[Federal Register: January 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 16)]
[Notices]
[Page 4124-4125]
[DOCID:fr25ja06-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER06-298-000]

The Energy Group of America, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of Order

January 18, 2006.
    The Energy Group of America, Inc. (the Energy Group) filed an
application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate
schedule. The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the
sales of capacity, energy and ancillary at market-based rates. The
Energy Group also requested waiver of various Commission regulations.
In particular, the Energy Group requested that the Commission grant
blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of
securities and assumptions of liability by the Energy Group.
    On January 13, 2006, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the request
for blanket approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated
that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the Federal
Register establishing a period of time for the filing of protests.
Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket
approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by the
Energy Group should file a motion to intervene or protest with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214
(2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protest is February 13, 2006.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
the Energy Group is authorized to issue securities and assume
obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or
otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that
such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the
corporate purposes of the Energy Group, compatible with the public
interest, and

is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approval of the Energy Group's issuances of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-838 Filed 1-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

   OFFICE OF

                                    PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

            TOXIC SUBSTANCES

February 22, 2008

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:		Preliminary Ecological Hazard and Environmental Risk
Assessment Science Chapter for the Triclosan Reregistration Eligibility
Decision (RED) Document

			DP Barcode:  341569		Reregistration Case No.:  2340

FROM:		Genevieve Angle, Biologist

Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch (RASSB)

Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

TO:			Mark Hartman, Branch Chief

Diane Isbell, Team Leader

Regulatory Management Branch II

Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

Timothy McMahon, Risk Assessor

THRU:		Siroos Mostaghimi, Team Leader, Team 1

Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch (RASSB)

Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

Norman Cook, Branch Chief

Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch (RASSB)

Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

Chemical Name	PC Code	CAS#		Common Names

5-Chloro-2-	54901		3380-34-5	Triclosan

  (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)phenol

Attached is the Ecological Hazard and Environmental Risk Assessment
Science Chapter for the Triclosan RED Document.

ECOLOGICAL HAZARD AND ENVIRONMENTAL

RISK ASSESSMENT CHAPTER

Triclosan

PC Code: 054901

CASE No.: 2340

02/22/08

Genevieve Angle - Biologist

Antimicrobials Division

Office of Pesticide Programs

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Table of Contents

												    Page

Executive Summary
………………………………………………………………
……………… 5

1.  Ecological Toxicity Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

A.  Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

1.  Birds, Acute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.  Birds, Subacute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3.  Mammals, Acute and Chronic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

B.  Toxicity to Aquatic Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

1.  Freshwater Fish, Acute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

2.  Freshwater Invertebrates, Acute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

3.  Estuarine and Marine Organisms, Acute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

4.  Aquatic Organisms, Chronic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

C.  Toxicity to Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..12

II.  Risk Assessment and Risk Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . ..13

A.  Environmental Fate Assessment Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .14

B.  Environmental Exposure And Qualitative Environmental Risk
Assessment… . .. . . . . ..15

C.  Endangered Species Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . .17

III.  Confirmatory Data Required. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ..18

IV.  Label Hazard Statements for Terrestrial and Aquatic Organisms. . .
. . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . .. 19

V.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . 20

LIST OF TABLES

																			  Page

Table 1 – Acute Oral Toxicity of Triclosan to Birds. …. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Table 2 – Subacute Oral Toxicity of Triclosan to Birds. . . . . . ….
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Table 3 – Acute Toxicity of Triclosan to Freshwater Fish. . . . . . .
. . . . . …. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 4 – Acute Toxicity of Triclosan to Freshwater Invertebrates. . .
. . . …. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Table 5 – Chronic Toxicity of Triclosan to Freshwater Organisms. . . .
…. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 6 – Toxicity of Triclosan to Aquatic Plants. . . . . . . . . . .
. …. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..13

Ecological Hazard and Environment Risk Assessment

For Triclosan

Executive Summary:

	Only a small portion of the uses of triclosan are regulated by the U.S.
EPA and therefore covered in this document.  Triclosan is currently
registered by the EPA as a bacteriostat, fungicide/fungistat and
mold/mildewcide for materials preservation, residential and public
access premises and commercial, institutional and industrial premises
and equipment.   Its materials preservation uses include: adhesives,
fabrics, vinyl, latex, plastics, polyethylene, polyurethane, synthetic
polymers, styrene, floor wax emulsions, rope, textiles, caulking
compounds, sealants, coatings, polypropylene, rubber, inks, cellulosic
materials, slurries, films and latex paints.  The residential and public
access premises uses include: brooms, mulch, floors, shower curtains,
awnings, tents, mattresses, toothbrushes, toilet bowls, urinals, garbage
cans, refuse container liners, insulation, concrete mixtures, grouts,
air filter materials, upholstery fabrics, human wastes and rugs/carpets.
 The commercial, institutional and industrial premises and equipment
uses include: conveyor belts, fire hoses, dye bath vats and ice making
equipment.

	An ecological risk assessment is not typically conducted for the types
of uses registered for triclosan.  However, since triclosan has been
detected in natural waters, EPA has performed a qualitative
environmental risk assessment using monitoring levels of triclosan found
in waterways and toxicity values from the tables in section I to develop
risk quotients (RQs) and compare them to levels of concern (LOCs) for
triclosan.  LOCs were not exceeded for fish but were exceeded for
aquatic plants.  There were no acceptable acute toxicity studies for
freshwater invertebrates or estuarine and marine organisms nor were
there any acceptable chronic toxicity studies available for aquatic
organisms.  Therefore, risk to these species could not be assessed.

Data Gaps:

Freshwater invertebrate acute study (850.1010);

As outlined in the environmental fate chapter for triclosan, the
registrant is required to provide a scientific rationale, including
appropriate modeling (e.g., surface water modeling), that addresses and
quantifies the amounts of triclosan and triclosan transformation
products (e.g., triclosan methyl) occuring in various environmental
compartments (e.g., surface waters, biosolids, soil, fish, shellfish)
from triclosan antimicrobial pesticide uses;

Relative to the above requirement, if the registrant is not able to
provide a satisfactory scientific rationale that determines the
quantities of triclosan and triclosan transformation products in various
environmental compartments, then EPA will assume that the present levels
of triclosan and triclosan transformation products detected in such
compartments occurs because of registered antimicrobial use patterns.
In this case, OPP will require the environmental fate data outlined in
the triclosan environmental fate chapter; and

Depending on the results of the environmental fate studies, which may be
required (see triclosan environmental fate chapter), additional acute
and chronic nontarget organism studies may be required.  These include
the following studies:

	a. Estuarine/marine fish acute study (850.1075) [Technical Grade Active
	Ingredient (TGAI)];

		b. Estuarine/marine shrimp acute study (850.1035) (TGAI);

	c. Estuarine/marine mollusk acute study (850.1025) (TGAI);

		d. Fish early life-stage (freshwater) study (850.1400) (TGAI);

		e. Aquatic invertebrate (freshwater) life-cycle study (850.1300)
(TGAI);

		f. Fish life-cycle study (850.1500);

		g. Fish bioconcentration study – BCF (850.1730) (TGAI);

		h. Acute sediment toxicity to freshwater invertebrates (850.1735)
(TGAI); 			i. Acute sediment toxicity to estuarine invertebrates
(850.1740) (TGAI); 			and

			j. Additional plant toxicity testing:  an additional algal toxicity
test 					(850.5400) with the freshwater green alga, Selenastrum
capricornutum; 				and studies on the rooted freshwater macrophyte rice
(Oryza sativa) – 				850.4225 and 850.4250 (2 tests on seedling
emergence and vegetative 				vigor).

Label Hazard Statements/Use Recommendations:

Triclosan labels must state:

“This pesticide is toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates.”

"Do not discharge effluent containing this product into lakes, streams,
ponds, estuaries, oceans, or other waters unless in accordance with the
requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit and the permitting authorities are notified in writing
prior to discharge.  Do not discharge effluent containing this product
to sewer systems without previously notifying the local sewage treatment
plant authority.  For guidance contact your State Water Board or
Regional Office of the EPA."

I.	Ecological Toxicity Data

	The toxicity endpoints presented below are based on the results of
ecotoxicity studies submitted to EPA to meet the Agency’s data
requirements for the uses of triclosan.

	A.	Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals

(1)	Birds, Acute

	In order to establish the toxicity of triclosan to avian species, the
Agency requires an acute oral toxicity study using the technical grade
active ingredient (TGAI).  The preferred-test species is either mallard
duck (a waterfowl) or bobwhite quail (an upland game bird).  The results
of three acute oral toxicity studies, submitted for triclosan, are
provided in the following table (Table 1).

Table 1.  Acute Oral Toxicity of Triclosan to Birds

Species

Chemical,

% Active Ingredient

(a.i.)

Tested

Endpoint

(mg/kg)

Toxicity Category

Satisfies Guidelines/

Comments

Reference

(MRID No.)

Mallard duck

(Anas platyrhynchos)	Triclosan 99.7%	LD50 = >2150

NOAEL = 2150

	Relatively nontoxic	Yes (core)

- 14-day test duration

- 19 weeks of age	430226-03

Bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus)	Triclosan 99.7%	LD50 = 825

NOAEL = <147	Slightly toxic	Yes (core)

- 14-day test duration

- 21 weeks of age	430226-02

Bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus)	Triclosan 3.89%	LD50 = >2000

NOAEL = N.R.

	Relatively nontoxic	Yes (core for formulated product)

	410089-10

	These three acceptable acute oral toxicity studies indicate that
triclosan is slightly toxic to relatively nontoxic to birds on an acute
oral basis. The guideline requirement OPPTS 850.2100/(71-1) is
satisfied.

(2)	Birds, Subacute

	A subacute dietary study using the TGAI may be required on a
case-by-case basis depending on the results of lower-tier ecological
studies and pertinent environmental fate characteristics in order to
establish the toxicity of a chemical to avian species.  This testing was
required for triclosan.  The preferred-test species is either the
mallard duck or bobwhite quail.  The results of two subacute dietary
toxicity studies, submitted for triclosan, are provided in the following
table (Table 2).

Table 2.  Subacute Oral Toxicity of Triclosan to Birds

Species

Chemical,

% Active Ingredient

(a.i.)

Tested

Endpoint

(ppm)

Toxicity Category

Satisfies Guidelines/

Comments

Reference

(MRID No.)

Bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus)	Triclosan 99.7%	LC50 (diet) = >5000

NOAEC = 1250	Relatively nontoxic	Yes (core)

-	8-day test duration

-	13 days of age	430226-04

Bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus)	Triclosan

3.89%	LC50 (diet) = >5000

NOAEC = N.R.	Relatively nontoxic	Yes (core for formulated product)

- 8-day test duration

- 7-10 days of age 	410089-11

	The results of these two acceptable studies indicate that triclosan is
relatively nontoxic to avian species through subacute dietary exposure.
These studies fulfill guideline requirement OPPTS 850.2100/ (71-2a –
Bobwhite quail/71-2b – Mallard duck).

 (3)	Mammals, Acute and Chronic Toxicity

Wild mammal testing is not required by the Agency.  In most cases, rat
toxicity values obtained from studies conducted to support data
requirements for human health risk assessments substitute for wild
mammal testing.  Refer to the human toxicology chapter of this RED for
mammalian toxicity data.  Also, refer to the toxicology chapter for
information on triclosan’s potential as an endocrine disruptor.

B.	Toxicity to Aquatic Animals

	The Agency requested that aquatic toxicity studies be conducted with
triclosan since, under typical use conditions, it may be introduced into
the aquatic environment.

(1)	Freshwater Fish, Acute

	In order to establish the acute toxicity of triclosan to freshwater
fish, the Agency requires freshwater fish toxicity studies using the
TGAI.  The preferred test species are rainbow trout (a coldwater fish)
and bluegill sunfish (a warmwater fish).  The results of 5 freshwater
fish acute studies submitted for triclosan are presented in Table 3.

 Table 3.  Acute Toxicity of Triclosan to Freshwater Fish

Species

Chemical,

% Active Ingredient

(a.i.)

Tested

Endpoint

(mg/L)

Toxicity Category

Satisfies Guidelines/

Comments

Reference

(MRID No.)

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)	Triclosan

99.3%	LC50 = 0.288

NOAEC = 0.100	Highly toxic	Yes (core)

-	96-hr test duration

-	static test system	439693-01

Fathead minnow

(Pimephales promelas)	Triclosan

99.7%	LC50 = 0.26

LOEC = 0.18

NOAEC = 0.10

	Highly toxic	No (supplemental)

-	96-hr test duration

-	static test system

-  nominal concentrations not verified	430460-01

Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus)	Triclosan 3.89%	LC50 = 37.2

NOAEC = N.R.	Slightly toxic	Yes (core for formulated product)

-  96-hr test duration

-  static test system	410089-13

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)	Triclosan 3.89%	LC50 = 23.4

NOAEC = N.R.	Slightly toxic	Yes (core for formulated product)

-	96-hr test duration

-	static test system	410089-12

	Freshwater acute toxicity tests indicate that triclosan is highly toxic
to slightly toxic to fish on an acute basis.  These studies fulfill
guideline requirement OPPTS 850.1075 (72-1a&b).  Because acute toxicity
to fish is <1.0 mg/L, the environmental hazard section of triclosan
labels must state: “This pesticide is toxic to fish.”

	(2)	Freshwater Invertebrates, Acute

	The Agency requires a freshwater aquatic invertebrate study using the
TGAI to establish the acute toxicity to freshwater invertebrates.  The
preferred test species is Daphnia magna.  The results of three studies
submitted for triclosan are provided in the following table (Table 4).
Note that in a search of the available data on triclosan, the U.S.
EPA’s Office of Water found an EC50 as low as 0.13 mg/L for the
Cladoceran Ceriodaphnia dubia (U.S. EPA, 2007).

	Table 4.  Acute Toxicity of Triclosan to Freshwater Invertebrates

Species

Chemical,

% Active Ingredient

(a.i.)

Tested

Endpoint

(mg/L)

Toxicity Category

Satisfies Guidelines/

Comments

Reference

(MRID No.)

Waterflea (Daphnia magna)	Triclosan

99.7%	EC50 = 0.39

NOAEC = 0.10 (a.i.)	Highly toxic	No (supplemental)

-	48-hr test duration

-	static test system

-  nominal concentrations not verified	430460-02

Waterflea (Daphnia magna)	Triclosan

3.89%	LC50 = 0.42

NOAEC = N.R.	Highly toxic	No (supplemental)

-  48-hr test                duration

-  static test system

-  lack of pH and DO measurements and formulated product used	410089-14

	The results of these studies indicate that triclosan is highly toxic to
freshwater invertebrates.  These studies do not fulfill guideline
requirement OPPTS 850.1010 (72.2a).  Because the acute aquatic
invertebrate toxicity values are < 1.0 mg/L, the environmental hazard
section of triclosan labels must state:  “This pesticide is toxic to
aquatic invertebrates.”

(3)	Estuarine and Marine Organisms, Acute

	Acute toxicity testing with estuarine and marine organisms using the
TGAI is required when the end-use product is intended for direct
application to the marine/estuarine environment or effluent containing
the active ingredient is expected to reach this environment.  The
preferred fish test species is the sheepshead minnow.  The preferred
invertebrate test species are mysid shrimp and eastern oysters.  At this
time this testing is not required for triclosan, but is dependent upon
the results of environmental fate data which may be required.  (See
triclosan environmental fate chapter and comments above on potential
data requirements).  No studies have been submitted to fulfill these
data requirements (OPPTS 850.1075/(72-3a), OPPTS 850.1035/(72-3c) and
OPPTS 850.1025/(72-3b)).

(4)	Aquatic Organisms, Chronic

	Chronic toxicity testing (fish early life stage and aquatic
invertebrate life cycle) is required for pesticides when certain
conditions of use and environmental fate apply.  The preferred
freshwater fish test species is the fathead minnow.  The preferred
freshwater invertebrate is Daphnia magna.  At this time this testing is
not required for triclosan, but is dependent upon the results of
environmental fate data which may be required.  (See triclosan
environmental fate chapter and comments above on potential data
requirements).

The results of one toxicity study submitted for triclosan is presented
in Table 5.  Note that in a search of the available data on triclosan,
the U.S. EPA’s Office of Water found a NOEC as low as 0.006 mg/L for
the Cladoceran Ceriodaphnia dubia (U.S. EPA, 2007).

Table 5.  Chronic Toxicity of Triclosan to Freshwater Organisms

Species

Chemical,

% Active Ingredient

(a.i.)

Tested

Endpoint

(mg/L)

Satisfies Guidelines/

Comments

Reference

(MRID No.)

Waterflea

(Daphnia magna)	Triclosan

% purity unknown	LOEC = <0.1388

NOAEC = N.R.

	No (supplemental)

-  21-day test             duration

-  static renewal test     system

-  growth not measured as a chronic endpoint

-  % a.i. not given

-  raw data missing

-  concentration analysis insufficient	437407-01

No fathead minnow study has been submitted. The study on the waterflea
does not fulfill the guideline requirement for a chronic aquatic
invertebrate study (OPPTS 850.1300).

Toxicity to Plants

	Non-target plant phytotoxicity testing is required for pesticides when
certain conditions of use and environmental fate apply.  At this time
this testing is not required for triclosan, but is dependent upon the
results of environmental fate data which may be required.  (See
triclosan environmental fate chapter and comments above on potential
data requirements).  However, testing has been conducted with triclosan
on several aquatic plant species.  Testing is normally conducted with
one species of aquatic vascular plant (Lemna gibba) and four species of
algae:  (1) freshwater green alga, Selenastrum capricornutum, (2) marine
diatom, Skeletonema costatum, (3) freshwater diatom, Navicula
pelliculosa, and (4)  bluegreen cyanobacteria, Anabaena flos-aquae.  The
rooted aquatic macrophyte rice (Oryza sativa) is also tested in seedling
emergence and vegetative vigor tests.

	Four studies that evaluate the toxicity of triclosan to freshwater
aquatic plants have been submitted. Results of these studies are
presented in Table 6.  Note that in a search of the available data on
triclosan, the U.S. EPA’s Office of Water found an EC50 as low as
0.0007 mg/L for the green alga Scenedesmus subspicatus and an EC25 as
low as 0.00067 mg/L for the blue-green alga Anabaena flos-aquae (U.S.
EPA, 2007).

Table 6.  Toxicity of Triclosan to Aquatic Plants

Species

Chemical,

% Active Ingredient

(a.i.)

Tested

Endpoint

(mg/L)

Satisfies Guidelines/

Comments

Reference

(MRID No.)

Marine Diatom (Skeletonema costatum)	Triclosan

99.5%	EC50 = >0.066

NOEC = 0.0126	Yes (core)

-  96-hour test duration

-  static test system	444228-01

Freshwater Diatom (Navicula pelliculosa)	Triclosan

99.5%	EC50 = 0.016

NOEC = 0.005	Yes (core)

-  96-hour test duration

-  static test system	444228-01

Bluegreen Cyanobacteria (Anabaena flos-aquae)	Triclosan

99.5%	EC50 = 0.0012

NOEC = N.R.	Yes (core)

-  96-hour test duration

-  static test system	444228-01

Duckweed (Lemna gibba)	Triclosan

99.5%	EC50 = >0.0625

NOEC = 0.0125	Yes (core)

-	7-day test duration

-	static test system	444228-01

	The guideline requirement for an algal toxicity test (850.5400, 123-2)
is partially fulfilled.  One additional algal toxicity test under
850.5400 is outstanding: a test with the freshwater green alga,
Selenastrum capricornutum.  The other non-target aquatic plant toxicity
requirement, floating freshwater aquatic macrophyte duckweed (Lemna
gibba) – guideline 850.4400 - is satisfied.  Studies on the rooted
freshwater macrophyte rice (Oryza sativa) – 850.4225 and 850.4250 (2
tests on seedling emergence and vegetative vigor) -- have not been
submitted.

II.	Risk Assessment and Characterization

	The triclosan uses that EPA regulates are classified as “indoor”
uses.  An ecological risk assessment is not typically conducted for the
types of uses registered for triclosan.  However, since triclosan has
been detected in natural waters (see triclosan environmental fate
chapter), EPA has performed a qualitative environmental risk assessment
using monitoring levels of triclosan found in waterways and toxicity
values from the tables in section I to develop risk quotients (RQs) and
compare them to levels of concern (LOCs) for triclosan.

	 A.        Environmental Fate Assessment Summary

	Triclosan [5-chloro-2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)phenol] is a white
crystalline powder with low solubility in water (12 ppm).  Triclosan is
hydrolytically stable under abiotic and buffered conditions over the pH
4-9 range based on data from a preliminary test at 50°C.
Photolytically, Triclosan degrades rapidly under continuous irradiation
from artificial light at 25°C in a pH 7 aqueous solution, with a
calculated aqueous photolytic half-life of 41 minutes.  One major
transformation product has been identified, DCP (2,4-dichlorophenol),
which was a maximum of 93.8-96.6% of the applied at 240 minutes
post-treatment.

	In soil, triclosan is expected to be immobile based on an estimated Koc
of 9,200.  Triclosan is not expected to volatilize from soil (moist or
dry) or water surfaces based on an estimated Henry’s Law constant of
1.5 x 10-7 atm-m3/mole.  Triclosan exists partially in the dissociated
form in the environment based on a pKa of 7.9, and anions do not
generally adsorb more strongly to organic carbon and clay than their
neutral counterparts.  In aquatic environments, triclosan is expected to
adsorb to suspended solids and sediments and may bioaccumulate (Kow
4.76), posing a concern for aquatic organisms.  There is a low to
moderate potential for bioconcentration in aquatic organisms based on a
BCF range of 2.7 to 90.

	Hydrolysis is not expected to be an important environmental fate
process due to the stability of triclosan in the presence of strong
acids and bases.  However, triclosan is susceptible to degradation via
aqueous photolysis, with a half-life of <1 hour under abiotic
conditions, and up to 10 days in lake water.  An atmospheric half-life
of 8 hours has also been estimated based on the reaction of triclosan
with photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals.  Additionally,
triclosan may be susceptible to biodegradation based on the presence of
methyl-triclosan following wastewater treatment.

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Of the published literature studies on the
occurrence of triclosan in waste water treatment plants, treatment plant
efficiency, and open water measurements of triclosan, the majority
suggest that aerobic biodegradation is one of the major and most
efficient biodegradation pathways (70-80%) through which triclosan and
its by-products are removed from the aquatic environment, with actual
efficiencies ranging from 53-99% (Kanda et al., 2003) in activated
sludge plants, and trickle down filtration ranging from 58-86% (McAvoy
et al., 2002).  Another pathway of removing triclosan from water in
wastewater treatment plants is through the sorption of triclosan and
associated by-products to particles and sludge (10-15%) because of the
chemical’s medium to high hydrophobicity.  Benchtop fate testing of
triclosan found that 1.5-4.5% was sorbed to activated sludge and 81-92%
was biodegraded (Federle et al., 2002).

B.	Environmental Exposure and Qualitative Environmental Risk Assessment

Risk assessment integrates the results of the exposure and ecotoxicity
data to evaluate the likelihood of adverse ecological effects. One
method of integrating the results of exposure and ecotoxicity data is
called the quotient method.  For this method, risk quotients (RQs) are
calculated by dividing exposure estimates by ecotoxicity values, both
acute and chronic:

           RQ = EXPOSURE/TOXICITY

RQs are then compared to levels of concern (LOCs).  These LOCs are
criteria used by OPP to indicate potential risk to nontarget organisms
and the need to consider regulatory action.  The criteria indicate that
a pesticide used as directed has the potential to cause adverse effects
on nontarget organisms.  LOCs currently address the following risk
presumption categories: (1) acute - the potential for acute risk is
high, regulatory action may be warranted in addition to restricted use
classification; (2) acute restricted use - the potential for acute risk
is high, but this may be mitigated through restricted use
classification; (3) acute endangered species - the potential for acute
risk to endangered species is high, and regulatory action may be
warranted, and (4) chronic risk - the potential for chronic risk is
high, and regulatory action may be warranted, (5) non-endangered plant
risk – potential for effects in non-target plants, and (6) endangered
plant risk – potential for effects in endangered plants.   Currently,
EFED does not perform assessments for chronic risk to plants, acute or
chronic risks to nontarget insects, or chronic risk from granular/bait
formulations to birds or mammals.

The ecotoxicity test values (measurement endpoints) used in the acute
and chronic risk quotients are derived from required studies.  Examples
of ecotoxicity values derived from short-term laboratory studies that
assess acute effects are: (1) LC50 (fish and birds), (2) LD50 (birds and
mammals), (3) EC50 (aquatic plants and aquatic invertebrates) and (4)
EC25 (terrestrial plants).  Examples of toxicity test effect levels
derived from the results of long-term laboratory studies that assess
chronic effects are: (1) LOAEC (birds, fish, and aquatic invertebrates),
and (2) NOAEC (birds, fish and aquatic invertebrates). For birds and
mammals, the NOAEC generally is used as the ecotoxicity test value in
assessing chronic effects, although other values may be used when
justified. However, the NOAEC is used if the measurement endpoint is
production of offspring or survival.

Risk presumptions, along with the corresponding RQs and LOCs are
tabulated below.

Risk Presumptions for Terrestrial Animals

Risk Presumption

RQ

LOC

Birds and Wild Mammals

Acute Risk

EEC1/LC50 or LD50/sqft2 or LD50/day3

0.5

Acute Restricted Use

EEC/LC50 or LD50/sqft or LD50/day (or LD50 < 50 mg/kg)

0.2

Acute Endangered Species

EEC/LC50 or LD50/sqft or LD50/day

0.1

Chronic Risk

EEC/NOAEC

1

 1  abbreviation for Estimated Environmental Concentration (ppm) on
avian/mammalian food items

 2    mg/ft2             	3  mg of toxicant consumed/day

   LD50 * wt. of bird             	LD50 * wt. of bird

Risk Presumptions for Aquatic Animals

Risk Presumption

RQ

LOC

Acute Risk

EEC1/LC50 or EC50

0.5

Acute Restricted Use

EEC/LC50 or EC50

0.1

Acute Endangered Species

EEC/LC50 or EC50

0.05

Chronic Risk

EEC/MATC2 or NOAEC

1

 1  EEC = (ppm or ppb) in water

 2  MATC = maximum allowable toxicant concentration

Risk Presumptions for Plants

Risk Presumption

RQ

LOC

Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants

Acute Risk

EEC/EC25

1

Acute Endangered Species

EEC/EC05 or NOAEC

1

Aquatic Plants

Acute Risk

EEC1/EC50

1

Acute Endangered Species

EEC/EC05 or NOAEC

1

EEC = (ppb/ppm) in water

	Triclosan was found in approximately 36 US streams (Klopin et al.,
2002), where effluent from activated sludge waste water treatment
plants, trickle down filtration, and sewage overflow are thought to
contribute to the occurrence of triclosan in open water. For this study,
the U.S. Geological Survey surveyed a network of 139 streams across 30
states during 1999 and 2000.  The selection of sampling sites was biased
toward streams susceptible to contamination (i.e. downstream of intense
urbanization and livestock production). The median concentration of
triclosan was 40 ng/L and the maximum concentration detected was 280
ng/L (Klopin et al., 2002).  Discharge into U.S. surface waters has
resulted in other researchers finding triclosan from the low ng/L levels
to a maximum of 2.3 µg/L (U.S. EPA, 2007).

From the toxicity tables in section I above, the highest toxicity in an
acceptable fish study was achieved in a study on the rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss).  The LC50 value obtained in this study was 0.288
mg/L (MRID 439693-01).  There were no acceptable acute toxicity studies
for freshwater invertebrates or estuarine and marine organisms nor were
there any acceptable chronic toxicity studies available for aquatic
organisms.  Therefore, risk to these species cannot be assessed.  The
highest toxicity in an acceptable aquatic plant toxicity study was
achieved in a study on the bluegreen cyanobacteria (Anabaena
flos-aquae).  The EC50 value obtained in this study was 0.0012 mg/L and
no NOEC was reported (MRID 444228-01).

For aquatic animals the LOC ranges from 0.05 for endangered species to 1
for chronic risks.  Comparing the maximum concentration of triclosan
found in U.S. surface waters (2.3 µg/L or 0.0023 mg/L) to the highest
toxicity found in a fish acute study (0.288 mg/L), an RQ of 0.008 is
obtained.  This is less than all LOCs for aquatic animals and therefore
the potential for triclosan to cause adverse effects on fish is not
high.

For aquatic plants the LOC is 1.  Comparing the maximum concentration of
triclosan found in US streams (2.3 µg/L or 0.0023 mg/L) to the highest
toxicity found in aquatic plants (0.0012 mg/L), an RQ of 1.92 is
obtained.  This is higher than the LOC and therefore the potential for
acute risk to aquatic plants from triclosan exists.

      Endangered Species Considerations

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 1536(a)(2),
requires all federal agencies to consult with the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) for marine and anadromous listed species, or
the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) for listed wildlife
and freshwater organisms, if they are proposing an "action" that may
affect listed species or their designated habitat.  Each federal agency
is required under the Act to insure that any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification
of designated critical habitat.  To jeopardize the continued existence
of a listed species means "to engage in an action that reasonably would
be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the
likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the
wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the
species.  "50 C.F.R. 402.02”.

To facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Endangered Species
Act subsection (a)(2) the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pesticide Programs has established procedures to evaluate whether a
proposed registration action may directly or indirectly reduce
appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed
species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or
distribution of any listed species (U.S. EPA 2004).  After the
Agency’s screening-level risk assessment is performed, if any of the
Agency’s Listed Species LOC Criteria are exceeded for either direct or
indirect effects, a determination is made to identify if any listed or
candidate species may co-occur in the area of the proposed pesticide
use.  If determined that listed or candidate species may be present in
the proposed use areas, further biological assessment is undertaken.
The extent to which listed species may be at risk then determines the
need for the development of a more comprehensive consultation package as
required by the Endangered Species Act.

For certain use categories, the Agency assumes there will be minimal
environmental exposure, and only a minimal toxicity data set is required
(Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of
Pesticide Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Endangered and
Threatened Species Effects Determinations, 1/23/04, Appendix A, Section
IIB, pg.81).  Chemicals in these categories therefore do not undergo a
full screening-level risk assessment.

	This preliminary analysis indicates that there is a potential for
triclosan use to overlap with listed species and that a more refined
assessment is warranted, to include direct, indirect and habitat
effects.  The more refined assessment should involve clear delineation
of the action area associated with proposed use of triclosan and best
available information on the temporal and spatial co-location of listed
species with respect to the action area.  This analysis has not been
conducted for this assessment.  An endangered species effect
determination will not be made at this time.

Confirmatory Data Required:

Freshwater invertebrate acute study (850.1010);

As outlined in the environmental fate chapter for triclosan, the
registrant is required to provide a scientific rationale, including
appropriate modeling (e.g., surface water modeling), that addresses and
quantifies the amounts of triclosan and triclosan transformation
products (e.g., triclosan methyl) occuring in various environmental
compartments (e.g., surface waters, biosolids, soil, fish, shellfish)
from triclosan antimicrobial pesticide uses;

Relative to the above requirement, if the registrant is not able to
provide a satisfactory scientific rationale that determines the
quantities of triclosan and triclosan transformation products in various
environmental compartments, then EPA will assume that the present levels
of triclosan and triclosan transformation products detected in such
compartments occurs because of registered antimicrobial use patterns.
In this case, OPP will require the environmental fate data outlined in
the triclosan environmental fate chapter; and

Depending on the results of the environmental fate studies, which may be
required (see triclosan environmental fate chapter), additional acute
and chronic nontarget organism studies may be required.  These include
the following studies:

	a. Estuarine/marine fish acute study (850.1075) [Technical Grade Active
	Ingredient (TGAI)];

		b. Estuarine/marine shrimp acute study (850.1035) (TGAI);

	c. Estuarine/marine mollusk acute study (850.1025) (TGAI);

		d. Fish early life-stage (freshwater) study (850.1400) (TGAI);

		e. Aquatic invertebrate (freshwater) life-cycle study (850.1300)
(TGAI);

		f. Fish life-cycle study (850.1500);

		g. Fish bioconcentration study – BCF (850.1730) (TGAI);

		h. Acute sediment toxicity to freshwater invertebrates (850.1735)
(TGAI);

		i. Acute sediment toxicity to estuarine invertebrates (850.1740)
(TGAI); 			and

			j. Additional plant toxicity testing:  an additional algal toxicity
test 					(850.5400) with the freshwater green alga, Selenastrum
capricornutum; 				and studies on the rooted freshwater macrophyte rice
(Oryza sativa) – 				850.4225 and 850.4250 (2 tests on seedling
emergence and vegetative 				vigor).

IV.	 Label Hazard Statements for Terrestrial and Aquatic Organisms:

Triclosan labels must state:

“This pesticide is toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates.”

"Do not discharge effluent containing this product into lakes, streams,
ponds, estuaries, oceans, or other waters unless in accordance with the
requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit and the permitting authorities are notified in writing
prior to discharge.  Do not discharge effluent containing this product
to sewer systems without previously notifying the local sewage treatment
plant authority.  For guidance contact your State Water Board or
Regional Office of the EPA."

V.  REFERENCES

41008910.  Terrell, Y.  1985.  Acute Oral Toxicity Study of Issue Plus
II; ID No. 88-472; Prepared by American Standards Biosciences Corp. for
Diversey Wyandotte Corporation, Wyandotte, Michigan.

41008911.  Terrell, Y.  1988.  Avian Dietary Quaily (Litmus Test) of
Issue Plus in Bobwhite Quail; Project No. 88-471; Prepared by American
Standard Biosciences Corp. for Diversey Wyandotte Corporation,
Wyandotte, Michigan.

41008912.  Terrell, Y.  1988.  The Acute Toxicity Bioassay of Issue Plus
on Rainbow Trout; Project No. 88-474; Prepared by American Standard
Biosciences Corp. for Diversey Wyandotte Corporation, Wyandotte,
Michigan.

41008913.  Terrell, Y.  1988.  The Acute Toxicity Bioassay of Issue Plus
on Bluegill Sunfish; Project No. 88-473; Prepared by American Standard
Biosciences Corp. for Diversey Wyandotte Corporation, Wyandotte,
Michigan.

41008914.  Terrell, Y.  1988.  Acute Toxicity of Issue Plus on Daphnia
magna; Project No. 88-475; Prepared by American Standard Biosciences
Corp. for Diversey Wyandotte Corporation, Wyandotte, Michigan.

42322101.  Boettcher, J.  1990.  Report on the Acute Toxicity (96h) of
FAT 80, 023/Q to Zebrafish.  Test No. G 069 04.  Prepared by Ciba-Geigy,
Ltd., D&C Product Ecotoxicology, Basel, Switzerland.  Submitted by
Ciba-Giegy Corporation, Greensboro, North Carolina.

42322102.  Wuethrich, V.  1990.  48-Hour Acute Toxicity of FAT 80, 023/Q
to Daphnia magna (OECD-Immobilization Test).  Project No. 262923.
Prepared by RCC Umweltchemie AG, Itingen, Switzerland.  Submitted by
Ciba-Giegy Corporation, Greensboro, North Carolina.

43022602.  Pedersen, C.A. and B.R. Helsten.  1993.  Triclosan (IRGASAN
DP300(): 14-Day Acute Oral LD50 Study in Bobwhite Quail.  Study
performed by Bio-Life Associates, Ltd., Neillsville, Wisconsin.
Laboratory Project No. 102-024-03.  Submitted by CIBA-GEIGY Corporation,
Greensboro, North Carolina.

43022603.  Pedersen, C.A. and B.R. Helsten.  1993.  Triclosan (IRGASAN
DP300(): 14-Day Acute Oral LD50 Study in Mallard Ducks.  Study performed
by Bio-Life Associates, Ltd., Neillsville, Wisconsin.  Laboratory
Project No. 102-023-04.  Submitted by CIBA-GEIGY Corporation,
Greensboro, North Carolina.

43022604.  Pedersen, C.A. and B.R. Helsten.  1993.  Triclosan (IRGASAN
DP300(): 8-Day Acute Dietary LC50 Study in Bobwhite Quail.  Study
performed by Bio-Life Associates, Ltd., Neillsville, Wisconsin.
Laboratory Project No. 102-022-01.  Submitted by CIBA-GEIGY Corporation,
Greensboro, North Carolina.

43046001.  Bowman, J.H.  1990.  Acute Toxicity of D1063.01 (Triclosan:
Irgasan DP300) to Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas).  Laboratory
Project ID No. 38655.  Prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry
Laboratories, Inc, Columbia, Missouri.  Submitted jointly by Proctor and
Gamble Company and Ciba-Geigy Corp.

43046002.  Forbis, A.D. and J.G. Muckerman.  1990.  Acute Toxicity of
D1063.01 (Triclosan: Irgasan DP300) to Daphnia magna.  Laboratory
Project ID No. 38656.  Prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry
Laboratories, Inc, Columbia, Missouri.  Submitted jointly by Proctor and
Gamble Company and Ciba-Geigy Corp.

43740701.  Wuethrich, V.  1990.  Influence of FAT 80023/Q (Irgasan
DP300) on Reproduction of Daphnia magna.  Project No. 262934.  Prepared
by RCC Umweltchemie AG, Itingen, Switzerland.  Submitted by Ciba-Giegy
AG, Basel, Switzerland.

43969301.  Sword, M.C.  1996.  Static Acute Toxicity of Triclosan to
Rainbow Trout.  Study performed by ABC Laboratories, Inc., Columbia,
Missouri.  Laboratory Report No. 42997.  Sponsored by CIBA Chemical
Division, Greensboro, North Carolina.

44422801.  Staveley, J.P. and T.L. Williams.  1997.  Effects of
Triclosan on the Growth and Reproduction of Aquatic Plants.  Study
performed by Carolina Ecotox, Inc., Durham, North Carolina.  Laboratory
Report ID: 21-02-1.  Sponsored by Ciba-Geigy Corporation, Greensboro,
North Carolina.

Federle, T.W., Kaiser, S.K., and Nuck, B.A. 2002. Fate and Effects of
Triclosan in Activated Sludge.  Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry/SETAC.  21(7): 1330-7.

Kanda, R., Griffin, P., and James, H.A., et al. 2003. Pharmaceutical and
Personal Care Products in Sewage Treatment Works.  Journal of
Environmental Monitoring.  5(5): 823-30.

Klopin, D.W., Furlong, E.T., Meyer, M.T., et al. 2002. Pharmaceuticals,
Hormones, and Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams,
1999-2000: A National Reconnaissance. Environmental Science and
Technology. 36(6): 1202-11.

McAvoy, D.C., Schatowitz, B., Martin, J., et al. 2002. Measurement Of
Triclosan In Wastewater Treatment Systems. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry. 21 (7): 1323-9.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.  Summary of
Available Aquatic Toxicity Data for Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria
Development for Triclosan.  Draft: August 16, 2007.

 The Agency is making this statement because triclosan and triclosan
transformation products are being detected in various environmental
components (see triclosan environmental fate chapter).

 PAGE   i


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 208 (Monday, October 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64231-64232]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25332]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Notice of Adjustment of Countywide Per Capita Impact Indicator

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: FEMA gives notice that the countywide per capita impact
indicator under the Public Assistance program for disasters declared on
or after October 1, 2013, will be increased.

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2013, and applies to major disasters
declared on or after October 1, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Roche, Recovery Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In assessing damages for area designations
under 44 CFR 206.40(b), FEMA uses a county-wide per capita indicator to
evaluate the impact of the disaster at the county level. FEMA will
adjust the countywide per capita impact indicator under the Public
Assistance program to reflect annual changes in the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor.
    FEMA gives notice of an increase in the countywide per capita
impact indicator to $3.50 for all disasters declared on or after
October 1, 2013.
    FEMA bases the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price
Index

for All Urban Consumers of 1.5 percent for the 12-month period ended in
August 2013. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of
Labor released the information on September 17, 2013.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.036, Disaster
Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters).

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-25332 Filed 10-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: October 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 54032-54033]
[DOCID:fr21oc09-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL10-2-000]

San Diego Gas & Electric Company; Notice of Filing

October 14, 2009.
    Take notice that on October 9, 2009, pursuant to Rule 207 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
and Regulations, 18 CFR 385.207 (2006), San Diego Gas & Electric
Company (SDG&E) filed a Petition for Declaratory Order (Petition)
requesting Commission approval of proposed accounting and ratemaking
treatment for a portion of SDG&E's 500 kV Sunrise Powerlink Project, to
be located in Imperial Valley County between the San Diego County line
and the Imperial Valley Substation (Border-East Line), that will be the
subject of a thirty-year lease to Citizens Energy Corporation. This
Petition is addressing the portion of the Border-East Line that SDG&E
is not leasing to Citizens.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 9, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-25257 Filed 10-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 191 (Monday, October 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61098-61100]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25400]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1059; FRL-9471-8]

Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS SIP Submissions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability and public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the EPA has posted its draft non-
binding guidance titled, ``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS SIP
Submissions'' on its Web site. The EPA invites public comments on this
guidance document during the comment period specified below, and plans
to issue an updated version of the guidance after reviewing timely
submitted comments.

DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before November 2, 2011.
Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on
the comment period.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-1059, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1059.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-1059.
     Mail: Air Docket, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
1059, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 6102T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket

Center'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-OAR-
2010-1059. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://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
regulations.gov or e-mail. The ``http://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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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 is unable to read your comment and
contact you for clarification due to technical difficulties, 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 additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section II of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning this action,
please contact Larry D. Wallace, Ph.D., U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, C504-03, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 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. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, U.S.
EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code C404-02,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2010-1059.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
     Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a part or
section number in the guidance.
     Explain why you agree or disagree with EPA's guidance; and
suggest alternatives and substitute language that would help to clarify
or better explain the points made and positions taken in EPA's guidance
document.

II. Background

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit public comments on EPA's
recently posted draft non-binding guidance titled, ``Guidance for 1-
Hour SO2 NAAQS SIP Submissions.'' This document is available
online at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/implement.html or
within the associated docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1059.
    The draft guidance document is intended to assist state and tribal
governments in preparing State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals
under section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to address
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 1-hour primary
sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The CAA directs states to submit these SIPs to EPA by no later
than June 3, 2013, which is 3 years after promulgation of the primary
SO2 NAAQS. To be approved, the EPA would expect the SIP
submittals to demonstrate through the use of refined air quality
dispersion modeling that the affected areas will attain the standard as
expeditiously as practicable. This draft guidance provides the basic
information that states, tribes and emission sources would need to
address the section 110(a)(1) SIP submittal for the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS including modeling guidance. After receiving
timely submitted public comments on the draft guidance, the EPA plans
to issue updated non-binding guidance. In addition, the EPA will
continue to work closely with states and tribes to address issues
arising under the section 110(a)(1) SIP submittals.
    EPA invites public comment on all aspects of this draft guidance
during the 30-day comment period. The draft guidance is not a
regulation or any other kind of final action and does not establish
binding requirements on the EPA or any state, local, or tribal agency
or any emissions source. While the EPA has established a docket and is
requesting public comment on the draft guidance, this procedure does
not alter the nature or effect of the draft guidance and does not
constitute a formal rulemaking process or require the EPA to respond to
public comments in the updated guidance before the EPA or other
agencies may use the guidance in reaching decisions related to SIPs
submitted under section 110(a)(1). The EPA retains the discretion to
revise its guidance, issue additional guidance, propose regulations as
appropriate, and to utilize information submitted in public comments to
inform future decisions. Because this draft guidance does not
constitute a formal rulemaking action, the EPA is not required to
respond to comments, but intends to take significant comments under
consideration in amending or updating

the non-binding guidance. To the extent that the EPA determines that
comments received during the 30-day comment period justify corrections
or clarifications to the guidance, the EPA may revise and reissue the
guidance and post the revised document at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/implement.html.
    Please refer to the ADDRESSES section above in this document for
specific instructions on submitting comments.

III. Internet Web Site for Guidance Information

    The guidance titled, ``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS SIP
Submissions'' can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/implement.html.

    Dated: September 21, 2011.
Mary Henigin,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2011-25400 Filed 9-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 188)]
[Notices]
[Page 55258]
[DOCID:fr28se07-131]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56509]

Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Order Granting Registration of
Fitch, Inc. as a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization

September 24, 2007.
    Fitch, Inc., a credit rating agency, furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') an application for
registration as a nationally recognized statistical rating organization
(``NRSRO'') under Section 15E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') for the classes of credit ratings described in
clauses (i) through (v) of Section 3(a)(62)(B) of the Exchange Act. The
Commission finds that the application furnished by Fitch, Inc. is in
the form required by Exchange Act Section 15E, Exchange Act Rule 17g-1
(17 CFR 240.17g-1), and Form NRSRO (17 CFR 249b.300) and contains the
information described in subparagraph (B) of Section 15E(a)(1) of the
Exchange Act.
    Based on the application, the Commission finds that the
requirements of Section 15E of the Exchange Act are satisfied.
    Accordingly, It is ordered, under paragraph (a)(2)(A) of Section
15E of the Exchange Act, that the registration of Fitch, Inc. with the
Commission as an NRSRO under Section 15E of the Exchange Act for the
classes of credit ratings described in clauses (i) through (v) of
Section 3(a)(62)(B) of the Exchange Act is granted.

    By the Commission.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-19171 Filed 9-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 134 (Friday, July 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33253-33254]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14836]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 663-071]

Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Protests and Motions To
Intervene

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Proceeding: Extension of License Term.
    b. Project No.: P-663-071.
    c. Date Filed: July 1, 2019.
    d. Licensee: Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority.
    e. Name and Location of Project: Rio Blanco Hydroelectric Project,
located on the Rio Blanco, in the municipality of Naguabo, Puerto Rico.
    f. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    g. Licensee Contact Information: Ms. Indira Mohip Colon, Manager,
Projects and Environmental Licensing Department, Ave. Ponce de
Le[oacute]n, Pda. 17.5, Edificio NEOS, Piso 707, Bo. Santurce,
Municipio de San Juan, San Juan, PR 00936-4267, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    h. FERC Contact: Mr. Ashish Desai,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene and protests,
is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions
to intervene, protests, comments, and recommendations, 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_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-663-071.
    j. Description of Proceeding: The Puerto Rico Electric Power
Authority, licensee for the Rio Blanco Project requests to extend the
current 30-year license term for the project by eight years, from
August 19, 2021 to August 19, 2029. The licensee filed a Notice of
Intent and Pre-application Document for a new license on August 16,
2016 and would be required to file a Final License Application (FLA)
for a new license by August 19, 2019, two years prior to license
expiration.
    The Rio Blanco Project was rendered inoperable in September 2017
after Hurricanes Irma and Maria caused extensive damage to project
facilities, including the powerhouse structure, switchyard, access
roads, and penstock. The licensee is currently working with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to obtain funds to rehabilitate the
project. The licensee requests the eight-year extension to complete
FEMA requirements to obtain funding, complete restoration of the
project, and plan and complete relicensing studies to prepare a FLA to
file with the Commission by August 19, 2027.
    k. This notice is available for review and reproduction at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the Commission's
website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the
Docket number (P-663-071) excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the notice. 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 toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    m. 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, and .214. 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.
    n. Filing and Service of Responsive 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 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 and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to the request to extend the license term. Agencies may obtain copies
of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest
or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener
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. A copy of all other filings in reference to this
application 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 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: July 8, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-14836 Filed 7-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 228 (Friday, November 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74167-74168]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30081]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76491; File No. SR-MIAX-2015-64]

Self-Regulatory Organizations: Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change by Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC To Amend Exchange Rule 519

November 20, 2015.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 13, 2015, Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 519, MIAX Order
Monitor (``MOM'') to codify the Open Order and Open Contract Protection
features included in MOM.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, 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 amend Rule 519, MIAX Order Monitor, to
provide details regarding Open Order and Open Contract protections. The
proposal codifies existing functionality applicable to orders on the
Exchange. The Exchange is also proposing a clarifying amendment to
current Rule 519(b) to provide consistency in that Rule with the
proposed new rules.
    The MOM is a risk management feature of the Exchange's System \3\
that prevents certain orders from executing or being placed on the Book
at prices outside pre-set standard limits \4\ and if the size of the
order exceeds the order size protection designated by the Member
submitting the order.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
    \4\ See Exchange Rule 519(a).
    \5\ See Exchange Rule 519(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the System currently rejects any orders that exceed
the maximum number of open orders held in the System on behalf of a
particular Member (the ``Open Order Protection''). The System also
currently rejects any orders that cause the number of open contracts
represented by orders held in the System on behalf of a particular
Member (the ``Open Contract Protection'') to exceed a specified maximum
number of contracts. For each of these protections, the maximum number
(of open orders and open contracts) is designated (or may be disabled)
by the Member. The Exchange is proposing to codify the Open Order and
Open Contract Protections in Rule 519.
    Currently, Rule 519 only provides details regarding the System's
Order Price Protections and Order Size Protections. However, in
addition to order protections based on price and order size, the System
also employs order protections based on the number of open orders held
in the System and on the number of contracts represented by open orders
held in the System. The Exchange now proposes to codify these existing
order protections into Rule 519.
    Members may designate or disable the Open Order and/or the Open
Contract Protections on a firm wide basis. If the maximum number of
open orders or contracts is not designated by the Member, the Exchange
will set a maximum number of open orders or contracts on behalf of the
Member by default. The default maximum number of open orders and open
contracts are determined by the Exchange and announced to Members
through a Regulatory Circular.\6\ The Open Order and Open Contract
Protections provide market participants the flexibility to designate
the level of protection they need to help prevent the potential
submission of a number of orders and/or a number of contracts to the
Exchange that would cause them to be at unintended risk levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange notes that the current default maximum number
of open orders is 30,000 and the default number of open contracts is
1,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing a clarifying amendment to current
Rule 519(b), Order Size Protections, to state that if the maximum size
of orders is not designated by the Member, the Exchange will set a
maximum size of orders on behalf of the Member by default. This is
consistent with proposed new Rules 519(c) and (d), and

is intended to provide clarity, consistency and ease of reference
regarding MOM protections available to users of the System.
    The proposed rule change is designed to protect investors and the
public interest by codifying the protections that apply to orders that
help market participants avoid the potential submission of orders that
would place them at unwanted risk on the Exchange. In addition, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change removes impediments to
and perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, protects investors and the public
interest by helping to eliminate potential confusion on behalf of
market participants by clearly stating the System's functionality with
regard to orders that trigger Open Order and Open Contract Protections.
2. Statutory Basis
    MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ 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 mechanisms of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change is designed to protect investors and the
public interest by codifying the Open Order and Open Contract
Protections that help market participants avoid the potential
submission of a number of orders and/or a number of contracts to the
Exchange that would cause them to be at unintended risk levels.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendment
removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, protects investors
and the public interest by helping to eliminate potential confusion on
behalf of market participants by clearly stating the System's
functionality with regard to Open Order and Open Contract Protections.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
believes the proposed changes will not impose any burden on intra-
market competition because it applies to all MIAX participants equally.
In addition, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any
burden on inter-market competition as the proposal is intended to
protect investors by providing further transparency regarding the MOM
feature.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the 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 after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \10\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2015-64 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-MIAX-2015-64. 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 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-MIAX-2015-64, and should be
submitted on or before December 18, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-30081 Filed 11-25-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 201)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53648-53649]
[DOCID:fr20oc09-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0311; Airspace Docket No. 09-ANM-3]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of VOR Federal Airway V-626; UT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes VOR Federal Airway 626 (V-626) located
between the Myton, UT, Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range/
Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the Salt Lake City terminal area.
This route will improve aircraft flow during busy traffic periods into
the Salt Lake City terminal area, and provide a more precise means of
navigation and reduce controller workload.

DATES: Effective Dates: 0901 UTC, December 17, 2009. 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: Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules Group,
Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On May 4, 2009, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish a Federal Airway in Utah (74
FR 20443). Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on this proposal to
the FAA. No comments were received in response to this request.
Currently the navigational signal on the proposed 267 degree radial is
not sufficient to support the segment of the airway. Due to the weak
navigational signal coverage on the 267 degree radial, the FAA revised
the radial from the 267 degree radial to the 264 degree radial
respectively.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 to establish VOR Federal Airway 626 (V-626) from the Myton, UT,
VORTAC, to the Salt Lake City terminal area. This new route will
provide a more precise means of navigation and reduce controller
workload.
    Domestic VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of
FAA Order 7400.9T, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The domestic
VOR Federal Airway listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.
    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 Department of Transportation (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 United States Code. Subtitle I, 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 the
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 establishes a VOR Federal Airway in Utah.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

0
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 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 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9T,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and
effective September 15, 2009, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-626 [New]

From Myton, UT, to int Myton 264 and Fairfield VORTAC 126
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 14, 2009.
Kelly J. Neubecker,
Acting Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
[FR Doc. E9-25084 Filed 10-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P