842T),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
566-0677; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for specific information on
this notice. For general information on EPCRA section 313, contact the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Hotline, toll free at
(800) 424-9346 or<PHONE_NUMBER> in Virginia and Alaska or toll free,
TDD<PHONE_NUMBER>, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this notice apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture,
process, or otherwise use o-nitrotoluene. Potentially affected
categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Examples of potentially affected
             Category                             entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..........................  Facilities included in the following
                                     NAICS manufacturing codes
                                     (corresponding to SIC codes 20
                                     through 39): 311*, 312*, 313*,
                                     314*, 315*, 316, 321, 322, 323*,
                                     324, 325*, 326*, 327, 331, 332,
                                     333, 334*, 335*, 336, 337*, 339*,
                                     111998*, 211112*, 212324*, 212325*,
                                     212393*, 212399*, 488390*, 511110,
                                     511120, 511130, 511140*, 511191,
                                     511199, 512220, 512230*, 519130*,
                                     541712*, or 811490*.
                                    *Exceptions and/or limitations exist
                                     for these NAICS codes.
                                    Facilities included in the following
                                     NAICS codes (corresponding to SIC
                                     codes other than SIC codes 20
                                     through 39): 212111, 212112, 212113
                                     (correspond to SIC 12, Coal Mining
                                     (except 1241)); or 212221, 212222,
                                     212231, 212234, 212299 (correspond
                                     to SIC 10, Metal Mining (except
                                     1011, 1081, and 1094)); or 221111,
                                     221112, 221113, 221119, 221121,
                                     221122, 221330 (Limited to
                                     facilities that combust coal and/or
                                     oil for the purpose of generating
                                     power for distribution in commerce)
                                     (correspond to SIC 4911, 4931, and
                                     4939, Electric Utilities); or
                                     424690, 425110, 425120 (Limited to
                                     facilities previously classified in
                                     SIC 5169, Chemicals and Allied
                                     Products, Not Elsewhere
                                     Classified); or 424710 (corresponds
                                     to SIC 5171, Petroleum Bulk
                                     Terminals and Plants); or 562112
                                     (Limited to facilities primarily
                                     engaged in solvent recovery
                                     services on a contract or fee basis
                                     (previously classified under SIC
                                     7389, Business Services, NEC)); or
                                     562211, 562212, 562213, 562219,
                                     562920 (Limited to facilities
                                     regulated under the Resource
                                     Conservation and Recovery Act,
                                     subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.)
                                     (correspond to SIC 4953, Refuse
                                     Systems).
Federal Government................  Federal facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Some of the entities listed in the table have exemptions and/or
limitations regarding coverage, and other types of entities not listed
in the table could also be affected. To determine whether your facility
would be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in part 372 subpart B of Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability
of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. How should I submit CBI to the agency?

    Do not submit CBI information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or
email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim
to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to
EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.

II. Introduction

    Section 313 of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. 11023, requires certain facilities
that manufacture, process, or otherwise use

listed toxic chemicals in amounts above reporting threshold levels to
report their environmental releases and other waste management
quantities of such chemicals annually. These facilities must also
report pollution prevention and recycling data for such chemicals,
pursuant to section 6607 of the PPA, 42 U.S.C. 13106. Congress
established an initial list of toxic chemicals that comprised more than
300 chemicals and 20 chemical categories.
    EPCRA section 313(d) authorizes EPA to add or delete chemicals from
the list and sets criteria for these actions. EPCRA section 313(d)(2)
states that EPA may add a chemical to the list if any of the listing
criteria in Section 313(d)(2) are met. Therefore, to add a chemical,
EPA must demonstrate that at least one criterion is met, but need not
determine whether any other criterion is met. Conversely, to remove a
chemical from the list, EPCRA section 313(d)(3) dictates that EPA must
demonstrate that none of the listing criteria in Section 313(d)(2) are
met. The EPCRA section 313(d)(2) criteria are:
    (A) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated
to cause significant adverse acute human health effects at
concentration levels that are reasonably likely to exist beyond
facility site boundaries as a result of continuous, or frequently
recurring, releases.
    (B) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated
to cause in humans-
    (i) cancer or teratogenic effects, or
    (ii) serious or irreversible--
    (I) reproductive dysfunctions,
    (II) neurological disorders,
    (III) heritable genetic mutations, or
    (IV) other chronic health effects.
    (C) The chemical is known to cause or can be reasonably anticipated
to cause, because of
    (i) its toxicity,
    (ii) its toxicity and persistence in the environment, or
    (iii) its toxicity and tendency to bioaccumulate in the
environment, a significant adverse effect on the environment of
sufficient seriousness, in the judgment of the Administrator, to
warrant reporting under this section.
    EPA often refers to the section 313(d)(2)(A) criterion as the
``acute human health effects criterion;'' the section 313(d)(2)(B)
criterion as the ``chronic human health effects criterion;'' and the
section 313(d)(2)(C) criterion as the ``environmental effects
criterion.''
    EPA has published in the Federal Register of November 30, 1994 (59
FR 61432) a statement clarifying its interpretation of the section
313(d)(2) and (d)(3) criteria for modifying the section 313 list of
toxic chemicals.

III. Background Information

A. What is the NTP and the report on Carcinogens?

    The National Toxicology Program (NTP) is an interagency program
within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) headquartered
at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) of
the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The mission of the NTP is to
evaluate chemicals of public health concern by developing and applying
tools of modern toxicology and molecular biology. The NTP program
maintains an objective, science-based approach in dealing with critical
issues in toxicology and is committed to using the best science
available to prioritize, design, conduct, and interpret its studies.
The mission of the NTP includes the evaluation of chemicals for their
potential to cause cancer in humans.
    As part of their cancer evaluation work, the NTP periodically
publishes a Report on Carcinogens (RoC) document. The RoC was mandated
by the U.S. Congress, as part of the Public Health Service Act (Section
301(b)(4), as amended). The NTP describes the RoC as an informational
scientific and public health document that identifies and discusses
agents, substances, mixtures, or exposure circumstances that may pose a
hazard to human health by virtue of their carcinogenicity. The NTP RoC
serves as a meaningful and useful compilation of data on (1) the
carcinogenicity (ability to cause cancer), genotoxicity (ability to
damage genes), and biologic mechanisms (modes of action in the body) of
the RoC-listed substances in humans and/or in animals, (2) the
potential for human exposure to these substances, and (3) the
regulations and guidelines promulgated by Federal agencies to limit
exposures to RoC-listed substances. The NTP RoC is published
periodically, with the most recently published 12th RoC having been
released on June 10, 2011. The 12th RoC contains the NTP cancer
classifications from the most recent chemical evaluations as well as
the classifications from previous versions of the RoC.

B. What are the NTP cancer classifications and criteria?

    The NTP RoC classifies chemicals as either ``known to be a human
carcinogen'' or ``reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.''
The criteria that the NTP uses to list an agent, substance, mixture, or
exposure circumstance under each classification in the RoC (Ref. 1) are
as follows:
    ``Known To Be Human Carcinogen:
    There is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in
humans*, which indicates a causal relationship between exposure to the
agent, substance, or mixture, and human cancer.
    Reasonably Anticipated To Be Human Carcinogen:
    There is limited evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in
humans*, which indicates that causal interpretation is credible, but
that alternative explanations, such as chance, bias, or confounding
factors, could not adequately be excluded,
    or
    there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in
experimental animals, which indicates there is an increased incidence
of malignant and/or a combination of malignant and benign tumors (1) in
multiple species or at multiple tissue sites, or (2) by multiple routes
of exposure, or (3) to an unusual degree with regard to incidence,
site, or type of tumor, or age at onset,
    or
    there is less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans
or laboratory animals; however, the agent, substance, or mixture
belongs to a well-defined, structurally related class of substances
whose members are listed in a previous Report on Carcinogens as either
known to be a human carcinogen or reasonably anticipated to be a human
carcinogen, or there is convincing relevant information that the agent
acts through mechanisms indicating it would likely cause cancer in
humans.
    Conclusions regarding carcinogenicity in humans or experimental
animals are based on scientific judgment, with consideration given to
all relevant information. Relevant information includes, but is not
limited to, dose response, route of exposure, chemical structure,
metabolism, pharmacokinetics, sensitive sub-populations, genetic
effects, or other data relating to mechanism of action or factors that
may be unique to a given substance. For example, there may be
substances for which there is evidence of carcinogenicity in laboratory
animals, but there are compelling data indicating that the agent acts
through mechanisms which do not operate in humans and would therefore
not reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer in humans.
    *This evidence can include traditional cancer epidemiology studies,
data from clinical studies, and/or data derived from the study of
tissues or cells from humans exposed to the substance

in question, which can be useful for evaluating whether a relevant
cancer mechanism is operating in humans.''
    The NTP classifications for the potential for a chemical to cause
cancer are very similar to the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) statutory
criteria for listing a chemical on the list of toxic chemicals subject
to reporting under EPCRA section 313: ``(B) The chemical is known to
cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause in humans--(i) cancer *
* *'' The specific data used by the NTP to classify a chemical as
``Known To Be Human Carcinogen'' or ``Reasonably Anticipated To Be
Human Carcinogen'' are consistent with data used by EPA to evaluate
chemicals for their potential to cause cancer and classify chemicals as
either ``Carcinogenic to Humans'' or ``Likely to Be Carcinogenic to
Humans'' (Ref. 2).

C. What is the review process for the RoC?

    Specific details of the nomination and review process for the
development of the 12th RoC are described in the NTP Report on
Carcinogens Review Process section of the 12th RoC (Ref. 1). In
general, the RoC review process includes evaluations by scientists from
the NTP, other Federal health research and regulatory agencies
(including EPA), and nongovernmental institutions. The RoC review
process includes external peer review and several opportunities for
public comment. For the 12th RoC, during the entire nomination,
selection, and review process there were four opportunities for public
comment. For each candidate substance, an expert panel was convened to
peer review the NTP background document prepared for each candidate
substance. The NTP also asked the expert panels to (1) apply the RoC
listing criteria to the relevant scientific evidence and make a
recommendation regarding the listing status for the candidate substance
and (2) to provide the scientific justification for that
recommendation. For the 12th RoC, the next step was a review by the
Interagency Scientific Review Group (which included an EPA
representative) followed by a review by the NIEHS/NTP Scientific Review
Group. After these reviews, the NTP prepared a draft substance profile
for each candidate substance which was peer reviewed by the NTP Board
of Scientific Counselors which then prepared and submitted a peer
review report to the NTP. The NTP then drafted the 12th RoC and
submitted it to the NTP Director for review. The Director distributed
the draft 12th RoC to the NTP Executive Committee for consultation,
review, and comment. After approval of the draft 12th RoC by the NTP
Director, the final draft of the 12th RoC was prepared and was
submitted to the Secretary, DHHS, for review and approval. Once
approved, the Secretary submitted the 12th RoC to the U.S. Congress as
a final document. The 12th RoC was released to the public on June 10,
2011.

IV. EPA's review of the 12th RoC

A. How did EPA select the NTP RoC chemical being proposed for addition?

    The most recent version of the NTP RoC that EPA previously reviewed
for possible additions to the EPCRA section 313 list was the 11th RoC
(April 6, 2010, 75 FR 17333). Each new version of the RoC adds newly
classified chemicals to the existing list. EPA's present review of the
12th RoC identified four newly listed chemicals that are not on or
covered by the EPCRA section list (aristolochic acids, captafol, o-
nitrotoluene, and riddelliine). Of the four chemicals, only o-
nitrotoluene is commercially produced and thus would be an appropriate
candidate for listing under EPCRA section 313 since no reports would be
expected for the other chemicals.
    Section 313(d)(2) of EPCRA provides EPA the discretion to add
chemicals to the TRI list when there is sufficient evidence to
establish any of the listing criteria. EPA can add a chemical that
meets one criterion regardless of its production volume or whether any
reports would be filed. But as in past chemical reviews (e.g., January
12, 1994, 59 FR 1788), EPA adopted a production volume screen for the
development of this proposed rule to make sure that reports would be
expected to be submitted for the chemicals proposed to be listed. If a
chemical that did not meet the production volume screen was listed,
there would be an economic burden for firms that would have to
determine that they did not exceed the reporting threshold. Yet, as no
reports would be filed, there would be no information to the public on
such a chemical. EPA feels it is appropriate at this time to focus on
chemicals for which reports are likely to be filed.
    EPA reviewed the NTP 12th RoC chemical profile and supporting
materials for o-nitrotoluene (Ref. 3). Given the extensive scientific
reviews conducted by the NTP for their RoC documents, EPA's review
focused on ensuring that there were no inconsistencies with how the
Agency would consider the available data. EPA's review of the o-
nitrotoluene chemical profile and supporting material found no
inconsistencies between how the data were interpreted by the NTP and
how that same data would be interpreted under EPA's Guidelines for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment (Ref. 2). Therefore, EPA agrees with the
hazard conclusions of the NTP 12th RoC for o-nitrotoluene.

B. What technical data supports the NTP RoC classification and EPA's
proposed addition of o-nitrotoluene to the EPCRA section 313 list?

    This section presents the data that supported the NTP 12th RoC
classification of o-nitrotoluene and why EPA believes the data support
the addition of this chemical to the EPCRA section 313 list. The NTP
chemical profile, the NTP chemical background document, and the
references cited within the portion of the NTP 12th RoC chemical
profile quoted here, are all included in the docket for this
rulemaking. While they are contained in the docket and are part of the
rulemaking record, the references within the quotation cited from the
NTP 12th RoC profile document are not included in the list of
references in Unit VI. of this Federal Register notice. The full
citations for the references contained in the quotation can be found in
the NTP 12th RoC profile document (Ref. 4).
    1. o-Nitrotoluene (CAS No. 88-72-2) (Refs. NTP Profile/Background
document (Refs. 4 and 5)). The NTP has classified o-nitrotoluene as
``reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.'' The classification
is based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental
animals and supporting data on mechanisms of carcinogenesis. The NTP
substance profile for o-nitrotoluene (Ref. 4) included the following
summary information of the evidence of carcinogenicity:
``Carcinogenicity
    o-Nitrotoluene is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen
based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in
experimental animals and supporting data on mechanisms of
carcinogenesis.
Cancer Studies in Experimental Animals
    Oral exposure to o-nitrotoluene caused tumors at several different
tissue sites in rats and mice and early onset of cancer in male rats.
Malignant mesothelioma and mesothelial-cell hyperplasia of the tunica
vaginalis of the epididymis were observed in male rats administered o-
nitrotoluene in their feed for 13 weeks (NTP 1992). Bile-duct cancer
(cholangiocarcinoma) was observed after 26 weeks, both in rats

exposed to o-nitrotoluene for 26 weeks and in rats exposed for 13 weeks
and then observed for 13 more weeks without exposure (NTP 1996). o-
Nitrotoluene caused cancer at several tissue sites in two-year chronic
exposure studies of rats and mice of both sexes and in a study in which
male rats were exposed to o-nitrotoluene for 13 weeks and evaluated at
two years (NTP 2002). In rats, o-nitrotoluene caused (1) subcutaneous
skin tumors and mammary-gland tumors (fibroadenoma) in both sexes, (2)
malignant mesothelioma and benign or malignant tumors of the liver
(hepatocellular adenoma or carcinoma or cholangiocarcinoma) and lung
(alveolar/bronchiolar adenoma or carcinoma) in males, and (3) benign
liver tumors (hepatocellular adenoma) in females. In mice, it caused
malignant blood-vessel tumors (hemangiosarcoma) in both sexes,
malignant tumors of the large intestine (cecal carcinoma) in males, and
benign or malignant liver tumors (hepatocellular adenoma or carcinoma)
in females (NTP 2002).
Studies on Mechanisms of Carcinogenesis
    Following oral administration to rats and mice, o-nitrotoluene is
absorbed into the blood and rapidly cleared; the serum half-life is 1.5
hours in rats (NTP 2002). In the rat liver, o-nitrotoluene is
metabolized to o-nitrobenzyl alcohol and can follow several metabolic
pathways: (1) glucuronidation to o-nitrobenzyl glucuronide, (2)
sulfation and subsequent reaction with glutathione and acetylcysteine
to o-nitrobenzyl sulfate, S-(o-nitrobenzyl)glutathione, and S-(o-
nitrobenzyl)-N-acetylcysteine, or (3) metabolism to o-aminobenzyl
alcohol followed by oxidation to o-aminobenzoic acid. The metabolites
are eliminated primarily in the urine. The major metabolites are o-
nitrobenzyl glucuronide and o-nitrobenzoic acid major metabolites in
rats and mice and o-aminobenzyl alcohol and S-(o-nitrobenzyl)-N-
acetylcysteine in rats. Female rats excrete less than half as much of
the dose in the form of o-aminobenzyl alcohol, o-nitrobenzyl alcohol,
or S-(o-nitrobenzyl)-N-acetylcysteine as male rats (NTP 2002). The
glucuronidated form can also be excreted in the bile; when the
glucuronidated form in the bile is excreted into the small intestine,
intestinal bacteria can deconjugate it and reduce the nitro group to an
amino group, forming aminobenzyl alcohol. Aminobenzyl alcohol can be
reabsorbed from the intestine and further metabolized by the liver to
reactive compounds (carbonium and nitrenium ions) that can covalently
bind to DNA or to proteins (Chism and Rickert 1985, NTP 2002, 2008).
Thus, microbial metabolism in the intestine is an important step in the
carcinogenicity of o-nitrotoluene. However, neither o-aminobenzyl
alcohol nor its metabolites have been detected in mouse urine after
exposure to o-nitrotoluene (NTP 2002); therefore, other unidentified
biochemical pathways leading to tumor formation most likely are
involved.
    o-Nitrotoluene did not cause mutations in bacteria. In studies of
its ability to cause genetic damage in cultured mammalian cells, the
results were mixed. o-Nitrotoluene caused (1) sister chromatid exchange
in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells, (2) chromosomal aberrations in
Chinese hamster lung (CHL) cells and human peripheral lymphocytes but
not in CHO cells, (3) micronucleus formation in CHL cells but not in
CHO-K1 cells, and (4) DNA damage in L5178Y mouse lymphoma cells (NTP
2008). It did not induce DNA repair in rat or human hepatocytes (NTP
2008). In rats and mice exposed in vivo, o-nitrotoluene caused a slight
increase in micronucleus formation in peripheral normochromatic
erythrocytes in male mice at a high dose level; this finding was not
considered conclusive. o-Nitrotoluene did not induce micronucleus
formation in peripheral normochromatic erythrocytes in female mice or
in polychromatic erythrocytes in the bone marrow of male rats or mice
(NTP 2002). Following in vivo exposure of rats to o-nitrotoluene, DNA
repair was increased in liver cells isolated from males, but not from
females or germ-free males. These results, together with o-
nitrotoluene's inability to induce DNA repair in hepatocytes in vitro,
suggest that activation of o-nitrotoluene to become genotoxic is sex-
specific and depends on both mammalian metabolism and metabolism by
intestinal bacteria (Doolittle et al. 1983). However, o-nitrotoluene
also caused tumors in other tissues in rats and mice of both sexes,
suggesting that other activation mechanisms exist.
    In rats exposed to o-nitrotoluene in vivo, DNA adducts were
detected in the liver of males but not females (NTP 2008). Formation of
DNA adducts was consistent with the reaction of intermediate compounds
derived from o-aminobenzyl alcohol with guanine or adenine bases (Jones
et al. 2003). The pattern of mutations in oncogenes from o-
nitrotoluene-induced tumors was also consistent with guanine adduct
formation: the majority of p53 mutations in hemangiosarcomas were G:C
to A:T transitions, and almost all the K-ras mutations in cecal
carcinomas were G:C to T:A transversions (Hong et al. 2003, Sills et
al. 2004). Mutations in the p53, [beta]-catenin, and K-ras genes also
were found in hemangiosarcomas from mice exposed to o-nitrotoluene, but
not in spontaneously occurring hemangiosarcomas from unexposed mice
(Hong et al. 2003).
    In factory workers exposed to o-nitrotoluene, o-nitrotoluene-
hemoglobin adducts were detected in the blood (Jones et al. 2005a), and
o-nitrobenzoic acid and o-nitrobenzyl alcohol were detected in the
urine (Jones et al. 2005b), providing evidence that human exposure to
o-nitrotoluene results in production of a reactive metabolite(s). In
addition, adducts between hemoglobin and 2-methylaniline (a metabolite
of o-nitrotoluene) were identified in both exposed workers and exposed
rats, and the level of 2-methylaniline-hemoglobin adducts in the blood
of rats was proportional to the level of 2-methylaniline-DNA adducts in
the livers of rats (Jones and Sabbioni 2003, Jones et al. 2003).
Cancer Studies in Humans
    The data available from epidemiological studies are inadequate to
evaluate the relationship between human cancer and exposure
specifically to o-nitrotoluene. One cohort study of workers involved in
the manufacture of magenta dye mentioned exposure of workers to o-
nitrotoluene as part of the manufacturing process. A large excess of
bladder cancer was reported; however, the workers were also exposed to
other chemicals--o-toluidine (2-methylaniline) and 4,4'-methylenebis(2-
methylaniline)--that are suspected of causing bladder cancer (Rubino et
al. 1982). Two other studies of magenta manufacturing workers also
reported an excess of bladder cancer, but did not report whether the
workers were exposed to o-nitrotoluene (Case and Pearson 1954, Vineis
and Magnani 1985).''
    EPA has reviewed the NTP assessment for o-nitrotoluene and agrees
that o-nitrotoluene can reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer in
humans. EPA believes that the evidence is sufficient for listing o-
nitrotoluene on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section
313(d)(2)(B) based on the available carcinogenicity data for this
chemical.

V. Rationale for listing

    The NTP RoC document undergoes significant scientific review and
public comment. The NTP review mirrors the

review EPA has historically done to assess chemicals for listing under
EPCRA section 313 on the basis of carcinogenicity. The conclusions
regarding the potential for chemicals in the NTP RoC to cause cancer in
humans are based on established sound scientific principles. EPA
believes that the NTP RoC is an excellent and reliable source of
information on the potential for chemicals covered in the NTP RoC to
cause cancer in humans (see Unit III). Based on EPA's review of the
data contained in the 12th NTP RoC, EPA has determined that o-
nitrotoluene can reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer (Ref. 3).
Therefore, EPA believes that the evidence is sufficient for listing o-
nitrotoluene on the EPCRA section 313 toxic chemical list pursuant to
EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the available carcinogenicity data
presented in the 12th RoC.
    EPA considers chemicals that can reasonably be anticipated to cause
cancer to have moderately high to high chronic toxicity. EPA does not
believe that it is appropriate to consider exposure for chemicals that
are moderately high to highly toxic based on a hazard assessment when
determining if a chemical can be added for chronic effects pursuant to
EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) (see 59 FR 61440-61442). Therefore, in
accordance with EPA's standard policy on the use of exposure
assessments (59 FR 61432), EPA does not believe that an exposure
assessment is necessary or appropriate for determining whether o-
nitrotoluene meets the criteria of EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B).

VI. References

    EPA has established an official public docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-TRI-2012-0111. The public docket includes
information considered by EPA in developing this action, including the
documents listed below, which are electronically or physically located
in the docket. In addition, interested parties should consult documents
that are referenced in the documents that EPA has placed in the docket,
regardless of whether these referenced documents are electronically or
physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating documents
that are referenced in documents that EPA has placed in the docket, but
that are not electronically or physically located in the docket, please
consult the person listed in the above FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

    1. NTP, 2011. National Toxicology Program. Report on
Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition. Released June 10, 2011. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,
National Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
    2. USEPA. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Risk
Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC, March 2005.
    3. USEPA, OEI. Memorandum from Martin Gehlhaus, Toxicologist,
Analytical Support Branch to Larry Reisman, Chief, Analytical
Support Branch. June 30, 2011. Subject: Review of National
Toxicology Program (NTP) Cancer Classification Data for o-
nitrotoluene.
    4. NTP, 2011. National Toxicology Program. 12th Report on
Carcinogens--o-Nitrotoluene Substance Profile. Released June 10,
2011. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service, National Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709.
    5. NTP, 2008. Report on Carcinogens Background Document for o-
Nitrotoluene. June 20, 2008. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Services, National Toxicology Program,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
    6. USEPA, OEI. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Rule to add
ortho-Nitrotoluene to the EPCRA Section 313 List of Toxic Chemicals.
February 9, 2012.

VII. What are the Statutory and Executive Order reviews associated with
this action?

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not contain any new information collection
requirements that require additional approval by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et. seq. Currently, the facilities subject to the reporting
requirements under EPCRA 313 and PPA 6607 may use either the EPA Toxic
Chemicals Release Inventory Form R (EPA Form 1B9350-1), or the EPA
Toxic Chemicals Release Inventory Form A (EPA Form 1B9350-2). The Form
R must be completed if a facility manufactures, processes, or otherwise
uses any listed chemical above threshold quantities and meets certain
other criteria. For the Form A, EPA established an alternative
threshold for facilities with low annual reportable amounts of a listed
toxic chemical. A facility that meets the appropriate reporting
thresholds, but estimates that the total annual reportable amount of
the chemical does not exceed 500 pounds per year, can take advantage of
an alternative manufacture, process, or otherwise use threshold of 1
million pounds per year of the chemical, provided that certain
conditions are met, and submit the Form A instead of the Form R. In
addition, respondents may designate the specific chemical identity of a
substance as a trade secret pursuant to EPCRA section 322 42 U.S.C.
11042: 40 CFR part 350.
    OMB has approved the reporting and recordkeeping requirements
related to Forms A and R, supplier notification, and petitions under
OMB Control number 2025-0009 (EPA Information Collection Request (ICR)
No. 1363) and those related to trade secret designations under OMB
Control 2050-0078 (EPA ICR No. 1428). As provided in 5 CFR 1320.5(b)
and 1320.6(a), 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
relevant to EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9, 48 CFR
chapter 15, and displayed on the information collection instruments
(e.g., forms, instructions).
    For the 17 Form Rs and 5 Form As expected to be filed, EPA
estimates the industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for
collecting this information to average, in the first year, $76,143
(based on 1,506 total burden hours). In subsequent years, the burden
for collecting this information is estimated to average $36,252 (based
on 717 total burden hours). These estimates include the time needed to
become familiar with the requirement (first year only); review
instructions; search existing data sources; gather and maintain the
data needed; complete and review the collection information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The actual burden on
any facility may be different from this estimate depending on the
complexity of the facility's operations and the profile of the releases
at the facility. Upon promulgation of a final rule, the Agency may
determine that the existing burden estimates in the ICRs need to be
amended in order to account for an increase in burden associated with
the final action. If so, the Agency will submit an information
collection worksheet (ICW) to OMB requesting that the total burden in
each ICR be amended, as appropriate.
    The Agency would appreciate any comments or information that could
be used to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including

whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the
reasonableness of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the propose
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology
and assumptions used; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected; and, (4) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Please
submit your comments within 90 days as specified at the beginning of
this proposal. Copies of the existing ICRs may be obtained from Rick
Westlund, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of
today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A
business that is classified as a ``small business'' by the Small
Business Administration at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Of the 22
entities estimated to be impacted by this proposed rule, 6 are small
businesses. Of the affected small businesses, all 6 have cost-to-
revenue impacts of less than 1% in both the first and subsequent years
of the rulemaking. No small businesses are projected to have a cost
impact of the first year, of the 1% or greater. In 6 estimated cost
impacts, there is a maximum impact of 0.204%. Facilities eligible to
use Form A (those meeting the appropriate activity threshold which have
500 pounds per year or less of reportable amounts of the chemical) will
have a lower burden. No small governments or small organizations are
expected to be affected by this action. Thus this rule is not expected
to have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. A more detailed analysis of the impacts on small
entities is located in EPA's economic analysis support document (Ref.
6). We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
EPA's economic analysis indicates that the total cost of this rule is
estimated to be $76,143 in the first year of reporting. Thus, this rule
is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Small governments
are not subject to the EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action relates to toxic
chemical reporting under EPCRA section 313, which primarily affects
private sector facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action
from State and local officials.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action
relates to toxic chemical reporting under EPCRA section 313, which
primarily affects private sector facilities. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order
13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between
EPA and Indian Tribal Governments, EPA specifically solicits additional
comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.

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

    This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO
12866, and because the Agency does not believe the environmental health
or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate
risk to children. This action relates to toxic chemical reporting under
EPCRA section 313, which primarily affects private sector facilities.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore,

EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This proposed rule adds an additional chemical to the
EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements. By adding a chemical to the
list of toxic chemicals subject to reporting under section 313 of
EPCRA, EPA would be providing communities across the United States
(including minority populations and low income populations) with access
to data which they may use to seek lower exposures and consequently
reductions in chemical risks for themselves and their children. This
information can also be used by government agencies and others to
identify potential problems, set priorities, and take appropriate steps
to reduce any potential risks to human health and the environment.
Therefore, the informational benefits of the proposed rule will have a
positive impact on the human health and environmental impacts of
minority populations, low-income populations, and children.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

    Environmental protection, Community right-to-know, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Toxic chemicals.

    Dated: March 5, 2013.
Bob Perciasepe,
Acting Administrator.
    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 372 be amended as
follows:

PART 372--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 372 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048.

0
2. Section 372.65 is amended by adding in the table of paragraph (a)
``o-Nitrotoluene'' in alphabetical order and adding in the table of
paragraph (b) ``00088-72-2'' in numerical order to read as follows:

Sec.  372.65  Chemicals and chemical categories to which the part
applies.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Chemical name                  CAS No.       Effective date
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
o-Nitrotoluene......................        00088-72-2            \1/14\

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

    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               CAS No.                  Chemical name    Effective date
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
00088-72-2..........................    o-Nitrotoluene            \1/14\

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

[FR Doc. 2013-05812 Filed 3-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


September 3, 2019
SUBJECT: 	Trip report for site visit to ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine, Virginia, MN, October 12, 2018
FROM:	Michael Laney, RTI International
TO:		David Putney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
       BACKGROUND
As part of the risk and technology review (RTR) project for the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for taconite iron ore processing, site visits were conducted to three taconite iron ore processing facilities located along the Mesabi Range in Minnesota. This trip report summarizes the October 12, 2018 visit to the ArcelorMittal Minorca processing facility in Virginia, MN.
       PARTICIPANTS
ArcelorMittal Minorca
Jaime Johnson, Manager - Environmental
Robb Peterson, Operations Manager
Nate Holmes, Process Engineer
U.S. EPA
David Putney, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
RTI International
Michael Laney
       SUMMARY
 Preliminary Discussions
Prior to touring the facility, participants met to discuss the agenda for the day.
Background. David Putney provided information on the purpose of the site visits and the RTR project. He described the different tiers of analyses done to assess risks.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) mercury initiative. ArcelorMittal Minorca is currently evaluating control options for meeting the 72 percent reduction in mercury emissions that will be required by MPCA.
Mercury concentration in raw ore. David Putney described the process that would be use for setting emission limits for mercury if the EPA decides to propose numerical MACT standards for mercury emissions. He explained that, in addition to emissions data, information on the variability of mercury concentrations in raw ore could be important information for EPA to consider in developing emission standards that accurately reflect variability in mercury emissions. He noted that there is precedence for using information on mercury variability in raw ore to set emission standards. He requested that ArcelorMittal Minorca provide the EPA with any such mercury data they may have, or can get, to assist EPA in the event they set mercury emission standards for the industry.
ArcelorMittal personnel noted that mercury concentrations vary across the Mesabi Range, with concentrations lowest in the east and higher to the west. They stated that facility personnel do not do coring and have no mercury data from core samples. They stated they would look for information on mercury concentration data and provide any data they find to EPA. An email providing this information was provided to David Putney from Paul Balserak of AISI on September 12, 2018 at 4:54 pm.
David Putney described changes to the NESHAP that are being planned beyond any that might be made as a result of the RTR. Among the revisions currently planned are the following:
Once in always in. This refers to a provision of the rule (i.e., 40 CFR 63.9581), and has been EPA policy, whereby if a source was subject to the rule as a result of being a major source for purposes of title III of the CAA (greater than 10 tons of a single HAP or 25 tons of all HAP combined), it would always be subject to the rule even if they reduce their HAP emissions to less than major source status. As a result of a change in EPA policy, this provision in the NESHAP will be modified.
Electronic reporting. Compliance test results will be required to be submitted to EPA through EPA's electronic reporting tool (ERT).
Startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). As a result of a court ruling, the exemption from the emission standards during periods of SSM will be removed. Sources will be subject to an emissions standard, but it may be a work practice standard if it is not possible to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits. David Putney stated that to set work practice standards, EPA would need information from the industry that defines startups and shutdowns as well as work practices that facilities could implement during startup and shutdown to ensure compliance or minimize emissions. In other rules, work practices such as the use of clean fuels and operating control devices during a startup or shutdown have been required.
Burden reduction. David Putney explained the EPA is interested in industry's experience with any requirements of the current rule that they consider to be burdensome that could be revised to be less burdensome while not comprising environmental protection.
Jaime Johnson stated that the 60-day notice requirement before being able to conduct emissions testing can be burdensome. She explained that when there is an equipment failure, the plant's goal is to get the operation up and running as soon as possible. The 60-day notification requirement can cause costly delays in operations. This is particularly important to the Minorca facility given that it only uses one indurating furnace and is unable to operate while that device is down for maintenance or repair.
Technology Review. David Putney explained that the technology review aspects of the RTR project and requested information regarding the development of any new controls or processes in the taconite industry that have become available that could reduce HAP emissions.
ArcelorMittal stated that they have not developed any new controls or processes in their taconite iron ore processing facility and were not aware of any such developments in the industry sector.
Facility operations. Nate Holmes gave the following overview of facility operations
The Minorca operations are situated on about 16,000 acres. There are three active mining pits. Blasting is typically conducted one to two times per week. They are managing their raw ore in order to maintain proper levels of silica and magnetite iron. Most of the water needed for the process (about 75 percent) is from water recovered from their tailings settling basins.
The blasted material is fed to a primary crusher to produce a coarse ore and then fed to a fine crushing plant. The fine crushed ore is conveyed to a fine ore stockpile. From there, the material is conveyed to surge bins that continuously feed the concentrator processes.
In the concentration process, the fine ore and water are fed to rod mills to further reduce the particle size. The material is then fed into magnetic separator drums called cobbers where the iron-bearing material is separated from gangue material. The gangue material goes to clarifiers where the large tailings are separated out. The larger tailings are removed from the process and are used for building and maintaining facility roadways. Smaller tailings are partially dewatered and sent to a tailings basin where they are further dewatered. The concentrate from the magnetic separators is fed to ball mills where the material is further reduced in size. The material passes through additional magnetic separation steps. The fine concentrate is subjected to additional sizing and separation, additional ball milling, and to final finishing magnetic separators. The concentrate is sent to flotation tanks where more silica is separated from the iron concentrate. The iron concentrate is mixed with the fluxing agents, mainly limestone and dolomite. The fluxed concentrate is dewatered using vacuum disc filters. The dewatered filter cake is mixed with bentonite and then rolled into balls on rotating discs.
The unfired ("green") pellets are conveyed to a straight grate indurating furnace. The furnace is primarily fired using natural gas with fuel oil as a backup. In the furnace, the green pellets pass through different temperature zones to dry and harden the pellets. In straight grate furnaces, the green pellets are deposited on a hearth layer of fired, or finished, pellets to protect the grate bars. At the end of the furnace, the hardened pellets pass through a cooling zone. Exhaust gases from cooling are recirculated to the furnace to dry, pre-heat and fire the green pellets. Emissions from the furnace are controlled using wet scrubbers.
The furnace is taken off line once per year for maintenance. This outage lasts about 20 days.
Critical process parameters as well as control device parameters are monitored from a control room.
 Site Tour
Mine Operation. The tour did not include the mine operation.
Processing. Nate Holmes and Jaime Johnson conducted the tour of the facility. The tour included the fine crushing, concentrator operations, and the pellet plant. The details of the process were described during the preliminary discussions at the beginning of the site visit.
 Wrap Up
During startup and shutdown of the furnace, control devices are turned on before startup and remain on during shutdown. During startup, the pressure differential is usually lower due to cooler furnace conditions.
David Putney explained that a draft trip report would be sent to Jaime Johnson to review for accuracy and for confidential business information.
Following up on earlier discussions regarding mercury concentrations of taconite ore, parts of the rule that ArcelorMittal considered particularly burdensome, and developments in processes, controls and work practices (as part of the technology review), David Putney requested that any information or input that ArcelorMittal could provide on these and other topics be provided by the middle of November 2018.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4577-4578]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01756]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 349-166]

Alabama Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing
and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Non-Project Use of Project Lands and
Waters.
    b. Project No.: 349-166.
    c. Date Filed: December 8, 2021.
    d. Applicant: Alabama Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project is located on the
Tallapoosa River (Lake Martin), in Tallapoosa, Elmore, and Coosa
counties, Alabama, and occupies federal land administered by the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management; the non-project use is located in Tallapoosa
County.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Unzell Kelley, Alabama Power Company at (205)
517-0885 or [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Shana High at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests: February
23, 2022.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-349-166. Comments emailed to Commission staff
are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: Alabama Power Company is requesting
Commission approval to permit Harbor Pointe Marina to dredge
approximately 1,492 cubic yards at its existing commercial marina.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
[email protected], for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing

responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: January 24, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-01756 Filed 1-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 73150-73153]
[DOCID:fr29no10-144]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63350; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-156]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Extension of a Pilot Program Concerning Disseminated Quotations

November 19, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'')\1\, and Rule 19b-4\2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given that
on November 10, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rules 1017, Openings in
Options, and 1082, Firm Quotations, to extend, through March 31, 2011,
a pilot program (the ``pilot'') under which the Exchange's rules
describe the manner in which the PHLX XL[supreg] automated options
trading system \3\ disseminates quotations when (i) there is an opening
imbalance in a particular series, and (ii) there is a Quote Exhaust (as
described below) or a Market Exhaust (as described below) quote
condition present in a particular series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This proposal refers to ``PHLX XL'' as the Exchange's
automated options trading system. In May 2009 the Exchange enhanced
the system and adopted corresponding rules referring to the system
as ``Phlx XL II.'' See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59995
(May 28, 2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32). The
Exchange intends to submit a separate technical proposed rule change
that would change all references to the system from ``Phlx XL II''
to ``PHLX XL'' for branding purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current pilot is scheduled to expire November 30, 2010.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings,
at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the pilot
through March 31, 2011.
Background
    In June, 2009, the Exchange added several significant enhancements
to its automated options trading platform (now known as PHLX XL), and
adopted rules to reflect those enhancements.\4\ As part of the system
enhancements, the Exchange proposed to disseminate a ``non-firm'' quote
condition on a bid or offer whose size is exhausted in certain
situations. The non-exhausted side of

the Exchange's disseminated quotation would remain firm up to its
disseminated size. Currently, however, the Options Price Reporting
Authority (``OPRA'') only disseminates option quotations for which both
sides of the quotation are marked ``non-firm.'' OPRA currently does not
disseminate a ``non-firm'' condition for one side of a quotation while
the other side of the quotation remains firm.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59995 (May 28,
2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32).
    \5\ Currently, there is no mechanism for the Options Price
Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') to identify only one side of a quote
as non-firm. The Exchange has approached OPRA to attempt to develop
the capability to identify and implement such functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Exchange proposed, for a pilot period scheduled to
expire November 30, 2009, and later extended through September 30,
2010,\6\ to disseminate quotations in such a circumstance with (i) a
bid price of $0.00, with a size of one contract if the remaining size
is a seller, or (ii) an offer price of $200,000, with a size of one
contract if the remaining size is a buyer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange subsequently modified the manner in which the PHLX XL
system disseminates quotes when one side of the quote is exhausted but
the opposite side still has marketable size at the disseminated price,
as described in detail below.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63024 (September 30,
2010), 75 FR 61799 (October 6, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-134).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 7, 2010, the U.S. options exchanges, as participants in
the OPRA Plan, voted to make technological changes that would enable
OPRA to support a one-sided non-firm quote condition. These
technological changes require OPRA and the participants to design,
test, and deploy modifications to their systems, and to establish
connectivity with quotation vendors, that will support the one-sided
non-firm quote condition. The Exchange set a target date for its
completion of the changes by the end of January, 2011. The Exchange is
proposing to extend the current pilot through March 31, 2011, in order
to account for the time required to complete the changes, and to
account for the possibility that issues could arise that might delay
the process beyond the end of January target date.
Opening Imbalance
    An opening ``imbalance'' occurs when all opening marketable size
cannot be completely executed at or within an established Opening Quote
Range (``OQR'') for the affected series.\8\ Currently, pursuant to
Exchange Rule 1017(l)(v)(C)(7), any unexecuted contracts from the
opening imbalance not traded or routed are displayed in the Exchange
quote at the opening price for a period not to exceed ten seconds, and
subsequently, cancelled back to the entering participant if they remain
unexecuted and priced through the opening price, unless the member that
submitted the original order has instructed the Exchange in writing to
re-enter the remaining size, in which case the remaining size will be
automatically submitted as a new order. During this display time
period, the PHLX XL system disseminates, if the imbalance is a buy
imbalance, an offer of $0.00, with a size of zero contracts or, if the
imbalance is a sell imbalance, a bid of $0.00, with a size of zero
contracts, on the opposite side of the market from remaining unexecuted
contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Where there is an imbalance at the price at which the
maximum number of contracts can trade that is also at or within the
lowest quote bid and highest quote offer, the PHLX XL system will
calculate an OQR for a particular series, outside of which the PHLX
XL system will not execute. See Exchange Rule 1017(l)(iii) and (iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this provision is to indicate that the Exchange has
exhausted all marketable interest, at or within the OQR, on one side of
the market during the opening process yet has remaining unexecuted
contracts on the opposite side of the market that are firm at the
disseminated price and size.
    Rule 1017(l)(v)(C)(7) is subject to the pilot, which is scheduled
to expire November 30, 2010. The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot
through March 31, 2011.
Quote Exhaust
    Quote Exhaust occurs when the market at a particular price level on
the Exchange includes a quote, and such market is exhausted by an
inbound contra-side quote or order (``initiating quote or order''), and
following such exhaustion, contracts remain to be executed from the
initiating quote or order.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Exchange Rule 1082(a)(ii)(B)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rather than immediately executing at the next available price, the
PHLX XL system employs a timer (a ``Quote Exhaust Timer''), not to
exceed one second, in order to allow market participants to refresh
their quotes. During the Quote Exhaust Timer, PHLX XL currently
disseminates the ``Reference Price'' (the most recent execution price)
for the remaining size, provided that such price does not lock an away
market, in which case, the Exchange currently disseminates a bid and
offer that is one Minimum Price Variation (``MPV'') from the away
market price. During the Quote Exhaust Timer, the Exchange
disseminates: (i) A bid price of $0.00, with a size of zero contracts
if the remaining size is a seller, or (ii) an offer price of $0.00,
with a size of zero contracts if the remaining size is a buyer.
    Currently, Exchange Rules 1082(a)(ii)(B)(3)(g)(iv)(A)(3),
1082(a)(ii)(B)(3)(g)(iv)(A)(4), 1082(a)(ii)(B)(3)(g)(iv)(B)(2), and
1082(a)(ii)(B)(3)(g)(iv)(C) describe various scenarios under which the
PHLX XL system trades, routes, or posts unexecuted contracts after
determining the ``Best Price'' following a Quote Exhaust. These rules
permit an up to 10 second time period during which participants may
revise their quotes prior to the PHLX XL system taking action. In all
of these scenarios, during the up to 10 second time period, the PHLX XL
system currently disseminates an offer of $0.00, with a size of zero
contracts if the remaining size is a buyer or, if the remaining size is
a seller, a bid of $0.00, with a size of zero contracs, on the opposite
side of the market from remaining unexecuted contracts.
    Exchange Rules 1082(a)(ii)(B)(3)(g)(iv)(A)(3),
1082(a)(ii)(B)(3)(g)(iv)(A)(4), 1082(a)(ii)(B)(3)(g)(iv)(B)(2), and
1082(a)(ii)(B)(3)(g)(iv)(C) are subject to the pilot, which is
scheduled to expire November 30, 2010. The Exchange proposes to extend
the pilot through March 31, 2011.
    Current Rule 1082(a)(ii)(B)(3)(g)(vi) describes what the PHLX XL
system does if, after trading at the PHLX and/or routing, there are
unexecuted contracts from the initiating order that are still
marketable. In this situation, remaining contracts are posted for a
period of time not to exceed 10 seconds and then cancelled after such
period of time has elapsed, unless the member that submitted the
original order has instructed the Exchange in writing to re-enter the
remaining size, in which case the remaining size will be automatically
submitted as a new order. During the up to 10 second time period, the
Exchange will disseminate, on the opposite side of the market from
remaining unexecuted contracts: (i) A bid price of $0.00, with a size
of zero contracts if the remaining size is a seller, or (ii) an offer
price of $0.00, with a size of zero contracts if the remaining size is
a buyer.
    Rule 1082(a)(ii)(B)(3)(g)(vi) is subject to the pilot. The Exchange
proposes to extend the pilot through March 31, 2011.
Market Exhaust
    Market Exhaust occurs when there are no PHLX XL participant
quotations in the Exchange's disseminated market for a particular
series and an initiating

order in the series is received. In such a circumstance, the PHLX XL
system initiates a ``Market Exhaust Auction'' for the initiating
order.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Exchange Rule 1082(a)(ii)(B)(4)(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this situation, the PHLX XL system will first determine if the
initiating order, or a portion thereof, can be executed on the PHLX.
Thereafter, if there are unexecuted contracts remaining in the
initiating order the PHLX XL system will initiate a Market Exhaust
Timer. During the Market Exhaust Timer, the Exchange disseminates any
unexecuted size of the initiating order at the ``Reference Price,''
which is the execution price of a portion of the initiating order, or
one MPV from a better-priced away market price if the Reference Price
would lock the away market. The PHLX XL system currently disseminates,
on the opposite side of the market from the remaining unexecuted
contracts: (i) A bid price of $0.00, with a size of zero contracts if
the remaining size is a seller, or (ii) an offer price of $0.00, with a
size of zero contracts if the remaining size is a buyer. This provision
is subject to the pilot. The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot
through March 31, 2011.
Provisional Auction
    Exchange Rule 1082(a)(ii)(B)(4)(d)(iv)(E) describes what PHLX XL
does after it has explored all alternatives and there still remain
unexecuted contracts. During the ``Provisional Auction,'' any
unexecuted contracts from the initiating order are displayed in the
Exchange quote for the remaining size for a brief period not to exceed
ten seconds and subsequently cancelled back to the entering participant
if they remain unexecuted, unless the member that submitted the
original order has instructed the Exchange in writing to re-enter the
remaining size, in which case the remaining size will be automatically
submitted as a new order. During the brief period, the PHLX XL system
currently disseminates, on the opposite side of the market from
remaining unexecuted contracts: (i) A bid price of $0.00, with a size
of zero contracts if the remaining size is a seller, or (ii) an offer
price of $0.00, with a size of zero contracts if the remaining size is
a buyer.
    Rule 1082(a)(ii)(B)(4)(d)(iv)(E) is subject to the pilot. The
Exchange proposes to extend the pilot through March 31, 2011.
    The Exchange believes that the pilot benefits customers and the
marketplace as a whole by enabling PHLX to effectively reflect the
market interest the Exchange has that is firm and executable, while at
the same time indicating the other side of the Exchange market is not
firm and therefore not executable. This allows the Exchange to protect
orders on its book and attempt to attract interest to execute against
such order.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the proposal is consistent with
the SEC Quote Rule's provisions regarding non-firm quotations.\13\
Specifically, Rule 602(a)(3)(i) provides that if, at any time a
national securities exchange is open for trading, the exchange
determines, pursuant to rules approved by the Commission, that the
level of trading activities or the existence of unusual market
conditions is such that the exchange is incapable of collecting,
processing, and making available to vendors the data for a subject
security required to be made available in a manner that accurately
reflects the current state of the market on such exchange, such
exchange shall immediately notify all specified persons of that
determination and, upon such notification, the exchange is relieved of
its obligations under paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of Rule 602 relating to
collecting and disseminating quotations, subject to certain other
provisions of Rule 602(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 17 CFR 242.602(a)(3)(i) and (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By disseminating a bid of $0.00 for a size of zero contracts, or an
offer of $0.00 for a size of zero contracts in certain situations
delineated above in the Exchange's rules, the Exchange believes that it
is adequately communicating that it is non-firm on that side of the
market in compliance with the Quote Rule.

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \15\ thereunder, the Exchange has designated this proposal as
one that effects a change that: (i) Does not significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms, does not
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes
that the current pilot is ``non-controversial'' and therefore
appropriate for filing pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give
the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement. Furthermore, a
proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
\16\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of
its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \17\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. The Commission notes the instant proposed rule change
does not involve any substantive change to the Exchange's rules.
Rather, the proposed rule change only seeks to extend the current pilot
to allow time for OPRA to make technological changes that would enable
OPRA to support a one-sided non-firm quote condition and allow the
Exchange time to make corresponding changes to its systems. Thus, the
Commission believes that the proposed rule change

does not raise any new regulatory issues.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78(c)(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-156 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-156. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC. 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-156 and should be
submitted on or before December 20, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29907 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P