Name:           FREY PHALEN D  CSP
Title:
Organization:   AUSTIN INDUSTRIES
Date:           20030305
Address1:
Address2:
City:           DALLAS
State:          TX
Zip Code:       75221-1590
Docket Number:  S030
Exhibit Number: 7-5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Safety Standards for Cranes and Derricks

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is planning to establish a Crane and Derrick Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (C-DAC) under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The Committee will include representatives of parties who would be significantly affected by the final rule.

On July 16, 2002, OSHA published a Federal Register notice of intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee (67 FR 46612) and requested nominations for membership. In the current Federal Register notice OSHA is asking for comments on the proposed list of fifty-five nominations.  The list can be found in the complete notice.

Please note that you may not attach materials such as studies or journal articles to your electronic comments. If you wish to include such materials, you must submit three copies to the OSHA Docket Office at the address listed above. When submitting such materials to the OSHA Docket Office, clearly identify your electronic comments by name, date, subject, and Docket Number, so that we can attach the materials to your electronic comments.

Online comments must be received by March 31, 2003 COB EST.  If you wish to commit online on the proposed list of Committee members, please enter your submission in the box below.  Thank you for your interest in worker safety and health.

I have reviewed the list a proposed members and fell that you have a representative cross section of manufacturers, owners, and crane experts.  In addition I have personnaly worked with at least two of the members and feel they understand the "real world" of crane operation and how this information can be translated into an effective OSHA regulation.It will be difficult to balance the needs of all the members in a single regulatory mandate that can be understood and used by both field practioneers and regulators but I have high expectations.I caution against weighting the final product with manufacturer or legal restrictions and focus upon keeping operators both informed and in control.  Understanding limitations, structural capabilities, importance of knowing the weight of the load, planning the lift and working from a level surface should all be evident parts of the the final product.We are also looking forward to an opportunity to review the final product before it is put into place and we will be working with the members of this committee to participate in development whenever it is perceived as valuable.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 22, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36326-36329]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15455]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0411; FRL-9321-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Adoption of the Revised Nitrogen Dioxide Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions
add the new 1-hour nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standard at a
level of 100 parts per billion (ppb) and update the list of Federal
documents incorporated by reference. The Commonwealth of Virginia's SIP
revisions for the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for
NO2 are consistent with the Federal NO2
standards. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on August 22, 2011 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by July 22, 2011.
If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2011-0411 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0411, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2011-0411. 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 http://www.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 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.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic 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 during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 4, 2011, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a formal
revision to its SIP. The SIP revision consists of amendments pertaining
to the ambient air quality standards for NO2 and related
reference conditions. The CAA specifies that EPA must re-evaluate the
appropriateness of its various air quality standards every five years.
As part of the process, EPA reviewed the latest research and determined
that revised standards for NO2 were necessary to protect
public health. EPA revised the level of the primary standard by setting
a new 1-hour NO2 standard at a level of 100 parts per
billion (ppb) in order to protect against adverse health effects
associated with short-term exposure to NO2. EPA also
retained the current annual average NO2 standard of 53 ppb
in order to protect against adverse health effects associated with
long-term exposure to NO2. EPA promulgated the more
stringent primary NAAQS for NO2 on February 9, 2010 (75 FR
6474).

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On March 4, 2011, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a formal
revision to its SIP. The SIP revision consists of amendments to the
Commonwealth's existing regulations in order to update the list of
appendices under documents incorporated by reference and to add the new
primary 1-hour standard for NO2. The Commonwealth of
Virginia's revision incorporates the revised NO2 standard
into the Code of Virginia (9VAC5 Chapter 30). This SIP revision amends
regulation 5-30-70, ``Oxides of nitrogen with nitrogen dioxide as the
indicator'' in order to specify that NO2 is the indicator
for oxides of nitrogen; limit the 53 ppb standard to the annual primary
standard and change the unit of measurement from annual arithmetic mean
concentration to annual average concentration; add the new primary 1-
hour standard of 100 ppb; specify reference methods used to measure the
standard; and specify how the primary annual and 1-hour standard and
the secondary standard are attained.
    In addition, this SIP revision amends regulation 5-20-21,
``Documents incorporated by reference'' by adding the new Appendix S to
the list of Federal documents incorporated by reference. Appendix S was
added to 40 CFR part 50 when the revised NO2 standard was
promulgated on February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474).

III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginias
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information (1) that are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that
demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public
health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to

maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,'' since
Virginia must ``enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in
a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts. * *
*'' The opinion concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198,
therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal
enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because
such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in
a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation,
authorization or approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Virginia's SIP revision that
adds the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS and updates the list of
Federal documents incorporated by reference. EPA is publishing this
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However,
in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register, EPA is
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to
approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will
be effective on August 22, 2011 without further notice unless EPA
receives adverse comment by July 22, 2011. If EPA receives adverse
comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will
address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 22, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action

pertaining to the Commonwealth of Virginia's adoption of the revised
NO2 standard of 100 ppb may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 6, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 52 continues to read as
follows:

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

Subpart VV--Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry for Section 5-30-70. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by
adding an entry for ``Documents Incorporated by Reference'' after the
tenth existing entry for ``Documents Incorporated by Reference.'' The
amendments read as follows:

Sec.  52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                     EPA--Approved Virginia Regulations and Statutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
          State citation                Title/subject      effective date             EPA approval date              Explanation [former SIP citation]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              9 VAC 5, Chapter 30 Ambient Air Quality Standards [Part III]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
5-30-70...........................  Oxides of nitrogen            8/18/10  6/22/11 [Insert page number where the   Sections A., D., and E. are modified.
                                     dioxide as the                         document begins].                       Sections B., C., F., and G. are
                                     indicator.                                                                     added.

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

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Name of non-regulatory SIP      Applicable geographic       State
             revision                        area          submittal date             EPA approval date                    Additional explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documents Incorporated by           Statewide............         3/14/11  6/22/11 [Insert page number where the   Added section.
 Reference (9 VAC 5-20-21, Section                                          document begins].
 E.1.a.(1)(s)).

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

[FR Doc. 2011-15455 Filed 6-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


DATA EVALUATION RECORD
ACUTE LC50 TEST WITH AN ESTUARINE/MARINE SHRIMP
850.1035

1.  CHEMICAL:  DCPA (Dacthal)PC Code No.:  078701

2.  TEST MATERIAL: Dacthal Technical Purity: 98.6%

3.  CITATION
Authors:Claude, M.B., Martin, K.H., Gallagher S.P., Bodle, E.S. and H.O. Krueger
Title:Dacthal: A 96-Hour Static Acute Toxicity Test with the Saltwater Mysid (Americamysis bahia)
Study Completion Date:December 6, 2013
Laboratory:Wildlife International, Ltd., Easton, Maryland
Sponsor:Amvac Chemical Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Laboratory Report ID:246A-115
MRID No.:49307505
DP Barcode:420820

4.  REVIEWED BY:  Teresa Nelis, Environmental Scientist, CDM/CSS-Dynamac JV
     Signature:         Date: 10/14/2016

     APPROVED BY:  Moncie V Wright, Environmental Scientist, CDM Smith/CSS-Dynamac JV
Signature: Date: 10/31/2016

5.  APPROVED BY:  Christina M. Wendel, Biologist, OPP/EFED/ERB2

     Signature:Date: 10/19/2021

Michael Wagman, Senior Scientist, OPP/EFED/ERB2

     Signature:Date: 11/10/2021

This Data Evaluation Record may have been altered by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division subsequent to signing by CDM/CSS-Dynamac JV personnel.

6.  STUDY PARAMETERS

Age or Size of Test Organism:<24 hours
     Definitive Test Duration:96 hours
Study Method:Static
     Type of Concentrations:Time weighted average concentrations

7.  CONCLUSIONS:

     Results Synopsis

     96-hour LC50:  >396 ug a.i./L (>0.396 mg a.i./L)95% C.I.:  N/A
     Probit Slope:  N/A95% C.I.:  N/A
Observational NOAEC: 24.9 ug a.i./L (0.0249 mg a.i./L)
Endpoint(s) affected: Mortality

8.  ADEQUACY OF THE STUDY

     A.  Classification:  This study is scientifically sound and is classified as supplemental and may be used for risk characterization.

     B.  Rationale:  The dissolved oxygen (DO) was <=60% saturation in the negative and solvent controls, and the 24.9, 54.6, and 95.1 ug a.i./L treatment groups at 24 hours. The highest nominal concentration is at the solubility limit for DCPA (0.5 mg/L), and although the highest nominal concentration is at the solubility limit for DCPA, both the stock solutions and test concentrations were mixed by inversion and were clear and colorless with no undissolved test substance throughout the test. The test solutions did appear slightly cloudy and white at test termination, but this was likely due to the presence of microbial growth in all treatment and control test chambers but did not appear to have an impact on the results.

     C.  Repairability:  None

9.  GUIDELINE DEVIATIONS: This study was conducted following guidelines outlined in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OCSPP), Ecological Effects Test Guidelines for conducting acute toxicity tests with mysids OCSPP (form. OPPTS) 850.1035 (1996), and ASTM Standard E729-96: Standard Guide for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests on Test Materials with Fishes, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians (2007). The reviewer considered these guidelines and the final OCSPP 850.1035 (2016) guideline in their evaluation. The following deviations were noted:

Dissolved oxygen (DO) was below the recommended test parameter of >=60% of saturation in one replicate of the negative control and both replicates of the solvent control, 24.9, 54.6, and 95.1 ug a.i./L treatment groups at 24 hours. The test chambers were gently aerated to address the low DO and maintain DO levels at >=60% of saturation. Although the study authors determined the drop in DO at 24 hours did not affect the overall findings because there were no sufficient negative effects to create 50% mortality in the control or treatment groups. This is considered a study deficiency for both the draft OPPTS and final OCSPP 850.1035 guideline.
  The photoperiod was 16L:8D; which is within the range for the final OCSPP 850.1035 guideline, although the draft OPPTS 850.1035 guideline suggests 14L:10D. However, based on the final OCSPP 850.1035 guideline, this is not considered a deficiency, as a photoperiod should be selected from regimes of 12 hours light:12 hours dark to 16 hours light:8 hours dark. For any given test, the light regime should be constant.
The TOC of the dilution water was not reported.  The lack of measurement in dilution water is only considered a deficiency based on the final OCSPP 850.1035 guideline. In the draft OPPTS 850.1035 guideline, the measurement of TOC was only recommended when deionized water was used to prepare artificial seawater. However, the lack of this information is considered to be a minor deficiency as the Kow and solubility of DCPA, (4.3 and 0.5 mg/L, respectively), in water would likely not result in an underestimation of toxicity.
       Pre-test mortality was not reported, this is only considered a deficiency based on the final OCSPP 850.1035 guideline, and not the draft OPPTS 850.1035 guideline. However, the even with the lack of this information, the mortality in the controls was acceptable (<=10%) during this test.

      These deficiencies do impact the acceptability of the study.

10.  SUBMISSION PURPOSE:  This study was submitted to provide data on the effects of Dacthal (DCPA) on juvenile mysids (Americamysis bahia) following acute exposure for the purpose of registration review.

11.  MATERIALS AND METHODS

     A.  Test Organisms
Guideline Criteria
Reported Information
Species
Preferred species are Mysidopsis bahia, Penaeus setiferus, P. duorarun, P. aztecus and Palaemonetes sp.

Saltwater mysid; Americamysis bahia
(form. Mysidopsis bahia)
Age
Juvenile, mysids should be
< 24 hours old

Juveniles; <24 hours old
Supplier
Laboratory in-house cultures; identification of the species was verified by the supplier of the original stock culture.
All shrimp are from same source?
Yes
All shrimp are from the same year class?
Yes

     B.  Source/Acclimation
Guideline Criteria
Reported Information
Acclimation Period

Acclimation period was continuous. Mysids held in water from the same source and at approx. same temperature as used in test. During the two-week period immediately preceding the test, temperatures ranged from 24.7 to 26.1ºC; pH ranged from 8.0 to 8.3; DO was >=6.7 mg/L (>=91% saturation); and salinity of the filtered seawater ranged from 20 to 21 ppt (%.).
Wild caught organisms were quarantined for 7 days?
N/A
Were there signs of disease or injury?
No signs of disease or stress were observed in the adults in the holding period.
If treated for disease, was there no sign of the disease remaining during the 48 hours prior to testing?
N/A
Feeding
No feeding during the study and no feeding for 24 hour before the beginning of the test if organisms are over 0.5 g each. Mysids should be fed throughout the study.
Culture mysids were fed live brine shrimp (Artemia sp.) nauplii (INVE Aquaculture, Salt Lake City, Utah) daily, which were periodically enriched with a nutrient enrichment (Al DHA Selco from INVE Thailand, Ltd., Phichit, Thailand). During the test, mysids were fed live brine shrimp nauplii (Artemia sp.) daily.
Pretest Mortality
<3% mortality 48 hours prior to testing
Pre-test mortality was not reported.

     C.  Test System
Guideline Criteria
Reported Information
Source of dilution water
Soft reconstituted water or water from a natural source, not dechlorinated tap water
Natural seawater collected at Indian River Inlet, Delaware. Water was pumped into a 5000 gallon holding tank and was ozonated and passed through a sand filter (~25 micron), it was then pumped into a 37,800 L storage tank and diluted with well freshwater (on the Wildlife International site) to a salinity of ~20%., and aerated with spray nozzles. Diluted water was then filtered to 0.45 um to remove fine particles and UV-sterilized prior to use.
Does water support test animals without observable signs of stress?
Yes
Salinity
30-34 %. (ppt, parts per thousand) for marine (stenohaline) shrimp and 10-17 ppt for estuarine (euryhaline) shrimp, weekly range < 6 ppt

20-21 %.
Salinity was measured in the dilution water at test initiation and termination.
Water Temperature
Approx. 22 + 1 °C

24.3-27.2°C
pH
8.0-8.3 for marine (stenohaline) shrimp, 7.7-8.0 for estuarine (euryhaline) shrimp, monthly range < 0.8

7.9-8.5
Dissolved Oxygen
Static: >= 60% during 1st 48 hrs and >= 40% during 2nd 48 hrs, Flow-through: >= 60%
At 0, 48, 72 and 96 hours: 6.0 to 7.4 mg/L (>=81% of saturation)

At 24 hours: 3.4 to 6.0 mg/L (>=46% of saturation); below 60% of saturation. Test vessels were gently aerated after low DO found at 24 hours, to maintain adequate levels of DO.

4.4 mg/L DO represents 60% saturation at a salinity of 20%. and 25°C.
Total Organic Carbon
Should be <5 mg/L in reconstituted seawater

Not Reported
Test Aquaria
1. Material:
   Glass or stainless steel
2. Size:
     19.6 L is acceptable for organisms >= 0.5 g (e.g. pink shrimp, white shrimp, and brown shrimp), 3.9 L is acceptable for smaller organisms (e.g. mysids and grass shrimp).
3. Fill volume:
     15 L is acceptable for organisms >= 0.5 g, 2-3 L is acceptable for smaller organisms.

1. Glass beakers

2. 2 L

3. 1.5 L

The depth of the test water was 12.0 cm.
Type of Dilution System
Must provide reproducible supply of toxicant
N/A; test was conducted under static conditions
Flow Rate
Consistent flow rate of 5-10 vol/24 hours, meter systems calibrated before study and checked twice daily during test period
N/A; test was conducted under static conditions
Biomass Loading Rate
Static: Pound 0.8 g/L at # 17°C, Pound 0.5 g/L at > 17°C; flow-through: Pound 1 g/L/day
(N/A for mysids)

N/A
Photoperiod
16 hours light, 8 hours dark
16 h light, 8 h dark with 30-minute transitional light periods to avoid sudden changes. Light intensity at test initiation was 379 lux at surface of one representative test chamber.
Solvents
Not to exceed 0.5 ml/L for static tests or 0.1 ml/L for flow-through tests

Solvent: DMF
Maximum conc.: 0.06 mL/L (0.006%)

     D.  Test Design
Guideline Criteria
Reported Information
Range Finding Test
If LC50 >100 mg/L with 30 shrimp, then no definitive test is required.
The range finding study (results summarized in Table 1, pp. 18 of study report) indicated that DCPA was completely soluble in the 24 to 900 ug a.i./L solutions (solutions were clear and colorless at test initiation and test termination) containing 0.06 mg/L (0.006%)DMF but not in the 3000 ug a.i./L solution (fine white precipitate was on the surface of the solution at test initiation and test termination). No information was provided if the test solutions were measured.

Mysid mortality was 0% in the negative control, solvent control and 81 ug a.i./L test solution, and was 10, 30, 80 and 100% in the 24, 270, 900 and 3000 ug a.i./L test solutions, respectively. Additional observations were recorded every 24 hours beginning at test initiation and included the following: appeared normal, surfacing, lethargic or erratic swimming. Mysids appeared normal in in the negative control, solvent control 24, 81 and ug a.i./L test solutions. In the in the 270, 900 and 3000 ug a.i./L test solutions mysids observations included appearing normal, surfacing, lethargy, and erratic swimming.
Nominal Concentrations of Definitive Test
Control & 5 treatment levels;
a geometric series in which each concentration is at least 60% of the next higher one.
0 (negative control), 0 (solvent control), 28, 56, 113, 225, and 450 ug a.i./L

Number of Test Organisms
Minimum 20/level, may be divided among containers
20/level, equally divided among two replicates
Test organisms randomly or impartially assigned to test vessels?
Yes
Biological observations made every 24 hours?
Yes. Observations were made approx. 3, 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours after test initiation. All organisms were observed to determine the number of mortalities, signs of toxicity and abnormal behavior in each treatment group.
Water Parameter Measurements
1. Temperature
     Measured constantly or, if water baths are used, every 6 hrs, may not vary > 1°C
2. DO and pH
     Measured at beginning of test and ever 48 h in the high, medium, and low doses and in the control

1. Temperature was measured at test initiation and termination and daily at approx. 24 hr intervals in each replicate test vessel, and continuously in a surrogate test chamber.

2. DO and pH were measured at test initiation and termination and daily (at approx. 24 hr intervals) in each replicate test vessel.
Chemical Analysis
needed if solutions were aerated, if chemical was volatile, insoluble, or known to absorb, if precipitate formed, if containers were not steel or glass, or if flow-through system was used
Samples were collected for analysis at 0, 48, and 96 hours (+- 1 hour) and analyzed by HPLC with UV detection (220 nm).

12.  REPORTED RESULTS

     A.  General Results
Guideline Criteria
Reported Information
Quality assurance and GLP
compliance statements were
included in the report?
Yes. Signed and dated No Data Confidentiality, GLP, and Quality Assurance statements were provided. This study was conducted in compliance with US EPA Good Laboratory Practice Standards (40 CFR Parts 160 and 792), that are compatible with: OECD Principles of Good Laboratory Practice (ENV/MC/CHEM (98)17), and Japan MAFF (11 NohSan Notification Number 6283, Agricultural Production Bureau, 1 October 1999), with the following exception: periodic analyses of saltwater for potential contaminants were not performed according to Good Laboratory Practice Standards but were performed using a certified laboratory and standard U.S. EPA analytical methods.
Recovery of Chemical
Recovery of DCPA in test solutions for Day 0 and Day 2 were 82 to 105% of nominal based on individual samples; recovery of DCPA for Day 4 was much lower and was 58 to 83% based on individual samples. Average recovery data for 0, 2 and 4 days combined was 81 to 95%. TWA was reviewer calculated from the measured concentrations (refer to copy of Excel worksheet in Appendix I).
Recovery of QC fortification spikes ranged from 98 to 104% of nominal.

Test solutions appeared clear and colorless at test initiation, with no evidence of precipitation observed. The test solutions did appear slightly cloudy and white at test termination, but this was due to the presence of microbial growth in all treatment and control test chambers.
Control Mortality
Not more than 10% of control organisms may die or show abnormal behavior.
After 96 hours, there was 5% mortality in the negative control, and 10% mortality in the solvent control.
Raw data included?
Yes
Signs of toxicity (if any) were described?
Yes

     Mortality
Concentration (ug a.i./L)
Number of Mysids
Cumulative Number Dead
Nominal
TWA1
(Mean-Measured)

Hour of Study

24
48
72
96
96
(%)
Negative Control
<10.0 (<LOQ)a
20
0
0
0
1b
5
Solvent Control
<10.0 (<LOQ)a
20
0
2
2
2
10
28
24.9 (24)
20
0
0
0
0
0
56
54.6 (53)
20
0
2
2
2
10
113
95.1 (92)
20
0
2b
2b
2b
10
225
201 (197)
20
0
0
0
0
0
450
396 (391)
20
1
2
2
2
10
  1 Time weighted average (TWA) concentrations were reviewer calculated
  a LOQ was 10 ug a.i./L.
  b One mysid was missing and assumed dead.

Two mysids were missing and assumed dead in the 95.1 ug a.i./L Time weighted average (TWA)-measured treatment group (equivalent to 92 ug a.i./L mean-measured concentrations) at 48 hours, the mysids were never found. Additionally, one mysid was missing and assumed dead in the negative control at 96 hours. After 96 hours, there was no mortality in the 24.9 and 201 ug a.i./L TWA-measured treatment groups (equivalent to 24 and 197 ug a.i./L mean-measured concentrations, respectively), 5% mortality in the negative control (the missing/assumed dead mysid), and 10% mortality in the solvent control and the 54.6, 95.1 (the missing/assumed dead mysids), and 396 ug a.i./L treatment groups (equivalent to 53, 92, and 391 ug a.i./L mean-measured concentrations, respectively). The study author reported a 96-hour LC50 value of >391 ug a.i./L, based on the mean-measured concentrations. Which correspond to a 96-hour LC50 value of >396 ug a.i./L, based on the TWA-measured concentrations.

Other Significant Results:  No sublethal effects were observed in the controls or in any of the test solutions.

     B.  Statistical Results

     Method:  The absence of mortality in any of the DCPA treatment groups during the test precluded the statistical calculation of LC50 values. Therefore, the LC50 values were estimated to be greater than the highest concentration tested. The no-mortality concentration and the no-observed-effect concentration (NOEC) were determined by visual interpretation of the mortality and observation data. The study author used mean-measured concentrations for the analyses.

     96-hr LC50:  >391 ug a.i./L (>0.396 mg a.i./L)95% C.I.:  N/A
     Probit Slope: N/A

13.  VERIFICATION OF STATISTICAL RESULTS

   The mortality data and TWA-measured concentrations of the test material were estimated by the reviewer and were entered into the program CETIS, (Version <IP_ADDRESS>) with backend settings implemented by EFED on 10/20/15. The reviewer visually determined the LC50 due to a lack of effects >=50%.

Parameter
Result
Probit LC50 (95% C.I.)
>396 ug a.i./L (>0.396 mg a.i./L)
Probit Slope (95% C.I.)
N/A
Statistical Method for NOAEC
Visual estimation
Observational NOAEC
24.9 ug a.i./L (0.0249 mg a.i./L)

REVIEWER'S COMMENTS:

     The reviewer's and study author's results were in agreement when accounting for the differences between the mean-measured and TWA-measured concentrations.

     The study was conducted following the draft OPPTS 850.1035 (1996) guideline, ASTM Standard E729-96 (2007), and the reviewer considered both the draft and the final OCSPP 850.1035 (2016) guideline and ASTM E729-96 in their evaluation of the data.

     The in-life portion of the definitive toxicity test was conducted from August 5, 2013 to August 9, 2013.

     The measured test concentrations had a coefficient of variation (CV) of >=20%. The CV for the time-weighted average concentrations ranged from 12 to 20%.

     Time-weighted average (TWA) concentrations were reviewer-calculated (refer to copy of Excel worksheet in Appendix I) and are reported in the Conclusions sections of the DER.  TWA concentrations were calculated by the reviewer using the following equation:

     where:
     C TWA  is the time-weighted average concentration,
     C j  is the concentration measured at time interval j (j = 0, 1, 2,...n)
     t j  is the number of hours (or days or weeks, units used just need to be consistent in the equation) of the test at time interval j
     (e.g., t 0  = 0 hours (test initiation), t 1 =48 hours, t 2 =96 hours)

     Results from the periodic screening analysis of the saltwater dilution water indicated the presence of the following analytes: calcium (239 mg/L), chloride (11,400 mg/L), magnesium (498 mg/L), potassium (238 mg/L), and sodium (6,050 mg/L). Pesticides and PCBs were not detected in the saltwater dilution water.

     The dissolved oxygen (DO) was <=60% saturation in the negative and solvent controls, and the 24.9, 54.6, and 95.1 ug a.i./L treatment groups at 24 hours.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is scientifically sound and classified as supplemental and may be used for risk characterization. Mortality was 5% in the dilution water negative control, and <=10% in the solvent and treatment groups. No sublethal effects were observed in the controls or in any treatment groups. The 96-hour LC50 value was >396 ug a.i./L (>0.396 mg a.i./L), and the observed NOAEC was 24.9 ug a.i./L (0.0249mg a.i./L).

     96-hour LC50:  >396 ug a.i./L (>0.396 mg a.i./L)95% C.I.:  N/A
     Probit Slope: N/A 95% C.I.:  N/A
     Observational NOAEC: 24.9 ug a.i./L (0.0249 mg a.i./L)
Endpoint(s) affected: Mortality

REFERENCES:

American Society for Testing and Materials. 2007. ASTM Standard E729-96: Standard Guide for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests on Test Materials with Fishes, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1996.  Ecological Effects Test Guidelines, OPPTS 850.1035(draft), Mysid Acute Toxicity Test, EPA 712-C-96-136, 8pp.

APPENDIX I. Copy of Excel Worksheet with TWA Concentrations


[Federal Register: August 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 147)]
[Notices]
[Page 45198-45199]
[DOCID:fr02au10-147]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2006-25756]

Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Standards; Volvo Trucks North
America, Renewal of Exemption

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA renews an exemption from the requirement to hold a
commercial driver's license (CDL) submitted by Volvo Trucks North
America (Volvo) on behalf of an employee. Volvo requested renewal of
the CDL exemption for a Swedish engineer employed by the company to
enable this individual to continue test-driving commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs) in the United States. This individual holds a valid
Swedish CDL. FMCSA believes that the training program and knowledge and
skills testing that drivers must undergo to obtain a Swedish CDL ensure
a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety
that would be obtained by complying with the U.S. requirement for a
CDL.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 1, 2010.
Effective date of the exemption is June 18, 2010 to June 18, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System Number FMCSA-2006-25756 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. In the ENTER KEYWORD OR ID box enter FMCSA-2006-
25756 and click on the tab labeled SEARCH. On the ensuing page, click
on any tab labeled SUBMIT A COMMENT on the extreme right of the page
and a page should open that is titled ``Submit a Comment.'' You may
identify yourself under section 1, ENTER INFORMATION, or you may skip
section 1 and remain anonymous. You enter your comments in section 2,
TYPE COMMENT & UPLOAD FILE. When you are ready to submit your comments,
click on the tab labeled SUBMIT. Your comment is then submitted to the
docket; and you will receive a tracking number.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the exemption process, see the Public
Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time, and in
the ENTER KEYWORD OR ID box enter FMCSA-2006-25756 and click on the tab
labeled SEARCH.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476) or you may visit http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Public Participation: The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is
generally available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can get
electronic submission and retrieval help

and guidelines under the ``help'' section of the http://
www.regulations.gov Web site and also at the DOT's http://
docketsinfo.dot.gov Web site. If you want us to notify you that we
received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped
envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgment page that appears
after submitting comments online.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine Hydock, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and
Operations, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the CDL requirements of 49 CFR 383.23 for a maximum 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved absent such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an
exemption (including renewals) are prescribed in 49 CFR part 381.

Volvo Application for Exemption Renewal

    Volvo applied for a 2-year renewal of an exemption from 49 CFR
383.23, the CDL requirement for drivers operating CMVs, for Andreas
Hamsten. A copy of the request for renewal, dated May 12, 2010, is in
the docket identified at the beginning of this notice.
    FMCSA initially granted an exemption to three Swedish engineers and
technicians employed by Volvo on June 18, 2008 (73 FR 34828). Detailed
information about the qualifications and experience of each of the
three drivers, including Mr. Hamsten, was provided by Volvo in its
original application, a copy of which is in the docket referenced
above. Volvo is seeking a renewal of this exemption because Mr. Hamsten
is a citizen and resident of Sweden, and cannot easily obtain a non-
resident CDL, given the small number of States willing to issue such a
license. Renewal of the exemption will enable Mr. Hamsten to operate
CMVs in the U.S. and continue to support Volvo's field tests to meet
future clean air standards, to test drive prototype vehicles at their
test site, and to deliver the vehicles, if necessary. It is estimated
that he will drive approximately 2,500 miles per year on U.S. roads.
Mr. Hamsten is an experienced CMV operator holding a valid Swedish-
issued CDL. He has received extensive CMV training, and has satisfied
strict regulations in Sweden in order to obtain a CDL. Volvo explained
in detail in earlier exemption requests the rigorous training program
and knowledge and skills tests that applicants for a Swedish CDL must
undergo. Volvo also argued in prior exemption requests that the Swedish
knowledge and skills tests and training program ensure that Volvo's
drivers operating under the exemption will achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety obtained by
complying with the U.S. requirement for a CDL.

Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    FMCSA has previously determined that the process for obtaining a
Swedish CDL is comparable to, or as effective as, the requirements of
Part 383, and adequately assesses the driver's ability to operate CMVs
in the U.S. In the past 2 years, FMCSA has published several notices of
similar Volvo exemption requests; the most recent Agency notice of
final disposition was published on June 14, 2010, granting an exemption
to 2 Volvo drivers for 2 years (75 FR 33662).

Granting of Exemption Renewal

    FMCSA has evaluated Volvo's application for renewal of Mr.
Hamsten's exemption and decided to grant it for an additional 2-year
period, i.e., from June 18, 2010, through June 18, 2012. Mr. Hamsten's
exemption is renewed subject to the following terms and conditions: (1)
This exemption is valid only when Mr. Hamsten is acting within the
scope of his employment by Volvo; (2) He and Volvo must adhere to drug
and alcohol regulations, including testing, as provided by in 49 CFR
part 382; (3) He and Volvo must adhere to driver disqualification rules
under 49 CFR parts 383 and 391 that apply to other CMV drivers in the
United States; (4) He is subject to all other provisions of the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) (49 CFR 390-397) unless
specifically exempted herein; (5) He must keep a copy of the exemption
on the vehicle at all times for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official; (6) Volvo must notify
FMCSA in writing of any accident, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, involving
this exempted driver; and (7) Volvo must notify FMCSA in writing if
this driver is convicted of a disqualifying offense described in
sections 383.51 or 391.15 of the FMCSRs.
    This exemption will be valid for 2 years unless rescinded earlier
by FMCSA. Mr. Hamsten's exemption will be rescinded if: (1) He fails to
comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) The
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
before it was granted; or (3) Continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b)(4), FMCSA
requests public comment on the renewal of Mr. Hamsten's exemption from
the requirements of 49 CFR 383.23. The Agency requests that interested
parties with specific data concerning Mr. Hamsten's safety record
submit comments by September 1, 2010. FMCSA will review all comments
received by this date and determine whether renewal of the exemption is
consistent with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
    FMCSA believes the requirements for renewal of an exemption under
49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by granting the renewal
and then requesting and subsequently evaluating comments submitted by
interested parties. As indicated above, on one prior occasion, the
Agency determined that providing an exemption for this Volvo driver
does not compromise the level of safety that would exist if the
exemption were not granted. The prior FMCSA decision was based on
careful consideration of the comments received, and on the merits of
each driver's demonstrated knowledge and skills about the safe
operation of CMVs. Interested parties or organizations possessing
information that would show that Mr. Hamsten is not currently achieving
the requisite statutory level of safety should immediately notify
FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse information submitted and,
if safety is being compromised or if the continuation of the exemption
is not consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b)(4), FMCSA will
take immediate steps to revoke the exemption.

    Issued on: July 27, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-18823 Filed 7-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: January 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 10)]
[Notices]
[Page 2049-2050]
[DOCID:fr17ja07-88]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55070; File No. SR-CHX-2006-37]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Participant Fees and Credits

January 9, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 21, 2006, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the CHX.
On December 21, 2006, the CHX filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change. The CHX has designated this proposal as one establishing
or changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the CHX
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The CHX proposes to amend its Schedule of Participant Fees and
Credits (the ``Fee Schedule'') to reduce specialist fixed fees that are
applicable during the period when the CHX transitions to its new
trading model. The text of this proposed rule change is available at
the CHX, on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.chx.com/rules/proposed_rules.htm
, and in 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 CHX 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 CHX 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
    As part of the Exchange's new trading model, the CHX is
transitioning from a floor-based exchange, with a single specialist
firm assigned to trade designated issues, to a fully-automated
electronic facility, with issues eligible for trading by multiple
market makers and other eligible CHX participants. This transition
commenced during the week of October 23, 2006, and is expected to be
completed by mid-January. The CHX's transition to its new trading model
is structured on an issue-by-issue basis. Once an issue is
``converted,'' it is then eligible for trading in the CHX electronic
matching engine and is no longer traded by a CHX specialist.
    In connection with this transition, the CHX previously submitted a
series of comprehensive revisions to its Fee Schedule to address
various aspects of the new trading model, including the transition away
from a specialist system.\5\ The initial revision to the Fee Schedule
provided that, with respect to the specialist fixed fee,\6\ during the
transition period, such transitional fixed fees will continue to be
charged on securities traded by specialists as the Exchange transitions
to its new trading model, on a prorated basis.\7\ The proration
provision was intended to eliminate the fixed fee as soon as an issue
makes the transition to the new trading model and is no longer traded
by the CHX specialist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54657 (October 26,
2006), 71 FR 64590 (November 2, 2006) (SR-CHX-2006-29).
    \6\ The specialist fixed fee is a long-standing fee that is
allocated on a monthly basis among CHX specialist firms. It provides
the CHX with a means of allocating certain expenses, relating to
systems and infrastructure, that support the CHX specialist system.
    \7\ To determine the amount of the fixed fee during each month
of this transition period, the Exchange will calculate the aggregate
fixed fees for the month based on the total number of issues traded
by specialists as of the day before the Exchange begins to trade the
first specialist-traded security in the new model. The Exchange then
will only charge a specialist firm the fixed fees associated with
the securities that it traded as specialist during each month,
prorating the fee based on the date that an issue makes its
transition to the Matching System for trading, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After further consideration and additional dialogue with CHX
participants, the Exchange believes that further refinement of this
provision is appropriate. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify
Section K of the Fee Schedule to provide for a monthly credit of
$25,000 per specialist firm, to be applied against each firm's monthly
transitional fixed fee. The $25,000 monthly credit would be applied
against the first $25,000 in monthly specialist fixed fees otherwise
due to the CHX from a participant firm. If the participant firm's fixed
fee liability is less than $25,000, the CHX would apply a credit equal
to the amount of the fixed fee liability, but would not issue a refund
to such participant firm for the remaining balance of the credit, nor
would the CHX carry forward the balance of the credit for application
to future fixed fee liabilities.
    For example, if a specialist firm's monthly fixed fee liability was
$32,000, the CHX would apply the $25,000 credit and the firm would be
billed for the remaining balance of $7,000 in net fixed fees. If a
specialist firm's monthly fixed fee liability was $10,000, the CHX
would apply a credit of $10,000, offsetting the entire liability, and
the CHX would not bill the specialist firm for any fixed fees that
month. The CHX would not issue a refund of $15,000 to the specialist
firm on account of the unused portion of the available credit, and the
unused portion would not be available to offset fixed fee liabilities
in future months.
    The CHX believes that this credit, which was negotiated after
substantial discussion with its specialist community, is warranted
under the circumstances. The credit addresses the contention of certain
specialists that specialist fixed fees should be eliminated more
quickly, because legacy technology and other pre-new trading model
systems (which are funded in part by the specialist fixed fee) are not
as useful to them. More significantly, it permits the Exchange to roll
out its new trading model on terms that the Exchange believes to be
most prudent from a technology perspective,\8\ while reducing the costs
that must continue to be borne by specialist firms as a result

of the rollout schedule.\9\ Moreover, the proposed credit would provide
specialist firms with a specified reduction in their fixed fees during
the transition period, permitting them to budget accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The CHX has given considerable thought to establishing an
implementation schedule that minimizes the risks associated with
implementing significant new technology. Generally speaking, this
schedule involves first migrating issues that customarily have lower
trading volumes, followed by issues with higher trading volumes, so
that technology staff can assess the impact of gradual increases in
trading volumes and more readily identify problems. The CHX believes
that this strategy is more prudent than a ``hard cutover,'' which
would involve simultaneous migration of all issues to the new
trading model technology.
    \9\ Certain issues have higher fixed fees relative to other
issues. Accordingly, the new trading model rollout schedule has
economic consequences for CHX specialist firms, because specialist
fixed fees are eliminated entirely once an issue transitions to the
CHX new trading model and is no longer traded by a specialist.
Absent the credit described in this submission, therefore, a
specialist firm likely would request immediate transition of issues
with the highest fixed fees to the new trading model, whereas the
CHX might prefer to delay transition of such issues until later in
the overall new trading model implementation process, in order to
better manage the overall implementation plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act \10\ in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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 establishes or changes a
member due, fee or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and
subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\12\ At any time within 60
days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may
summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \13\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on December 21, 2006, the date on which the CHX filed
Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CHX-2006-37 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2006-37. 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 CHX.
    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-CHX-2006-37
and should be submitted on or before February 7, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-536 Filed 1-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21668-21669]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08646]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2009-0594; FRL-9909-55-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; States of
Arkansas and Louisiana; Clean Air Interstate Rule State Implementation
Plan Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions submitted to the applicable State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) addressing the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) for Arkansas and Louisiana. EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the CAIR NOX Ozone Season allocation
methodology adopted on December 5, 2008, by the Arkansas Pollution
Control and Ecology Commission and submitted as revisions to the
Arkansas SIP on September 16, 2009. EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the CAIR NOX Annual and Ozone Season
Abbreviated SIP for the annual and ozone season NOX
allocation methodologies and the CAIR SO2 SIP adopted on
June 20, 2008 by the State of Louisiana and submitted as revisions to
the Louisiana SIP on July 1, 2009. EPA has evaluated the CAIR SIP
revisions for Arkansas and Louisiana and made the preliminary
determination that these revisions are consistent with the requirements
of CAIR and the Clean Air Act. Therefore we are proposing to approve
the revisions to the Arkansas and Louisiana SIPs under section 110 of
the Act.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before May 19, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Ms. Adina Wiley, Air Permits
Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted
electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the
detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Adina Wiley (6PD-R), telephone
(214) 665-2115, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct rule
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties

interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: April 2, 2014.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2014-08646 Filed 4-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 201)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 59014-59017]
[DOCID:fr18oc07-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0912; FRL-8483-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri; Transportation Conformity

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the
Kansas City and St. Louis portions of the Missouri State Implementation
Plan (SIP). This revision consists of transportation conformity
criteria and procedures related to interagency consultation and
enforceability of certain transportation-related control measures and
mitigation measures.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective December 17, 2007,
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November
19, 2007. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2007-0912, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Heather
Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2007-0912. 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 through http://www.regulations.gov
 or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI

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 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.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic 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 Environmental Protection

Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street,
Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding
Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these
documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours
in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Transportation Conformity
II. Background for This Action
III. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation
IV. Public Comment and Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Transportation Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required under section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) to ensure that Federally supported highway,
transit projects, and other activities are consistent with (``conform
to'') the purpose of the SIP. Conformity currently applies to areas
that are designated nonattainment and to areas that have been
redesignated to attainment after 1990 (maintenance areas) with plans
developed under section 175A of the CAA for the following
transportation related criteria pollutants: Ozone, particulate matter
(PM2.5 and PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), and
nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
    Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation
activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS). The transportation conformity regulation
is found in 40 CFR part 93 and provisions related to conformity SIPs
are found in 40 CFR 51.390.

II. Background for This Action

    EPA promulgated the Federal transportation conformity criteria and
procedures (the conformity rule) on November 24, 1993. Among other
things, the rule required states to address all provisions of the
conformity rule in their SIPs (conformity SIPs). Under 40 CFR 51.390,
most sections of the conformity rule were required to be copied
verbatim. States were also required to tailor all or portions of the
following three sections of the conformity rule to meet their state's
individual circumstances: 40 CFR 93.105, which addresses consultation
procedures; 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii), which addresses written
commitments to control measures that are not included in a metropolitan
planning organization's (MPO's) transportation plan and transportation
improvement program that must be obtained prior to a conformity
determination, and the requirement that such commitments, when they
exist, must be fulfilled; and 40 CFR 93.125(c), which addresses written
commitments to mitigation measures that must be obtained prior to a
project-level conformity determination, and the requirement that
project sponsors must comply with such commitments, when they exist.
    On August 10, 2005, the ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users'' (SAFETEA-LU) was signed
into law. SAFETEA-LU revised section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act's
transportation conformity provisions. One of the changes streamlines
the requirements for conformity SIPs. Under SAFETEA-LU, states are
required to address and tailor only three sections of the conformity
rule in their conformity SIPs: 40 CFR 93.105, 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii),
and, 40 CFR 93.125(c), described above. In general, states are no
longer required to submit conformity SIP revisions that address the
other sections of the conformity rule. These changes took effect on
August 10, 2005, when SAFETEA-LU was signed into law.

III. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation

    The SIP revisions submitted to EPA on July 27, 2007, consist of the
Kansas City and St. Louis Transportation Conformity Requirements (10
Code of State Regulations (CSR) 10-2.390, and 10 CSR 10-5.480,
respectively). These rules replace the previous revision effective on
December 30, 2005.
    The Kansas City conformity rule will apply only if the area is
designated or redesignated to nonattainment. The Kansas City area was
previously a maintenance area for the 1-hour ozone standard. When the
1-hour ozone standard was revoked, conformity was no longer required.
The area is currently designated attainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard.
    The revisions to the Kansas City and St. Louis conformity rules
were updated to be consistent with the transportation conformity-
related provisions of SAFETEA-LU as previously described in this
document. Revisions were made to definitions, interagency consultation
procedures (including processes, roles and responsibilities,
consultation opportunities, recordkeeping and conflict resolution), and
the requirements to fulfill commitments to control measures and
mitigation measures.
    The submittal documents public notice and hearing for this SIP
revision in compliance with CAA section 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102.
    We have reviewed the submittal to assure consistency with the
current Clean Air Act, as amended by SAFETEA-LU, and EPA regulations
(40 CFR part 93 and 40 CFR 51.390) governing state procedures for
transportation conformity and interagency consultation and have
concluded that the submittal is approvable. Details of our review are
set forth in a technical support document, which has been included in
the docket for this action.

IV. Public Comment and Final Action

    Under section 110(k) of the Act, and for the reasons set forth
above, EPA is taking action to approve the Kansas City area and St.
Louis area transportation

conformity requirements as revisions to the Missouri SIP.
    We do not expect objection to this approval, so we are finalizing
it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules
section of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing
approval of the same submittal. If we receive adverse comments by
November 19, 2007, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not
take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final
action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse
comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further
notice on December 17, 2007. This will incorporate these transportation
conformity procedures into the federally-enforceable SIP and thereby
replace the previous versions. Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves state law
implementing a Federal standard and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 17, 2007. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: October 5, 2007.
William Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

0
Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320 the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entries for 10-2.390 under Chapter 2 and 10-5.480 under Chapter 5
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 State
         Missouri  citation                    Title           effective     EPA approval date      Explanation
                                                                 date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Missouri Department of Natural Resources Chapter 2--Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations
                                      for the Kansas City Metropolitan Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-2.390............................  Kansas City Area           7/30/07  10/18/07 [insert FR     ..............
                                       Transportation                      page number where the
                                       Conformity                          document begins].
                                       Requirements.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Chapter 5--Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-5.480............................  St. Louis Area             7/30/07  10/18/07 [insert FR     ..............
                                       Transportation                      page number where the
                                       Conformity                          document begins].
                                       Requirements.

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

[FR Doc. E7-20375 Filed 10-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 147 (Wednesday, August 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50889-50890]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16333]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4702-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

Kentucky; 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 Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4702-DR), dated April 10, 2023,
and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued May 16, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky 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 April 10, 2023.

    Boyle, Clinton, Fayette, Henderson, Jefferson, McCreary, Mercer,
Pulaski, Russell, Shelby, Wayne, and Woodford 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.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-16333 Filed 8-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


1 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 19, 2004 SUBJECT: Revised Emission Factors for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines FROM: Melanie Taylor Alpha Gamma Technologies, Inc.

TO: Sims Roy, EPA OAQPS ESD Combustion Group The purpose of this memorandum is to document the emission factors used to estimate national impacts associated with the regulatory requirements for existing and new stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines ( RICE). The RICE emission factors were determined for four different engine subcategories: spark ignition two stroke lean burn ( 2SLB), spark ignition four stroke lean burn, spark ignition four stroke rich burn ( 4SRB), and compression ignition ( CI).

The RICE Emissions Database was used to estimate the emission factors. More information about the Emissions Database can be found in the memorandum entitled " Emissions Data for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines." The emission factors, which are presented in Table 1, represent uncontrolled emissions and are in units of either pounds per hour ( lb/ hr) or pounds per horsepower hour ( lb/ hp hr). In estimating the emission factors, test data from engines rated at greater than 500 horsepower, operating at all loads, were used. Tests where all three runs were not detected or not reported were excluded from the analysis. For the spark ignition 2SLB, 4SLB, and 4SRB subcategories, tests for engines firing natural gas and process gas were used. For the CI subcategory, tests for diesel fired engines were used. Attached in Appendix A is an Excel spreadsheet of the test data used to estimate the emission factors.

A previous version of this memorandum based on information developed for the proposed RICE NESHAP was entered into the docket at the time of proposal ( Document ID Number OAR 2002 0059 0366 or A 95 35 II B 36). Based on comments received during the proposal period, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein tests conducted using the CARB 430 test method were scrutinized due to the CARB advisory 2 issued on April 28, 2000, in which CARB advised that formaldehyde and acetaldehyde data based on the use of CARB 430 in emissions containing greater than 50 ppmvd of NO X are suspect and should be flagged as non quantitative. The advisory also stated that CARB 430 should not be used for the determination of acrolein. As a result of the CARB advisory, the formaldehyde and acetaldehyde tests that were done with CARB 430 were excluded from the emission factor determination because the NO X emissions were unknown. The tests where acrolein was measured using CARB 430 were also excluded due to the CARB advisory. This memorandum presents the revised emission factors.

Table 1. RICE Emission Factors Pollutant 4SRB 4SLB 2SLB CI Factor Unit Acetaldehyde 8.56e 03 1.01e 01 1.02e 01 1.81e 02 lb/ hr Acroleina 8.54e 02 1.07e 01 lb/ hr Formaldehyde 6.50e 02 7.53e 01 7.50e 01 2.24e 02 lb/ hr Methanolb 1.26e 02 4.53e 02 3.81e 02 lb/ hr Total HAPc 8.61e 02 9.84e 01 9.98e 01 4.04e 02 lb/ hr CO 2.51e+ 01 5.57e+ 00 5.19e+ 00 6.96e 01 lb/ hr NOx 2.20e 02 lb/ hp hr PM 7.00e 04 lb/ hp hr a No acrolein data was available for 4SRB and CI RICE. b No methanol data was available for CI RICE. c Total HAP is the sum of acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, and methanol. 3 Appendix A Spreadsheets