 [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 142 (Monday, July 25, 2011)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 44255-44256] [FR Doc No: 2011-18121]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0251; Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-5]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Harrisonville, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace for Harrisonville, MO, to

accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach

Procedures at Lawrence Smith Memorial Airport. The FAA is taking this

action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule

(IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, October 20, 2011. The Director of the

Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under

1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and

publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,

Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest

Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321-

7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On April 19, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a

notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace for

Harrisonville, MO, creating additional controlled airspace at Lawrence

Smith Memorial Airport (76 FR 21830) Docket No. FAA-2011-0251.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking

effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No

comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in

paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9U dated August 18, 2010, and

effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14

CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this

document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)

part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet

above the surface for new standard instrument approach procedures at

Lawrence Smith Memorial Airport, Harrisonville, MO. This action is

necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the

airport. Geographic coordinates are also being updated to coincide with

the FAA's aeronautical database.

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an

established body of technical regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.

Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory

action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''

under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,

1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation

as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter

that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is

certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is

found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes

the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation

Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the

FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of

airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient

use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority

as it amends controlled airspace for Lawrence Smith Memorial Airport,

Harrisonville, MO.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as

follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,

24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0

2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1 of the Federal

Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and

Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,

2010, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700

feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ACE MO E5 Harrisonville, MO [Amended]

Lawrence Smith Memorial Airport, MO

    (Lat. 38[deg]36'37'' N., long. 94[deg]20'37'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface

within a 6.9-mile radius of Lawrence Smith Memorial Airport, and

within 1.9 miles each side of the 307[deg] bearing from the airport

extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 10.3 miles northwest of the

airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 11, 2011.

Walter L. Tweedy,

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.

[FR Doc. 2011-18121 Filed 7-22-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 19, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 242)]
[Notices]
[Page 75231-75233]
[DOCID:fr19de05-91]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52938; File No. SR-NASD-2005-138]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval
of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Pricing for Non-Members Using
Nasdaq's Brut Facility

December 9, 2005.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 22, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD''), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
(``Nasdaq''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons, and at the same time is granting accelerated
approval of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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

    Nasdaq proposes to modify the pricing for non-members using
Nasdaq's Brut Facility (``Brut''). Nasdaq requests approval to
implement the proposed rule change retroactively for a pilot period
running from December 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. The text of
the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in italics.
Proposed deletions are in [brackets].
* * * * *

7010. System Services

    (a)-(h) No change.
    (i) Nasdaq Market Center and Brut Facility Order Execution
    (1)-(5) No change.
    (6) The fees applicable to non-members using Nasdaq's Brut Facility
shall be the fees established for members under Rule 7010(i), as
amended by SR-NASD-2005-019, SR-NASD-2005-035, SR-NASD-2005-048, and
SR-NASD-2005-071, [and] SR-NASD-2005-125, and SR-NASD-2005-137, and as
applied to non-members by SR-NASD-2005-020, SR-NASD-2005-038, SR-NASD-
2005-049, SR-NASD-2005-072, [and] SR-NASD-2005-126, and SR-NASD-2005-
138.
    (j)-(v) No change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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 III below. Nasdaq 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
    In SR-NASD-2005-137, which applies to NASD members, Nasdaq modified
its fee schedule for transaction executions in certain stocks listed on
markets other than Nasdaq by creating a pilot program under which
liquidity providers (i.e., market participants that put quotes or
orders that are accessed by incoming orders) may receive a credit of
$0.0005 per share executed.\3\ In this filing, Nasdaq is proposing to
apply the same modification to non-NASD members that use Nasdaq's Brut
Facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Telephone conversation between John Yetter, Associate
General Counsel, Exchange, and David Liu and Michou Nguyen,
Attorneys, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on December 6,
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq currently offers a liquidity provider credit with respect to
securities whose primary listing is on Nasdaq, and its credit for
transactions in exchange-traded funds (``ETFs'') listed on the American
Stock Exchange (``Amex'') was recently extended to ETFs listed on other
exchanges.\4\ Nasdaq notes that, with the exception of ETFs, however,
such a credit has not been offered with respect to stocks whose primary
listing is not on Nasdaq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 52757 (November 9,
2005), 70 FR 69791 (November 17, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-125); and 52758
(November 9, 2005), 70 FR 69793 (November 17, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-
126).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq states that with the enhanced opportunities for electronic
trading of non-Nasdaq listed stocks occasioned by market participant
demand and upcoming regulatory changes, however, it expects that new
competitive opportunities will develop for Nasdaq and other electronic
venues. Nasdaq believes that the quality of executions that it can
offer in such an environment will depend on the degree to which market
participants in a position to provide liquidity opt to do so through
Nasdaq. Because the market for executions of these stocks has not yet
been subject to vigorous competition, and because the balance between
the cost of providing credits and the revenue growth associated with
increased liquidity provision has therefore not been tested in a fully
competitive environment, Nasdaq believes that a pilot program,
consisting of a modest $0.0005 per share credit paid with respect to a
limited number of stocks, would allow an assessment of the costs and
benefits of the credit to Nasdaq and its market participants. Nasdaq
represents that the forty stocks selected for inclusion in the pilot
program \5\ are all stocks whose

propensity to trade on electronic venues, high daily trading volumes,
and large market capitalizations may correlate with a relatively high
degree of price elasticity with regard to liquidity provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD); Apache Corp. (APA); AT&T
Corp. (T); Avaya, Inc. (AV); Baker Hughes, Inc. (BHI); BJ Services
Co. (BJS); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMY); Burlington Resources,
Inc. (BR); Calpine Corp. (CPN); Charles Schwab Corp. (SCH);
Citigroup Inc. (C); ConocoPhillips (COP); Corning Inc. (GLW); Devon
Energy Corp. (DVN); EMC Corp. (EMC); Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM); Ford
Motor Co. (F); Gateway, Inc. (GTW); General Electric Co. (GE);
Halliburton Co. (HAL); Hewlett-Packard Co. (HPQ); Johnson & Johnson
(JNJ); JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM); Kohl's Corp. (KSS); LSI Logic
Corp. (LSI); Micron Technology, Inc. (MU); Motorola, Inc. (MOT);
Noble Corp. (NE); Occidental Petroleum Corp. (OXY); Office Depot
Inc. (ODP); Pfizer Inc. (PFE); Phelps Dodge Corp. (PD); Pulte Homes,
Inc. (PHM); Qwest Communications International Inc. (Q);
Schlumberger Ltd. (SLB); Solectron Corp. (SLR); Sovereign Bancorp,
Inc. (SOV); Time Warner, Inc. (TWX); Valero Energy Corp. (VLO); and
Verizon Communications, Inc. (VZ).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq plans to run the pilot for a period of at least three
months; however, because the authority for this proposal provided by
the Nasdaq Board of Directors runs only through December 31, 2005, the
pilot period covered by this filing is one month. Upon obtaining Board
approval for a longer pilot, which Nasdaq expects to receive in
December 2005, Nasdaq plans to file to extend the pilot through
February 28, 2006.\6\ Nasdaq states that, based on information received
regarding the trading characteristics of the forty stocks included in
the pilot, it would then determine whether to submit a proposed rule
change to extend the pilot further, modify the level of the liquidity
provider credit, and/or offer a credit with respect to additional
stocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Telephone conversation between John Yetter, Associate
General Counsel, Exchange, and Michou Nguyen, Attorney, Division of
Market Regulation, Commission, on December 7, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 15A of the Act,\7\ in general, and with
Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that the proposed
rule change provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among members and issuers and other persons
using any facility or system which the NASD operates or controls. The
proposed rule change applies to non-members that use Nasdaq's Brut
Facility a fee change that is being implemented for NASD members that
use the Nasdaq Market Center and/or Nasdaq's Brut Facility.
Accordingly, Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change promotes an
equitable allocation of fees between members and non-members using
Nasdaq's order execution facilities. Nasdaq believes that the proposed
change will institute a liquidity provider credit available to all
market participants that opt to provide liquidity through Nasdaq or
Brut to support executions in any of forty stocks included in the pilot
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Nasdaq states that written comments were neither solicited nor
received.

III. 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-NASD-2005-138 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-138. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the NASD. 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-NASD-2005-138 and should be submitted on or before
January 9, 2006.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a self-regulatory organization.\9\
Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ which requires that
the rules of the self-regulatory organization provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among members
and issuers and other persons using any facilities or system which it
operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that this proposal would retroactively modify
pricing for non-NASD members using the Nasdaq's Brut Facility to be
implemented on a pilot basis running from December 1, 2005 to December
31, 2005. This proposal would permit the schedule for non-NASD members
to mirror the schedule applicable to NASD members that became effective
November 22, 2005, pursuant to SR-NASD-2005-137 and that Nasdaq stated
it would implement on a pilot basis from December 1, 2005 to December
31, 2005.
    The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
change prior to the 30th day of the date of publication of the notice
thereof in the Federal Register. The Commission notes that the proposed
fees for non-NASD members are identical to those in SR-NASD-2005-137,
which implemented those fees for NASD members and which became
effective as of November 22, 2005. The Commission notes that this
change will promote consistency in Nasdaq's fee schedule by applying
the same pricing schedule with the same date of effectiveness for both
NASD members and non-NASD members. Therefore, the Commission finds that
there is good cause, consistent with Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\11\
to approve

the proposed change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\12\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NASD-2005-138), is
approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-7482 Filed 12-16-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 28, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53576-53577]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19987]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R09-RCRA-2021-0431; FRL-8828-03-R9]

Arizona: Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed action/decision/authorization.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
authorize changes to Arizona's hazardous waste program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These changes were
outlined in an application to the EPA and correspond to certain Federal
rules promulgated between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2020. The EPA
reviewed Arizona's application and has determined that these changes
satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization.
Therefore, in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal
Register, we are authorizing Arizona for these changes as a direct
final authorization without a prior proposed action. If we receive no
adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed
authorization.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 28, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to EPA, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-R09-RCRA-2021-0431, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,

etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and should include discussion of all
points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on
the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). The https://www.regulations.gov website 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 https://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. 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, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sorcha Vaughan,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>415-947-4217.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document proposes to take action on
Arizona's changes to its hazardous waste management program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. We have
published a direct final action authorizing these changes in the
``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register because we
view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse
comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble
to the direct final authorization.
    If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action
on this proposed rulemaking. If we receive adverse comment, we will
withdraw the direct final authorization and it will not take effect. We
would then address all public comments in a subsequent final action and
base any further decision on the authorization of the state program
changes after considering all comments received during the comment
period.
    We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
For further information, please see the information provided in the
ADDRESSES section of this document.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of sections
2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).

    Dated: September 1, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2021-19987 Filed 9-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25422-25424]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11835]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0173; FRL- 9978-90--Region 4]

Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; AL; Redesignation
of the Etowah County Unclassifiable Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On March 22, 2018, the State of Alabama, through the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), submitted a request for
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the Etowah
County, Alabama fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
unclassifiable area (hereinafter referred to as the ``Etowah County
Area'' or ``Area'') to attainment for the 2006 primary and secondary
24-hour PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). EPA now has sufficient data to determine that the Etowah
County Area is in attainment of the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve

the State's request and redesignate the Area to unclassifiable/
attainment for the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS based upon valid, quality-assured, and certified ambient air
monitoring data showing that the PM2.5 monitor in the Area
is in compliance with the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2018-0173 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madolyn Sanchez, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Sanchez can be reached by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) establishes a process for air
quality management through the establishment and implementation of the
NAAQS. After the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is
required to designate areas, pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the CAA,
as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable. On September 21, 2006,
EPA revised the primary and secondary 24-hour NAAQS for
PM2.5 at a level of 35 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/
m\3\), based on a 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of 24-
hour PM2.5 concentrations. See 71 FR 61144 (October 17,
2006). EPA established the standards based on significant evidence and
numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are
associated with exposures to particulate matter.
    The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. On
October 8, 2009, EPA designated areas across the country as
nonattainment, unclassifiable, or unclassifiable/attainment \1\ for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring
data from these monitors for calendar years 2006-2008. See 74 FR 58688.
The monitor in the Etowah County Area had incomplete data for the 2006-
2008 timeframe. Therefore, EPA designated Etowah County as
unclassifiable for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the initial PM area designations in 2009 (for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS), EPA used a designation category of
``unclassifiable/attainment'' for areas that had monitors showing
attainment of the standard and were not contributing to nearby
violations and for areas that did not have monitors but for which
EPA had reason to believe were likely attaining the standard and not
contributing to nearby violations. EPA used the category
``unclassifiable'' for areas in which EPA could not determine, based
upon available information, whether or not the NAAQS was being met
and/or EPA had not determined the area to be contributing to nearby
violations. EPA reserves the ``attainment'' category for when EPA
redesignates a nonattainment area that has attained the relevant
NAAQS and has an approved maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section III, below, the monitor in the Etowah
County Area now has sufficient data to determine that the Etowah County
Area is in attainment of the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, on March 22, 2018, Alabama submitted
a request for EPA to redesignate Area to attainment for these NAAQS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Although Alabama requested redesignation of the Area to
``attainment,'' EPA is proposing to redesignate the area to
``unclassifiable/attainment'' because, as noted above, EPA reserves
the ``attainment'' category for when EPA redesignates a
nonattainment area that has attained the relevant NAAQS and has an
approved maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What are the criteria for redesignating an area from unclassifiable
to unclassifiable/attainment?

    Section 107(d)(3) of the CAA provides the framework for changing
the area designations for any NAAQS pollutants. Section 107(d)(3)(A)
provides that the Administrator may notify the Governor of any state
that the designation of an area should be revised ``on the basis of air
quality data, planning and control considerations, or any other air
quality-related considerations the Administrator deems appropriate.''
The Act further provides in section 107(d)(3)(D) that even if the
Administrator has not notified a state Governor that a designation
should be revised, the Governor of any state may, on the Governor's own
motion, submit a request to revise the designation of any area, and the
Administrator must approve or deny the request.
    When approving or denying a request to redesignate an area, EPA
bases its decision on the air quality data for the area as well as the
considerations provided under section 107(d)(3)(A).\3\ In keeping with
section 107(d)(1)(A), areas that are redesignated to unclassifiable/
attainment must meet the requirements for attainment areas and thus
must meet the relevant NAAQS. In addition, the area must not contribute
to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS.
The relevant monitoring data must be collected and quality-assured in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA Air Quality
System (AQS) database. The designated monitors generally should have
remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period
upon which the redesignation request is based.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ While CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) also lists specific
requirements for redesignations, those requirements only apply to
redesignations of nonattainment areas to attainment and therefore
are not applicable in the context of a redesignation of an area from
unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment.
    \4\ See Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, EPA Air Quality
Management Division, entitled ``Procedures for Processing Requests
to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' (September 4, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is EPA's rationale for proposing to redesignate the Area?

    In order to redesignate the Area from unclassifiable to
unclassifiable/attainment for the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, the 3-year average of annual 98th percentile
24-hour concentration values (i.e., design value) over the most recent
3-year period must be less than or equal to 35 [micro]g/m\3\ at all
monitoring sites in the Area over the full 3-year period, as determined
in accordance with 40 CFR 50.18 and Appendix N of Part 50. EPA reviewed
PM2.5 monitoring data from the monitoring station in the
Etowah County Area for the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS for the 3-year period from 2014-2016. These data
have been quality-assured, certified, and recorded in AQS by Alabama,
and the monitoring location has not changed during the monitoring
period. As summarized in Table 1, the design value for the monitor in
the Area

for the 2014-2016 period is well below the 2006 primary and secondary
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

 Table 1--2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Design Value for the Monitor in the Etowah
                        County Area for 2014-2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2014-2016
        Local site name              Monitoring site       design value
                                                           ([mu]g/m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Etowah County, AL..............  01-055-0010............              17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the 3-year design value, based on valid, quality-assured
data, demonstrates that the Area meets the 2006 primary and secondary
24-hour PM2.5 standards, EPA is proposing to redesignate the
Etowah County Area from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for
this NAAQS.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's March 22, 2018, redesignation
request and to redesignate the Etowah County Area from unclassifiable
to unclassifiable/attainment for the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. If finalized, approval of the redesignation
request would change the legal designation, found at 40 CFR part 81, of
Etowah County from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for the
2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to unclassifiable/
attainment is an action that affects the status of a geographical area
and does not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources
beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to unclassifiable/
attainment does not create any new requirements. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely proposes to redesignate an area to
unclassifiable/attainment and does not impose additional requirements.
For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because redesignations are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Will not have disproportionate human health or
environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).
    This action is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that
a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian County, the action
does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 18, 2018.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018-11835 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


1 PBST Detailed Study Plan  Revised December 29, 2003 PETROLEUM BULK STATIONS AND TERMINALS ( PBST) DETAILED STUDY PLAN December 29, 2003 General Steps 1. Gather Information ° Industry demographics ( profile) ° Baseline pollutant loads ° Identify pollutants of concern ° Applicable control technology ( includes wastewater treatment and pollution reduction alternatives)

2. Develop Model Facilities and Scale Up Procedures 3. Develop Control Options ° Estimate costs

Capital and operating costs

Regulatory costs ° Estimate pollutant reductions 4. Prepare Report and Documentation 1. Gather Information Information Needs ° Discharge status ( number of facilities with direct, indirect, and zero discharge); ° Reasons why/ how certain facilities are zero discharge; ° Identification of " best performing" facilities that may be used to identify best available technology economically achievable ( BAT) control technologies; ° Pollution reduction technologies, their costs, and pollutant reduction potential; ° Extent of pollution prevention/ recovery practices in place; and ° Impact of EPA's stormwater, SPCC, and other regulations.

Industry Profile and Identification of Pollutants of Concern ° Review permits and fact sheets from states and EPA regions.

° Review TRI for percent of discharged wastewater from storm water and treatment in place. 2 PBST Detailed Study Plan  Revised December 29, 2003 ° Review TRI data to estimate number of zero, indirect, and direct dischargers.

° Review the facility list and capacities provided in the 2001 Bulk Liquid Terminals and Storage Facilities directory from the Independent Liquid Terminals Association.

° Review model facilities developed for the Gasoline Distribution National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAPS).

° Check for any relevant industry data on the Energy Information Administration ( EIA) web site.

° Coordinate with petroleum refinery detailed study to identify facilities incorrectly classified in TRI as refineries that are PBSTs.

° Identify approximately two PBST facilities for site visits.

Questions to address:

° How should the industry be divided for model sites? Possible factors may include: quantity of discharge, type of wastewater discharged, petroleum products stored, facility type, geographic particulars, and size of facility ( e. g., product throughput).

° Are facilities not reporting wastewater discharges to TRI because they are zero discharge or because they are not required to report ( e. g., less than 10 employees, below reporting thresholds)?

° What are sources of wastewater, their volumes, and relation to PBST operations or types of products stored?

° What influences the volumes and pollutant loads?

° How can these relationships be used in developing model sites?

Baseline Pollutant Loads ° Revise baseline loads and assumptions used for the August 2003 analysis based on additional information.

° From petroleum refining detailed study: using references from TRI guidance, characterize the individual PACs in various petroleum products ( mass: mass and mass: volume) and develop a petroleum product PAC toxic weighting factor. 3 PBST Detailed Study Plan  Revised December 29, 2003 Questions to address:

° What pollutants are discharged and how much ( base year is 2000)?

° Where do the discharged pollutants come from ( i. e., is there a sub sector of the industry that is responsible for high toxic loads)?

° Does the industry discharge non trivial amounts of toxic pollutants on an industry and per facility basis? ( If the discharges from some sites are trivial, is there a way to classify this group of sites, then exclude them from further analysis?)

Applicable Control Technology ° Identify current control technology used at PBSTs ( e. g., oil/ water separators, granulated activated carbon ( GAC)). Use permit writer contacts and trade associations to identify technologies and vendors.

° Identify vendors and talk to them about current control technologies and their use at PBSTs.

° Identify any additional control technologies and pollution prevention alternatives that can be applied to PBSTs to reduce discharges of toxic pollutants through literature search and talk with treatment control technology vendors.

° For identified control technologies, evaluate the potential cost in terms of pound of toxic pollutants removed.

2. Develop Model PBST Sites and Scale up Procedures ° Identify parameters that will be used to define the models ( e. g., capacity, discharge status, processes, treatment in place, wastewater discharge types, products stored). These parameters will relate to PBST's pollution generation rates, the feasibility of control technologies, and technology costs.

° Develop 3 to 10 " model sites," defined in terms of the parameters identified.

° Develop scheme to scale up models to full industry ( i. e., develop the weights or scale up factors that will be applied to each model).

° To the extent possible validate the model ( may be limited to pollutant discharges  do baseline model discharges, extrapolated by scale up procedure, result in the total reported discharges ( PCS & TRI)?). 4 PBST Detailed Study Plan  Revised December 29, 2003 ° Search for literature ( e. g., from vendors) or case studies for potential use in validating model costs.

3. Develop Control Options Including Estimating Costs and Pollutant Reductions ° Identify applicability of existing stormwater regulations and PBST general permits.

° Identify feasible pollution reduction technologies. Investigate:

Internal waste stream management   keep pollutant bearing streams in the process by leak and spill prevention and divert clean stormwater from wastewater treatment plants.

Process changes that will eliminate or reduce:

S wastewater discharge volume ( e. g., use collected storm water or petroleum products for hydrostatic testing, use of green roofs); or S amount of pollutants discharged to wastewater ( leak and spill prevention).

End of pipe treatment ( e. g., oil/ water separator).

° Collect capital and operating cost and performance information for relevant model site applications. Also collect information on monitoring and reporting requirements. Data sources include calls with permit writers, literature reviews, and contacting equipment vendors ( get prices for sizes that reflect the model sites).

° Estimate costs and pollutant reductions achievable by implementing the control options at each model site and scale up to estimate the costs and reductions achievable for the entire industry. Format of output must be useable by economists for analyzing economic impact and cost effectiveness.

° Consider non water quality impacts, particularly air emissions and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) hazardous waste regulations ( i. e., would any of the residues created by wastewater treatment be hazardous wastes?).

Questions to address:

° Are there PBST sites that directly discharge wastewater ( including contaminated stormwater) without treatment ( i. e., no oil/ water separator)? 5 PBST Detailed Study Plan  Revised December 29, 2003 ° What percentage of the industry discharge tank bottom waters? What treatment technology do they use ( e. g., biological treatment)?

° Does the treatment of wastewater at direct discharging sites differ from the treatment of wastewater from indirect discharging sites?

° Should other technologies be applied to the industry ( e. g., to control discharge of organic pollutants)? What will they cost on an industry and per facility basis?

° Do publicly owned treatment works ( POTWs) adequately treat wastewater from indirect dischargers ( i. e., control discharge of organic pollutants)?

° How much will implementing these solutions reduce pollutant discharges from direct and indirect dischargers? Eliminate technologies that are too expensive from further analysis.

4. Prepare Report and Documentation Draft study report will include:

° Industry profile; ° Baseline pollutant loads ( including TWPE); ° Descriptions of pollution control options; ° Costs & removals for each analyzed option; ° Documentation of the methodology used to estimate costs and pollutant reductions; and ° Discussion of the quality of the data used for these estimates, including " data gaps."


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 2884]
[FR Doc No: 2010-853]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1870-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

Alabama; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1870-DR), dated December 31, 2009, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: January 8, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Alabama is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of December 31, 2009.

    Chilton and Russell Counties for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-853 Filed 1-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 37 (Thursday, February 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9531-9532]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03946]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77186; File No. SR-Phlx-2016-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Partnerships

February 19, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 16, 2016, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to delete these Rules: 903 entitled, ``Fixed
Interest of Partner'';'' 904 entitled, ``Use of a Partnership Name;''
905 entitled, ``Special or Limited Partners;'' and 906 entitled,
``Notice of Change in Partnership.'' 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 Exchange proposes to delete certain Phlx membership rules in
order to harmonize and modernize the Exchange's Rulebook. Specifically,
Exchange proposes to delete Rule 903 entitled, ``Fixed Interest of
Partner;'' Rule 904 entitled, ``Use of a Partnership Name;'' Rule 905
entitled, ``Special or Limited Partners;'' and Rule 906 entitled,
``Notice of Change in Partnership.'' Specifically, each proposed rule
change is as a result of the demutualization of the Exchange in 2004
and no longer applicable to the business today. The proposed changes
related to the former need for the exchange to more acutely understand
the ownership structure of the membership and are discussed in greater
detail below.
    These rules were applicable when Phlx offered seats, prior to
demutualization. Before demutualization, Phlx seats conveyed ownership
which created a greater obligation on Phlx to gather information on the
members corporate structure. Specifically, Phlx was obligated to
maintain a heighted vigilance on the makeup, ownership, and changes of
individuals in a partnership in order to ensure the financial integrity
of its ownership structure. Today, permits are issued to Exchange
members and member organizations. The Exchange no longer needs to
differentiate ownership because the permit structure conveys no
ownership to the membership. These membership rules related to
partnerships are no longer applicable today. The distinctions regarding
the admission of member as a partnership, as compared to a corporation,
are no longer relevant. The Exchange proposes to remove these outdated
Rules.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \3\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \4\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in 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. The Exchange believes that Rules 903-906 are
burdensome and unnecessary. These rules regarding partnership
interests, use of names, privileges, and changes to the partnership
serve no modern purpose to the Exchange. The former ownership structure
required the Exchange to be vigilant of the ownership structure of its
members in case of financial distress or bankruptcy as the seat
structure was vital to the financial condition of the Exchange. Before
demutualization, members had ownership interest in the Exchange. Today,
permits convey no ownership and therefore such vigilance as to the
ownership structure of members is not warranted. The rules have not
been changed since demutualization, but for 904 and 906 which were
edited in 2009 in order to replace the term ``Membership Committee''
with ``Membership Department'' which was done in conjunction with other
changes to the standing committees and corporate governance processes
in order to make the Exchange more similar to the other Nasdaq SRO's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The removal of Rules 903-906 will promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities by removing
burdensome requirements so that members may properly focus on other
relevant requirements which benefit the marketplace.

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The Exchange's proposed amendments seek to delete certain
unnecessary rules which today burden partnerships over corporation. The
deletions of Rules 903-906 will remove a current burden on competition
which requires members and member organizations that are partnerships
to disclose unnecessary information as compared to other corporate
entities not structured as a partnership.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \5\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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. The Exchange has
provided the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the
proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of
filing of the proposed rule change.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2016-20 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2016-20. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2016-20 and
should be submitted on or before March 17, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-03946 Filed 2-24-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Extreme pH Measurements

Joe Lowry, Richard Ross, and Brad Venner

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Enforcement
Investigations Center, Box 25227, Denver, CO 80225, USA

Introduction

Commercial chemical products when abandoned or otherwise disposed are
solid waste and if listed or characteristic are hazardous waste.  Some
DOT corrosive commercial chemical products are H2SO4, HCl, NaOH and KOH.
 Common concentrations of H2SO4 include about 30% for electrolytic
grade, 60% for fertilizer grade, and 98% as concentrated grade.  HCl is
typically 30% for industrial use, 10% for household use and 38% as a
concentrated grade.  Commercial grade NaOH, caustic soda, is typically
50% while KOH, caustic potash, is 45%.  None of the above mentioned
commercial products are listed.  Therefore, if they are to be captured
by RCRA, they must be identified with properties of characteristic
hazardous waste.

H of ≤ 2 or ≥ 12.5 as determined by a pH meter using SW846 Method
9040”.  Method 9040 requires calibration by bracketing sample pH
values with standards that span about 3 pH units.  It also recommends
the use of a pH 2 standard for sample values ≤ 2 and a pH 12 standard
for sample values ≥ 12.  Hence, standards with pH values ≤ -1 and
≥ 15 are needed.  However, the NIST/IUPAC primary pH standards range
from 3.5 to 10 with secondary standards of 1.68 and 12.45.  Standards
commercially available typically range from pH 0.5 to 13.

Nordstrom et al (1) proposed the use of Pitzer equations and
modification thereof in assigning pH values for strongly acidic H2SO4
standards.  Licht (2) proposed the use of the mean activity coefficient
in assigning pH values for strongly basic KOH standards.  In this paper,
we demonstrate that linearity in continuity with the curve of the
primary standards is achieved for some strongly acidic and basic
solutions when using the molal concentration and the activity of water
in assigning pH values. (3-5)

We also demonstrate, contrary to a claim in Method 9040, that the
corrosivity of concentrated acids and bases can be measured by means of
potentiometric pH measurements with a glass electrode.  Various issues
pertinent to RCRA corrosivity characterization via potentiometric pH
measurements are discussed.

Experimental

pH measurements were made with a Corning 345 pH/mV meter, a Corning
Model 96 thermocouple, and an Orion Ross 8172BN combination pH
electrode.  Eight commercial buffers ranging from pH 1.09 to 12.45 were
from Ricca and Radiometer.

H2SO4 (95.8%), HCl (37.8%), HClO4 (69.7%), HNO3 (69.7%), CH3COOH
(99.7%), NaOH (97.7%), NaCl (99%), KCl (99%), KOH (87.8%), glycerin,
2-propanol, polyethylene glycol 400 liquid, and pyridine were from
Baker.  The 60.5% HClO4 was from GFS.  The CH3SO3H (99.5%), (CH3)4NOH
• 5H2O (97%), 1,4-dioxane and mineral oil were from Aldrich.  The
toluene, iso-octane, and hexane were from Burdick and Jackson.  The
methanol was from EMD and the vacuum pump oil 20 was from VWR.  The
kerosene was from Fluka.  These liquids and gravimetrically prepared
solutions of the acids and bases were analyzed.  KOH pellets and
pulverized pellets, and saturated solutions of KOH were also analyzed.

Results and Discussion

EPA on Aqueous

Currently, the EPA defines ‘aqueous’ for the corrosivity
characteristics as meaning in a form amenable to pH measurement.  The
basis for this was stated to be the following in the 1980 regulatory
background document; “A few comments suggested that EPA specifically
define “aqueous” in terms of viscosity or percent water.  The Agency
has not developed a specific definition because of the widely varying
physical and chemical properties which influence the form of wastes.
Those who generate, treat, store or dispose of a waste can best
determine whether it is in a suitable form for pH measurement.”  Forms
mentioned as suitable were liquids and non-liquids including
suspensions, sols, and gels.  Between 1980 and the current 1998
standpoint, guidance was provided that 60% and later 50% water content
would be aqueous.

In the final rulemaking in 1980 Office Solid Waste (OSW) Method 5.2
replaced the proposed Office of Water Method 150.1 as the required
method.  Method 5.2 was the same as Method 150.1.  In 1982 Method 9040
appeared in the second edition of the OSW SW846 methods manual.  In 1994
Method 9040 in the 1986 third edition of SW846 replaced Method 5.2 at
§40CFR261.22 as the regulatory required method.  Soon thereafter Method
9040A replaced Method 9040 in SW846.   Today Method 9040C appears in
SW846.  Additional information about appropriate forms was given in
Method 9040 and its prodigies.  All the 9040 methods contain; “This
method is used to measure the pH of aqueous wastes and those multiphase
wastes where the aqueous phase constitutes at least 20% of the total
volume of the waste.”  Hence, it would appear a part of the waste
could cause the whole waste to be identified as hazardous and multiphase
waste with < 20% aqueous phase, were provided exclusion.  Personnel
communication with staff provided that it was thought that 20% would
provide a sufficient volume for analysis.  In 1998, OSW provided other
guidance that the 20% means free water.  Free water was not defined.

Starting with Method 9040A, the following appears in the prodigy; “The
corrosivity of concentrated acids and bases, or of concentrated acids
and bases mixed with inert substances, cannot be measured.  The pH
measurement requires some water content.”  Further, the prodigy
require caustic pH samples be measured at 25°C.  This was done to
specifically cause the exclusion of lime treated wastes as at 20°C a
saturated solution has a pH of 12.6 while at 25°C the pH is 12.45.
This exclusion neglected that at pH 11 and higher metals are mobilized
as hydroxide and carbonate complexes and proper treatment following lime
addition requires pH adjustment to between 8 and 10 to optimize metals
removal.  This modification also essentially precluded field pH
measurements for caustics and made impractical meeting the 15 minute
holding time required to prove a sample does not have the property
associated with a corrosivity hazardous waste.

≥ 5 point); 2) bracketing (≥ 2 point) the sample values; and 3)
single point and assume a slope.  Method 9040 requires bracketing with
standards that span about 3 pH units.  Bracketing is interpolation while
single point and assuming a slope is extrapolation.  Proper application
of Method 9040 would require a pH standard at -1 or less for acidic
samples with the pH 2 standard and one at pH 15 or greater for caustic
samples with the pH 12 standard. The lowest commercial pH standard found
was 0.5 and the highest was 13.  Hence, laboratories would need to
prepare in-house standards in the proper application of the method.
Presumably, if a sample value can not be bracketed then the sample is
not amenable to measurement by the method.  If a sample value could be
bracketed and was not, then Method 9040 was not followed.  Further,
Method 9040 requires that duplicate pH measurements be made on the
sample and that these measurements agree to within 0.1 pH units.  If
duplicate measurements are greater than 0.1 pH units then the sample is
not amenable to measurement by Method 9040.

Cobbling things together, it appears the OSW meaning of aqueous for the
corrosivity characteristic is any phase of a sample that is at least 20%
of the total volume which contains some water, including physical forms
that are liquids, suspensions, sols, or gels whose chemical form is not
a concentrated acid or base without water, or water saturated with
calcium oxide or its hydrates, and whose pH value measured by pH glass
membrane electrode potentiometry can be bracketed with standards and
replicated within 0.1 pH units for duplicate measurements.

Some Water

The more recent OSW guidance is that aqueous for the corrosivity
characteristic does not mean 50% water as it does for the ignitability
characteristic.  As discussed, aqueous means amenable to pH measurement
by Method 9040 for the corrosivity characteristic.  This guidance
equates one ambiguous un-measurable term, aqueous, with another
ambiguous un-measurable term, amenable.  Along the same vein, Method
9040 seems to equate amenable with the ambiguous phrase ‘some water’
by stating that; “The pH measurement requires some water.”  Although
water might be able to be measured for most samples, ‘some’ is not
defined as a quantity.

Consider, unless a sample is collected, stored and analyzed under an
artificial atmosphere, it will usually contain ‘some water’ because
air has humidity.  Further, the glass electrode will have water adhered
to the membrane and water will leak from the reference electrode.  Water
can aid ionization of solutes or other solvents (H2SO4, CH3SO3H,
CH3COOH, etc.) however self ionization is not unique to water.
Measurement of pH for non-aqueous systems can readily be found in the
scientific literature.

Generally, a solution is considered aqueous if water is the solvent.  If
two or more miscible solvents are present, than the one at the highest
mole fraction is considered the solvent. If one equates the Method 9040
statement concerning multiphasic samples that the aqueous phase must be
20% of the total volume as 20% water content means amenable or ‘some
water’ than the scientific meaning of aqueous would not be met for
most commercial acids.  Table 1 gives the mole fraction concentrations
for some common commercial concentrated acids.  Note that 20% water does
not give an aqueous solution when the acid has a molecular weight less
than 72 g/mole.  Only phosphoric acid and sulfuric acid have molecular
weights greater than 72 g/mole.  Further note that concentrated
hydrofluoric acid and concentrated hydrochloric acid would be aqueous
solutions.

concentrated solutions or beyond the nominal pH range are lacking.
There is no scientific basis for a contention that because a material
contains 20% or 50% water that it is amenable to pH measurement by
Method 9040.

Amenable as Reproducible

The NIST/IUPAC standards are assigned pH values with an electrochemical
cell (Harned cell) that has no liquid junctions.  For practical pH
measurements these assigned pH values are used to calibrate an
electrochemical cell involving a glass electrode and a liquid junction
at the reference electrode.  A criterion for a primary standard is a
small liquid junction potential on the glass electrode.  The liquid
junction potential increases with ionic strength and is affected by the
nature of the solute and solvent, colloids, and suspended solids.

Generally for aqueous standardization the pH 7 standard has a potential
of 0 millivolts.  A liquid junction potential manifests itself as a
translational displacement of this intercept term.  It is essentially a
change in the reference electrode potential.  It is potential unrelated
to the hydrogen ion activity and hence an error.

The operational definition of pH is based on the standard buffers and
does not yield a thermodynamic hydrogen ion activity.  Measurements of
pH in concentrated solutions may depart from the scale established with
the dilute buffers.  This could occur as result of changes in the liquid
junction potential.  Drift, slow response and unstable readings are
typically encountered for high liquid junction potentials.  Hence,
irreproducibility can indicate that a sample is not amenable to
measurement by Method 9040.

Potentiometric pH measurements for 13 solvents are presented in Table 2.
 Method 9040 requires that duplicate measurements agree to within 0.1 pH
units (6 mV).  Using the 0.1 pH units criterion, then readings for
methanol, pyridine and water would indicate amenability to measurement.
Open circuit was only evident for the 1,4-Dioxane measurements.  A
precision requirement of around 0.05 pH units (3 mV) would discern water
from the other solvents.  The average pH values were not near the
corrosivity limits.

Table 2 presents measurements for six concentrated acids and dilutions
of these acids.  Multiple measurements

representing different days are reported for 70% HClO4 and 47% HNO3.
Using the 0.1 pH units criterion, then the readings for concentrated
HClO4, HCl, HNO3, HOOCCH3, and CH3SO3H and dilutions thereof indicate
they were amenable to measurement by Method 9040.  Concentrated H2SO4
had a standard deviation of 0.17 pH units.  It is interesting to note
that 100% HOOCCH3 and 100% CH3SO3H, which supposedly contained no water,
were amenable to measurement.

Measurements for three concentrated bases and various dilutions are
given in Table 2.  Using the 0.1 pH units criterion, then the readings
for concentrated KOH and (CH3)4NOH and dilutions thereof indicate they
were amenable to measurement by Method 9040.  Concentrated 50% NaOH had
a standard deviation of 0.25 pH units, while 40% and lower met the
criterion.  The direct analysis of pellets of KOH had a standard
deviation of 0.34 pH units.

Dilution

It is common analytical practice for many parameters to dilute a sample
or preparation which contains an analyte in excess of the highest
calibration standard so that the dilution’s signal is within the
calibration range.  The dilution value is multiplied by a factor to
arrive at the sample or preparation concentrations.  Simple
proportionality is assumed.  Dilution would be a convenient means to
meet the bracketing requirements for strong acids and bases.  Common
commercial buffers than could be used.  However, pH can present
difficulties not associated with other parameters.  The logarithmic
scale, dissociation equilibria, activity coefficients and liquid
junction potential are rather unique to pH.  Nonetheless, Method 9040 is
silent on dilution.

Besides liquid junction potential, there is another affect attributed to
the nature of the solvent that is not error.  This is increased activity
of hydrogen ion often attributed to decrease in the dielectric of the
solution.  The liquid junction potential and dielectric effects can be
detected but not necessarily distinguished by dilution.  As a phase is
diluted with water the dielectric will be larger than the concentrated
sample hence the activity coefficient will better approximate that of
the calibration standards.  The liquid junction potential would decrease
with dilution eventually approximating the calibration standards.  For
acids, dilution would generally cause more dissociation.  Nevertheless,
the largest effect would be on the activity coefficient.  Use of
volumetric dilution would cause the activity of the concentrated
solution to be underestimated and hence, pH values to be biased toward
7.  Table 3 provides calculated pH values (10) for H2SO4 showing the
dilution corrected pH values underestimate the concentrated sample pH
value.  As shown, serial volumetric dilution in the standard buffer pH
range would cause about one pH unit change for a strong acid and the
same would be expected for a strong base.  About 0.5 pH unit change
would be expected for a weak acid or base.  The data in Table 3 shows
that the activity coefficient or activity of water approximate one for
the dilutions and the molal and molar concentration are essentially
equal, however neither is the case for the concentrated sample and hence
the reasons for underestimation of the activity.  Determining the
composition of the solution would allow better approximation by use of a
single ion activity coefficient or the activity of water and correct
conversion to a molal concentration.

Figure 1a shows the response of the Ross pH electrode with change in
weight percent for seven acids.  Fair linearity of the signal with
weight percent acid is observed with the strong acids on one line and
acetic acid, a weak acid, off by itself.  The signal for a pH 2 standard
is given as reference.  Figure 1b shows the response with change in
weight percent for three bases.  Again a linear response is observed for
KOH and (CH3)4NOH while the cross sensitivity to sodium ion causes the
curvature for NaOH.  The signal for a pH 12.45 standard is given as
reference.  As shown, all the various concentrated acids, KOH and
(CH3)4NOH and their dilutions gave signals that are discernible from the
corrosivity limits and hence measurable, contrary to the statement in
Method 9040.  As shown, dilution could be used to minimize the cross
sensitivity to sodium for NaOH.  For a saturated solution, the sample
should be filtered prior to dilution to assure that solids are not
dissolved by the dilution.

Assigning pH Values

Besides dilution, bracketing could be achieved by assigning pH values to
various strong acid or strong base secondary standard solutions.  The pH
values of the NIST/IUPAC primary standards have been established using
the primary method involving hydrogen gas electrode potentiometry with
the Harned Cell.  The assigned values show consistency with a
computation approach based on Debye-Huckel theory.  There exists mapping
back and forth between chemical potential and electrical potential.
Reason for distinction of a primary and secondary standard can be
because of high liquid junction potential or inappropriateness of
Debye-Huckel theory.  Both are likely for concentrated solutions.
Further, pH values assigned to secondary standards can be derived from
secondary methods such as glass electrode potentiometry in comparison to
the primary standards. (9)  Therefore, the pH value of a secondary
standard might be established empirically using glass electrode
potentiometry and need not be verified with a computation approach.

Figure 2a shows that pH values assigned as the negative logarithm of the
effective molal concentrations (m/aw) for H2SO4, HCl and KOH align well
with the calibration line of the commercial buffers.  The activity of
water (aw) was taken from Stokes (6) for H2SO4, from Licht (2) for KOH,
and calculated from osmotic coefficients (8) for HCl and NaOH.

Figure 2b allows comparison for the H2SO4 standards of the pH assigned
using the effective molal concentration, the molal concentration,
Licht’s method involving the mean activity coefficient and the molal
concentration (log(±)+ log(m)), and by Pitzer equations.  Figure 2c
shows the same information for KOH.

)m, where  is the fractional concentration of sulfate would move
the 0.25 m and 0.5 m pH values only slightly toward lower pH.   The
Pitzer equation and the molal concentration approaches show continuity
with the calibration line and agreement with the effective molal pH
value to about pH -1 and pH 14 or 15 but show more curvature at the
highest concentrations.

If the Pitzer pH values are the negative logarithm of the activity of
the hydrogen ion then it would appear the glass electrode response is
otherwise based.  Competing theories exist attempting to describe the
glass electrode function, including both faradaic (Nernst) and
non-faradaic (Boltzmann) potentiometry premised on ion exchange,
chemisorption, membrane transport, etc.  Dole’s a critical review of
which was given by Pungor [12,13] and more recently by Baucke [14–16],
that aim at describing of glass electrode functioning, and this fact
makes the finding of an exact explanation more difficult.

sensitivity exist between models of low sodium error electrodes.  Glass
electrode manufacturers typically provide a sodium ion - ionic strength
– temperature nomogram for this correction.  However, these nomograms
are insufficient with regard to ionic strength and sodium molality.
Further the cross sensitivity can change with use and age.  Figure 4
shows the response of the NaOH standards in comparison to the buffers
and the KOH standards.  The difference in the measured pH and effective
molal computed pH versus sodium concentration is given in Figure 5.
This provides means to correction for unknowns when sodium is measured.
Titration of hydroxyl ion can provide confirmation.  Another common
means to overcome interference would be to analysis dilutions of the
sample and compute the sample pH value from the dilution factor.

Zavitsas (4) states; “In an ionic solution departures from ideality
can occur in two different ways.  Interionic attraction stabilizes an
ion resulting in a decrease of its activity coefficient whereas the
removal of solvent molecules due to solvation of the other ions has
destabilizing effect with a consequent increase of the activity
coefficient.  The ‘salting in’ effect is predominate at low ionic
strengths while at high ionic strengths the ‘salting out’ effect
dominates.”  It is well established that hydrogen ion in aqueous
solution exists in the hydrated form (H+ • nH2O).  Texts often show it
as the hydronium ion (H3O+) but evidence points to H9O4+ and more
recently H14O7+ as predominant.  Ions such as sodium, potassium, and
hydroxide also exist in hydrated forms.  These hydrated water molecules
are not free to interact as the solvent water molecules effectively
lowering the activity of water.  Commonly the activity of water is
measured by the vapor pressure in the presence and absence of solute.

gd1

Œ

Ž

ß

à

€

hß

h

# h1

h1

h1

h1

h

h1

h1

h

hMn

h

h

h¼

h

h

h

 ±)

Literature Cited

(1) Nordstrom, D.; Alpers, C.; Ptacek, C.; Blowes, D.  2000. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 34, 254-258.

(2)  Licht, S.  1985.  Anal. Chem. 57, 514-519.

(3)  Das, K. 1988.  J. of Sol. Chem. 17, 327-336.

(3)  Dole, M.  1932.  J. Am. Chem. Soc.  54, 3095-3105.

(3)  Baucke, F.  1994.  Anal. Chem. 66, 4519-4524.

(4)  Zavitsas, A. 2001.  J. Phys. Chem. B 105, 7805-7817.

(5)  Blandamer, M.; Engberts, J.; Gleeson, P.; Reis, J.  2005, Chem.
Soc. Rev. 34, 440-458.

(6)  Stokes, R.  1947.  J. Am. Chem. Soc.  67, 1686-1689.

(7)  Hansen, R.; Miller, F.; Christian, S. 1955. J. Phys.Chem. 59,
391-395.

(8)  Hamer, W.; Wu, Y.  1972.  J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 1, 1047-1099.

(9)  Buck, R.; Rondinini, S.; Covington, A.; Baucke, F.; Brett, C.;
Camoes, M.; Milton, M.; Mussini, T.; Naumann, R.; Pratt, K.; Spitzer,
p.; Wilson, G.  2002, Pure Appl. Chem. 74, 2169-2200.

(10)  Parkhurst, D.L.; Appelo, C.A.J.; 1999. User’s Guide to PHREEQC
(Version 2)—A Computer Program for Speciation, Batch-Reaction,
One-Dimensional Transport, and Inverse Geochemical Calculations. United
States Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 99-4259,
Washington, DC.

NEIC Applied Research, October 11, 2008

Draft

  PAGE  6  of   NUMPAGES  6

NEIC Applied Research, October 11, 2008

DRAFT

  PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  6

NEIC Applied Research, August 20, 2008

DRAFT

TABLE 1.  Concentrations of Common Acids

TABLE 2.  Measured Potentials and pH Values for Various Liquids and
Strongly Basic or Acidic Solutions

TABLE 3.  Simulation of the Effect of Dilution on pH for Sulfuric Acid
Bearing Sample

FIGURE 1.  Ross pH electrode signal as a function of concentration, a)
acids and b) bases.

FIGURE 2.  Signal as a function of pH for the standard buffers and for
solutions of strong acid or base with pH assigned, a) based on effective
molal, b) variously for H2SO4, and c) variously for KOH.

TABLE 4.  Comparison of measured pH values with the Standard Hydrogen
Electrode (3) and Calculated pH values.