[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70048-70052]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28691]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63275; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2010-100]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the
Applicable Sections of Its Schedules of Fees and Charges for Exchange
Services for Both Its Equities and Options Platforms (the
``Schedules'') To Reflect Fees Charged for Co-location Services

November 8, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\

notice is hereby given that, on November 3, 2010, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the
``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the applicable sections of its
Schedules of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services for both its
equities and options platforms (the ``Schedules'') to reflect fees
charged for co-location services as described more fully herein. The
text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the
Commission's Public Reference Room, on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov, and http://www.nyse.com.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedules to identify fees
pertaining to co-location services, which allow Users \4\ of the
Exchange to rent space on premises controlled by the Exchange in order
that they may locate their electronic servers in close physical
proximity to the Exchange's trading and execution systems.\5\ The
Exchange plans to offer these co-location services beginning in January
2011 at its data center in Mahwah, New Jersey.\6\ The Exchange will
offer space at the data center in cabinets with power usage capability
of either four or eight kilowatts (kW).\7\ In addition, the Exchange
will offer Users services related to co-location, including cross
connections, equipment and cable installation, and remote ``hot-hands''
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For the purposes of this filing, the term ``Users'' includes
any ETP Holder or Sponsored Participant who is authorized to obtain
access to the NYSE Arca Marketplace pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 7.29 (see NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(yy)), or any OTP Holder,
OTP Firm or Sponsored Participant that is authorized to obtain
access to OX pursuant to NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.2A (see NYSE Arca
Options Rule 6.1A(a)(19)).
    \5\ The Commission has approved proposed rule filings submitted
by the Exchange's affiliates, the New York Stock Exchange LLC, and
NYSE Amex LLC (with respect to its equities business), to offer the
same co-location services from the Mahwah data center at the same
prices. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62961 (September 21,
2010), 75 FR 59299 (September 27, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-56);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62960 (September 21, 2010) 75 FR
59310 (September 27, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-80).
    \6\ The Exchange will announce the effective date of the fees
set forth in this proposed rule change through a notice to Users.
    \7\ The Exchange also allows Users, for a monthly fee (i.e., 40%
of the applicable monthly per kW fee), to obtain an option for
future use on available, unused cabinet space in proximity to their
existing cabinet space. Specifically, Users may reserve cabinet
space of up to 30% of the cabinet space under contract, which the
Exchange will endeavor to provide as close as reasonably possible to
the User's existing cabinet space, taking into consideration power
availability within segments of the data center and the overall
efficiency of use of data center resources as determined by the
Exchange. (If the 30% measurement results in a fractional cabinet,
the cabinet count is adjusted up to the next increment.) If reserved
cabinet space becomes needed for use, the reserving User will have
30 business days to formally contract with the Exchange for full
payment for the reserved cabinet space needed or the space will be
reassigned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Users that receive co-location services from the Exchange will not
receive any means of access to the Exchange's trading and execution
systems that is separate from or superior to that of Users that do not
receive co-location services. All orders sent to the Exchange enter the
Exchange's trading and execution systems through the same order gateway
regardless of whether the sender is co-located in the Exchange's data
center or not. In addition, co-located Users do not receive any market
data or data service product that is not available to all Users.
However, Users that receive co-location services normally would expect
reduced latencies in sending orders to the Exchange and receiving
market data from the Exchange. In addition, co-located Users have the
option of obtaining access to the Exchange's Liquidity Center Network
(``LCN''), a local area network available in the data center.\8\ Co-
located Users have the option of using either the LCN or the Exchange's
Secure Financial Transaction Infrastructure (``SFTI'') network, to
which all Users have access. Because it operates as a local area
network within the data center, the LCN provides reduced latencies in
comparison with SFTI. Other than the reduced latencies, the Exchange
believes that there are no material differences in terms of access to
the Exchange between Users that choose to co-locate and those that do
not. SFTI and LCN both provide Users with access to the Exchange's
trading and execution systems and to the Exchange's proprietary market
data products. User access to non-proprietary market data products is
available through SFTI and not through LCN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As set forth below, pricing for LCN access is provided on a
stand-alone basis and on a bundled basis in combination with SFTI
connections and optic connections to outside access centers and
within the data center. The SFTI and optic connections are not
related to the co-location services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange offers co-location space based on availability and the
Exchange believes that it has sufficient space in the Mahwah data
center to accommodate current demand on an equitable basis for the
foreseeable future. In addition, the Exchange believes that any
difference among the positions of the cabinets within the data center
does not create any material difference to co-location Users in terms
of access to the Exchange.
    The following charts identify the proposed tiered fees for co-
location and the proposed fees for related services.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Initial fee per cabinet                                          $5,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Number of kWs                                         Per kW fee monthly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-8...................................................                                                    $1,200
12-20.................................................                                                    $1,050
24-40.................................................                                                      $950
44 +..................................................                                                      $900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Type of service              Description       Amount of charge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LCN Access.....................  1 GB Circuit.......  $6,000 per
                                                       connection
                                                       initial charge
                                                       plus $5,000
                                                       monthly per
                                                       connection.
LCN Access.....................  10 GB Circuit......  $10,000 per
                                                       connection.
Bundled Network Access, Option   1 GB Bundle........  $25,000 initial
 1 (2 LCN connections, 2 SFTI    10 GB Bundle.......   charge plus
 connections, and 2 optic                              $13,000 monthly
 connections to outside access                         charge.
 center).                                             $50,000 initial
                                                       charge plus
                                                       $47,000 monthly
                                                       charge.
Bundled Network Access, Option   1 GB Bundle........  $26,000 initial
 2 (2 LCN connections, 2 SFTI    10 GB Bundle.......   charge plus
 connections, 1 optic                                  $16,000 monthly
 connection to outside access                          charge.
 center, and 1 optic connection                       $50,000 initial
 in data center).                                      charge plus
                                                       $54,250 monthly
                                                       charge.
Bundled Network Access, Option   1 GB Bundle........  $27,500 initial
 3 (2 LCN Connections, 2 SFTI    10 GB Bundle.......   charge plus
 connections, and 2 optic                              $19,000 monthly
 connections in data center).                          charge.
                                                      $50,000 initial
                                                       charge plus
                                                       $61,500 monthly
                                                       charge.
Data Center Fiber Cross Connect  Cross connect        $500 per unit
                                  between a single     initial charge
                                  User's cabinets      plus $500 monthly
                                  within the data      per unit.
                                  center.
Initial Install Services         Includes initial     $800 per cabinet.
 (Required per cabinet).          racking of
                                  equipment in
                                  cabinet and
                                  provision of up to
                                  10 cables (4 hrs).
Hot Hands Service: Normal        Applies on non-NYSE  $200 per hour.
 Business Hours, Scheduled        Arca holidays,
 (Note: Hot Hands Service         Monday to Friday,
 allows Users to use on-site      9am to 5pm if
 data center personnel to         scheduled at least
 maintain User equipment.).       1 day in advance.
Hot Hands Service: Extended      Applies Monday to    $275 per hour.
 Business Hours, Scheduled.       Friday 5pm to 9am,
                                  NYSE Arca
                                  holidays, and
                                  weekends if
                                  scheduled at least
                                  1 day in advance.
Hot Hands Service: Normal        Applies on non-NYSE  $250 per hour.
 Business Hours, Expedited.       Arca holidays,
                                  Monday to Friday,
                                  9am to 5pm if NOT
                                  scheduled at least
                                  1 day in advance.
Hot Hands Service: Extended      Applies Monday to    $325 per hour.
 Business Hours, Expedited.       Friday 5pm to 9am,
                                  NYSE Arca
                                  holidays, and
                                  weekends if NOT
                                  scheduled at least
                                  1 day in advance.
Rack and Stack.................  Installation of one  $200 per server.
                                  server in User's
                                  cabinet. Service
                                  encompasses
                                  handling,
                                  unpacking,
                                  tagging, and
                                  installation of
                                  the server as well
                                  as 1 network
                                  connection within
                                  the User rack.
Power Recycling................  Reboot of power on   $50 per reset.
                                  one server or
                                  switch as well as
                                  observing and
                                  reporting on the
                                  status of the
                                  reboot back to the
                                  User.
Shipping and Receiving.........  Receipt of one       $100 per shipment.
                                  shipment of goods
                                  at data center
                                  from User/
                                  supplier. Includes
                                  coordination of
                                  shipping and
                                  receiving.
Badge Request..................  Request for          $50 per badge.
                                  provision of a
                                  permanent data
                                  center site access
                                  badge for a User
                                  representative.
External Cabinet Cable Tray....  Engineer, furnish    $400 per tray.
                                  and install Rittal
                                  5'H x 12'W cable
                                  tray on cabinet.
Custom External Cabinet Cable    Engineer, furnish    $100 per linear
 Tray.                            and install 4'' H    foot.
                                  x 24'' W custom
                                  basket cable tray
                                  above client's
                                  cabinet rows.
Install and Document Cable.....  Labor charges to     $200 per hour.
                                  install and
                                  document the
                                  fitting of a
                                  cable(s) in a
                                  User's cabinet(s)
                                  in excess of the
                                  10 copper cables
                                  included in the
                                  cabinet
                                  installation fee.
Equipment Maintenance Call       Hardware             $100 per call.
 Escalation.                      maintenance-break
                                  fix services
                                  available through
                                  NYSE Arca
                                  arrangement with
                                  Delta Computer
                                  Group.
Visitor Security Escort........  NYSE Arca employee   $75 per hour.
                                  escort, which is
                                  required during
                                  User visits to the
                                  data center.
                                  (Note: all User
                                  representatives
                                  are required to
                                  have a visitor
                                  security escort
                                  during visits to
                                  the data center,
                                  including User
                                  representatives
                                  who have a
                                  permanent data
                                  center site access
                                  badge.).
Technician Support Service-Non   Network technician   $200 per hour.
 Emergency.                       equipped to
                                  support User
                                  network
                                  troubleshooting
                                  activity and to
                                  provide all
                                  necessary testing
                                  instruments to
                                  support the User
                                  request. Prior day
                                  notice is required.

Technician Support Service-      Network technician   $325 per hour.
 Emergency.                       equipped to
                                  support User
                                  network
                                  troubleshooting
                                  activity and to
                                  provide all
                                  necessary testing
                                  instruments to
                                  support the User
                                  request. Two hour
                                  notice is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\9\ in general, and Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5), of the
Act,\10\ in particular, in that it is designed to (i) provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members and other persons using its facilities, and (ii) prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system. The Exchange believes that the
proposed changes to the Schedules are equitable in that they apply fees
for comparable co-location services uniformly to our Users. Moreover,
the Exchange believes that, as described herein, access to its market
is offered on fair and non-discriminatory terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Commission notes that the Exchange satisfied this five-day pre-
filing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. The Commission notes that the co-location fees sought
to be codified here are based on filings by the Exchange's affiliates,
the New York Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Amex LLC, which have already
been approved by the Commission, and that accelerated approval of the
co-location fees will ensure that the co-location services and fees are
made available to all interested parties without delay. For this
reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change as operative
upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-NYSEArca-2010-100 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-100.
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 website
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEArca-2010-100 and should be submitted on or before December 7,
2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28691 Filed 11-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 57 (Monday, March 25, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17915-17917]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06649]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233; FRL-9793-7]

EPA Responses to State and Tribal 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Designation
Recommendations: Notice of Availability and Public Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of reopening of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing the reopening of the public comment
period for the EPA's responses to state and tribal designation
recommendations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air
Quality Standard. The EPA sent the responses directly to the states and
tribes on or about February 7, 2013. On February 15, 2013, the EPA
published a notice of availability in the

Federal Register that the EPA had posted the responses on its Internet
Web site and the EPA invited public comment. In the notice of
availability, the EPA stated that public comments must be received on
or before March 18, 2013. The EPA has received several requests from
stakeholders for additional time to prepare their comments. Some of the
requesters asserted that they needed additional time to review the
EPA's response to state's proposed designation and prepare their
responses due to the complexity of the issues impacting their area.
Taking that into consideration, the EPA is reopening the comment period
until April 8, 2013. The EPA intends to make final the designation
determinations for the areas of the country addressed by these
responses in June 2013.

DATES: Comments on the notice of availability published February 15,
2013 (78 FR 11124) must be received on or before April 8, 2013. Please
refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on the
comment period.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0233, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0233.
     Mail: Air Docket, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-
0233, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 6102T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Avenue
NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0233. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk you
submit. If the EPA is unable to read your comment and cannot contact
you for clarification due to technical difficulties, the EPA may not be
able to consider your input. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket,
visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to
Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, 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 www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202)
566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions concerning this
action, please contact Rhonda Wright, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning Division, C539-04,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding areas in EPA Region 1,
please contact Donald Dahl, U.S. EPA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding areas in EPA Region 2,
please contact Kenneth Fradkin, U.S. EPA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding areas in EPA
Region 3, please contact Irene Shandruk, U.S. EPA, telephone (215) 814-
2166, email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding areas in
EPA Region 4, please contact Lynorae Benjamin, U.S. EPA, telephone
(404) 562-9040, email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions
regarding areas in EPA Region 5, please contact John Summerhays, U.S.
EPA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
questions regarding areas in EPA Region 6, please contact Dayana
Medina, U.S. EPA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding areas in EPA Region 7,
please contact Larry Gonzalez, U.S. EPA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding areas in EPA
Region 8, please contact Crystal Ostigaard, U.S. EPA, telephone (303)
312-6602, email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding
areas in EPA Region 9, please contact John Kelly, U.S. EPA, telephone
(415) 947-4151, email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding
areas in EPA Region 10, please contact Steve Body, U.S. EPA, telephone
(206) 553-0782, email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Instructions for Submitting Public Comments and Internet Web Site
for Rulemaking Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA
through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI in a disk or CD-ROM
that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI
and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information that is claimed as confidential business information. In
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver
information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto
Morales, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, Mail Code C404-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention
Docket ID No. OAR-2012-0233.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.

B. Where can I find additional information for this rulemaking?

    The EPA has also established a Web site for this rulemaking at
http://www.epa.gov/so2designations. The Web site includes the EPA's
state and tribal designation recommendations, information supporting
the EPA's preliminary designation decisions, as well as the rulemaking
actions and other related information that the public may find useful.

    Dated: March 19, 2013.
Mary E. Henigin,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2013-06649 Filed 3-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 204 (Monday, October 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53238-53239]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22945]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC19-12-000.
    Applicants: Meadowlark Wind I LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, et al. of Meadowlark Wind I LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/16/18.
    Accession Number: 20181016-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4338-004.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance to set effective date--
Order No. 745 Demand Response to be effective 10/31/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/16/18.
    Accession Number: 20181016-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2312-000.
    Applicants: Enel Green Power Diamond Vista Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to August 31, 2018 Supplement to Enel Green
Power Diamond Vista Wind Project, LLC tariff filing. Also on October
12, 2018 filed a supplement to the October 11, 2018 filing.
    Filed Date: 10/11/18; 10/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20181011-5200; 20181012-5213.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2330-000.
    Applicants: Enel Green Power Rattlesnake Creek Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to August 28, 2018 Enel Green Power
Rattlesnake Creek Wind Project, LLC tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 10/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20181012-5216.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2361-000.
    Applicants: Enel Green Power Hilltopper Wind, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to August 30, 2018 Enel Green Power
Hilltopper Wind, LLC tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 10/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20181012-5218.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-66-000.
    Applicants: Conemaugh Power Pass-Through Holders LLC.
    Description: Amendment to October 9, 2018 Conemaugh Power Pass-
Through Holders LLC tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 10/15/18.
    Accession Number: 20181015-5159.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-70-000.
    Applicants: Keystone Power Pass-Through Holders LLC.
    Description: Amendment to October 9, 2018 Keystone Power Pass-
Through Holders LLC tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 10/15/18.
    Accession Number: 20181015-5161.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-111-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Balancing Accounts Update
2019 (TRBAA, RSBAA, ECRBAA) to be effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 10/15/18.
    Accession Number: 20181015-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-112-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-10-16_SA 2395
MidAmerican-ITC Midwest 4th Rev GIA (H021 J041) to be effective 9/28/
2018.
    Filed Date: 10/16/18.
    Accession Number: 20181016-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-113-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. submits Third Quarter 2018
Capital Budget Report.
    Filed Date: 10/15/18.
    Accession Number: 20181015-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-114-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ALLETE,
Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-10-16_SA 3183 MP-GRE T-
L IA (Bellevue) to be effective 10/17/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/16/18.
    Accession Number: 20181016-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-115-000.
    Applicants: FL Solar 5, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: FL Solar 5, LLC MBR
Application to be effective 11/15/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/16/18.
    Accession Number: 20181016-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-116-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ALLETE,
Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-10-16_SA 3187 MP-GRE T-
L IA (St. Stephens) to be effective 10/17/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/16/18.
    Accession Number: 20181016-5123.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-117-000.
    Applicants: Innovative Solar 54, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline new to be effective
12/9/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/16/18.
    Accession Number: 20181016-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-118-000.
    Applicants: Innovative Solar 67, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline new to be effective
12/6/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/16/18.
    Accession Number: 20181016-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 16, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-22945 Filed 10-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 139 (Friday, July 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33903-33904]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15344]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0341; FRL-9962-92-OAR]

Notice of Availability of Two Updated Chapters in the
Environmental Protection Agency's Air Pollution Control Cost Manual

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability and public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice
that two chapters of the current EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual
(Control Cost Manual) have been updated. The EPA is requesting comment
on: Chapter 1, Section 3 and Section 3.1, ``Carbon Adsorbers,'' and
Chapter 1, Section 3 and Section 3.2, ``Flares.'' These two Control
Cost Manual chapters cover control measures for volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 19, 2017. Please
refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on
submitting comments on the provided data.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0341, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web,
Cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Sorrels, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division, Environmental Protection Agency, C439-
02, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA is requesting comment on the
specific Control Cost Manual chapters included in this notice.

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA
through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA docket office, mark the outside of
the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the
disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulation
(CFR) part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to: Identify the notification by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or
section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language/data for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Information Available for Public Comment

    The EPA is requesting comment on two updated chapters of the EPA
Air Pollution Control Cost Manual. The Control Cost Manual contains
individual chapters on control measures, including data and equations
to aid users in estimating capital costs for installation and annual
costs for operation and maintenance of these measures. The Control Cost
Manual is used by the EPA for estimating the impacts of rulemakings,
and serves as a basis for sources to estimate costs of controls that
are Best Available Control Technology under the New Source Review
Program, and Best Available Retrofit Technology under the Regional Haze
Program and for other programs.
    The two updated Control Cost Manual chapters are: Chapter 1,
Section 3 and Section 3.1, Carbon Adsorbers; Chapter 1, Section 3 and
Section 3.2, Flares. These two revised Control Cost Manual chapters can
be found in the docket for the Control Cost Manual update (Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0341). The current Control Cost Manual version
(sixth edition) is available at http://epa.gov/ttn/catc/products.html#cccinfo, and was last updated in 2003. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2014 requested that the EPA begin development of
a seventh edition of the Control Cost Manual. The EPA has met with
state, local, and tribal officials to discuss plans for the Control
Cost Manual update as called for under the Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 2014. The EPA has met with other groups as well at their
request. The EPA has recently updated the selective non-catalytic
reduction (SNCR) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) chapters, the
first two chapters (Chapter 1, Section 4; Chapter 2, Section 4,
respectively) completed for the seventh edition of the Control Cost
Manual, and made them available to the public in May 2016 (81 FR 38702,
June 14, 2016). In addition, the EPA has submitted updated draft
versions of the Refrigerated Condensers (Chapter 1, Section 3 and
Section 3.1) and Incinerators (Chapter 2, Section 3, Section 3.2, now
Incinerators/Oxidizers) chapters and the Cost Estimation: Concepts and
Methodology chapter (Chapter 2, Section 1) as part of a notice released
on September 22, 2016 (81 FR 65352). The Agency is currently reviewing
comments submitted in response to the NODA, and will finalize these
three chapters in the near future.
    To help focus review of the Carbon Adsorbers (Chapter 1, Section 3,
and Section 3.1) and Flares (Chapter 1, Section 3 and Section 3.2)
chapters, we offer the following list of questions that the EPA is
particularly interested in addressing in the updated chapters.
Commenters are welcome to address any aspects of these chapters. Please

provide supporting data for responses to these questions and for other
comments on the chapters.
    For the Carbon Adsorbers chapter:

    (1) What is a reasonable estimate of equipment life (defined as
design or operational life) for this control measure?
    (2) Is the description of carbon adsorbers complete, up to date,
and accurate, particularly with regard to control of VOC?
    (3) Are the cost correlations, factors, and equations for carbon
adsorbers accurate? If not, how should they be revised? Please provide
data, if possible, to address inaccuracies.
    (4) Are the estimates of VOC removal or control efficiency for
carbon adsorbers accurate? If not, what are more accurate estimates?
Please provide data, if possible, to address inaccuracies.

    For the Flares chapter:

    (1) What is a reasonable estimate of equipment life (defined as
design or operational life) for this control measure?
    (2) Is the description of flares technology complete, up to date,
and accurate?
    (3) Are the cost correlations, factors, and equations for flares
accurate? If not, how should they be revised? Please provide data, if
possible, to address inaccuracies.
    (4) Are the estimates of flares VOC destruction efficiency
accurate? If not, what are more accurate estimates? Please provide
data, if possible, to address inaccuracies.

    Dated: May 23, 2017.
Stephen Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2017-15344 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43150-43151]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17758]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75459; File No. SR-EDGA-2015-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To
Amend Rules 11.6, 11.8, 11.9, 11.10 and 11.11 of EDGA Exchange, Inc.

July 15, 2015.
    On February 20, 2015, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend Rules 11.6, 11.8, 11.9, 11.10 and 11.11
to clarify and to include additional specificity regarding the current
functionality of the Exchange's system, including the operation of its
order types and order instructions. On February 27, 2015, the Exchange
filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal.\3\ The proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the Federal
Register on March 10, 2015.\4\ On April 17, 2015, the Commission
extended the time period in which to either approve or disapprove the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, to June 8,
2015.\5\ The Commission received no comment letters on the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1. On June 5, 2015, EDGA
withdrew the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 (SR-
EDGA-2015-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 replaced SR-EDGA-2015-10 and superseded such
filing in its entirety.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74435 (March 4,
2015), 80 FR 12655.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74763 (April 17,
2015), 80 FR 22751 (April 23, 2015).

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-17758 Filed 7-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Data Requirement:				PMRA Data Code	 		{............}
                        EPA DP Barcode				420874
                        OECD Data Point			{............}
                        EPA MRID 					49307514
                        EPA Guideline				850.1010

Test material:	Dacthal(R) technical herbicide			Purity:	99.857%
Common name:    DCPA
Chemical name:	IUPAC: Dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate
            CAS name: 1,4-Dimethyl 2,3,5,6-tetrachloro-1,4-benzenedicarboxylate
            CAS No.: 1861-32-1
            Synonyms: Chlorthal; Chlorthal-dimethyl

Primary Reviewer: Mary Samuel								Signature:
Environmental Scientist, CDM Smith/CSS-Dynamac JV		Date:   10/06/2016

Secondary Reviewer: John Marton, Ph.D.						Signature:
Environmental Scientist, CDM Smith/CSS-Dynamac JV		Date:   10/27/2016

Primary Reviewer:	Christina M. Wendel						Signature:
EPA/OPP/EFED/ERB2/Biologist 								Date: 10/25/2021

Secondary Reviewer(s): Michael Wagman						Signature:
EPA/OPP/EFED/ERB2/Senior Scientist						Date: 11/10/2021

Reference/Submission No.:  {.....................}

Company Code 		{............}	[For PMRA]
Active Code			{............}	[For PMRA]
Use Site Category:	{............}	[For PMRA]
EPA PC Code 		078701

Date Evaluation Completed: 10-11-2021

CITATION: Shaw, A.C.  2013.  Dacthal - Acute Toxicity of Water Fleas, Daphnia magna, Under Static Conditions, Following OCSPP Guideline 850.1010. Unpublished study performed by Smithers Viscient, Wareham, Massachusetts, USA. Laboratory Study No. 11857.6107. Study sponsored by AMVAC Chemical Corporation, Newport Beach, California, USA. Study initiated May 22, 2013 and completed November 15, 2013.

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The 48-hour acute toxicity of Dacthal(R) (DCPA) to Daphnia magna was studied under static conditions. Daphnids were exposed to Dacthal(R) (DCPA) at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative and solvent controls), 0.031, 0.063, 0.13, 0.25 and 0.50 mg a.i./L. The mean-measured concentrations were <0.0026 (<LOQ, controls), 0.032, 0.066, 0.13, 0.27 and 0.55 mg a.i./L.

Mortality and sublethal effects were observed daily. No immobility (mortality) or sublethal effects were observed in the control or treatment groups in this experiment.  The 48-hour EC50 was >0.55 mg a.i./L (>550 ug a.i./L), and the observed NOAEC was 0.55 mg a.i./L (550 ug a.i./L) using mean-measured concentrations.

Based on the results of this study, Dacthal(R) (DCPA) would be classified as not toxic up to the highest mean-measured concentration (and/or the solubility limit of DCPA) to Daphnia magna in accordance with the classification system of the U.S. EPA.

It should be noted that the highest nominal concentration is at/above the solubility limit for DCPA (0.5 mg/L). However, both the stock solutions and test concentrations were mixed by inversion and were clear and colorless with no undissolved test substance throughout the test. This indicates that the test material was in solution, and the analytical measurements are deemed to be reliable.

This study is scientifically sound and is classified as acceptable.

   Results Synopsis

   Test Organism Age (e.g., 1[st] instar): <24-hours old
   Test Type (Flow-through, Static, Static Renewal): Static

   48-hour EC50: >0.55 mg a.i./L	(>550 ug a.i./L)		95% C.I.: N/A
   Probit Slope:  N/A								95% C.I.: N/A
   Observational NOAEC: 0.55 mg a.i./L (550 ug a.i./L)

   Endpoint(s) Affected:  None

I. MATERIALS AND METHODS

   GUIDELINE FOLLOWED:		The study protocol was based upon procedures outlined in the U.S. EPA Ecological Effects Test Guideline (Draft, 1996), OCSPP (form. OPPTS) 850.1010, Aquatic Invertebrate Acute Toxicity Test, Freshwater Daphnids. The following deficiencies were noted:

 Health of the parental daphnids (e.g., number of broods, presence of ephippia) was not described. This is an uncertainty and considered a minor study deficiency for both the draft OPPTS and final OCSPP 850.1010 guideline.
 The hardness, particulate matter, and chlorine content of the dilution water were not reported. OCSPP guideline recommend that these parameters are measured and that these water quality characteristics meet EPA specifications. The lack of reporting is considered a minor study deficiency for both the draft OPPTS and final OCSPP 850.1010 guideline.
 Results from the periodic screening analysis of the dilution water were not reported in the study report, although representative samples were analyzed periodically for the presence of pesticides, PCBs and toxic metals by GeoLabs, Inc., Braintree, MA. The study author reported that no contaminants were detected in levels considered toxic. However, the results of these analyses were not provided in the study report for reference, which is considered a minor study deficiency for both the draft OPPTS and final OCSPP 850.1010 guideline.

   These study deficiencies do not have an impact on the acceptability of this study.

   COMPLIANCE:				Signed and dated GLP, Quality Assurance, and Data Confidentiality statements were provided.  This study was conducted in compliance with all pertinent U.S. EPA GLP (40 CFR, Part 160) regulations with the following exceptions: routine food and water contaminant screening analyses.  These analyses, however, were performed using certified laboratories and standard validated methods.

   A. MATERIALS:

   	1. Test material  				Dacthal(R) technical herbicide

      Description: 				Not reported

      Lot No./Batch No. :			120904-1

      Purity: 						99.857%

      Stability of compound
      under test conditions:		Stable. The mean-measured concentrations ranged from 100 to 110% of nominal concentrations.

      Storage conditions of
      test chemicals: 				Dark, room temperature

		 Physicochemical properties of DCPA.
Parameter
Values
Comments
Water solubility at 20°C
Not reported

Vapor pressure
Not reported

UV absorption
Not reported

pKa
Not reported

Kow
Not reported

      (OECD recommends water solubility, stability in water and light, pKa, Pow, vapor pressure of test compound)
   	2. Test organism:

		Species: 					Daphnia magna
		Age at test initiation:			<24-hours old
		Source: 						Smithers Viscient laboratory culture

   B.  STUDY DESIGN:

      1. Experimental Conditions

         a. Range-finding Study:  A 48-hour static range-finding study was performed at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative and solvent (DMF) controls), 0.000050, 0.00050, 0.0050, 0.050 and 0.50 mg/L. After 48 hours, no immobility or sub-lethal effects were observed among daphnids exposed to any of the treatment levels tested or the controls.

         Nominal concentrations selected for use in the definitive study were based on these results and in consultation with the sponsor.

         b. Definitive Study

Table 1:  Experimental Parameters
                                   Parameter
                                    Details
                                    Remarks

                                   Criteria
Acclimation
Period and conditions:

Feeding:

Health:  (any mortality observed)

N/A- No acclimation period was necessary because the culturing and test conditions were the same (temperature, dilution water, and lighting).

Daphnids were fed unicellular green algae, Ankistrodesmus falcatus (4 x10[7] cells/mL), and supplemented with suspension of YCT (yeast, cereal leaves and flaked fish food). Daphnids were not fed during the test.

No signs of immobility or sub-lethal effects were observed.
Adults were cultured in water from the same source as used in testing.

Representative samples of the food source were analyzed periodically for the presence of pesticides, PCBs and toxic metals by GeoLabs, Inc., Braintree, MA. None of these compounds have been detected in the food samples at concentrations considered to be toxic in any of the samples analyzed. However, the results of these analyses were not provided in the study report for reference.

The recommended acclimation period is a minimum of 7 days. Organisms should not feed during the study.
Pretest mortality should be <3% 48 hours prior to testing.
Duration of the test

48 hours

EPA requires 96 hours, except daphnids which are 48 hours.
Test condition

Static/flow-through

Type of dilution system for flow- through method.

Renewal rate for static renewal

Static

N/A

N/A

The recommended flow rates are 5 - 10 volume additions/24 hours; meter systems should be calibrated before and after the study and checked twice daily during the test period.
Aeration, if any
No aeration was provided during the test.

Test vessel

Material: (glass/stainless steel)
Size:
Fill volume:

Glass beakers
250 mL
200 mL

EPA requires:  small organisms in 3.9 L (1 gallon) wide mouth jars with 2-3 L of solution or daphnids and midge larvae in 250 ml jars w/ 200 ml fill
Source of dilution water
Dilution water was prepared by fortifying well water and filtering through an Amberlite XAD-7 resin column. The dilution water had a hardness of 160 mg/L as CaCO3, total alkalinity of 92 mg/L, a conductivity of 580 uS/cm, a pH of 8.2, and a dissolved oxygen concentration of 8.1 mg/L.

Representative samples of the dilution water were analyzed periodically for the presence of pesticides, PCBs and toxic metals by GeoLabs, Inc., Braintree, MA. None of these compounds have been detected in the water samples at concentrations considered to be toxic in any of the samples analyzed, in agreement with ASTM (2002) standard practice.

Recommended source of dilution water is soft, reconstituted water or water from a natural, uncontaminated source.  EPA does not recommend the use of dechlorinated tap water; however, its use may be supportable if the biological responses for the organisms and chemical analyses of residual chlorine meet conditions in the Agency's 850.1010 guidelines for dilution water (http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/OPPTS_Harmonized/850_Ecological_Effects_Test_Guidelines/Draft/850.1010Opdf).  Dilution water should be intensely aerated before the study.
Water parameters

Hardness
pH
Dissolved oxygen

Temperature
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Particulate matter
Metals
Pesticides
Chlorine

Not reported
8.1 to 8.3
7.1 to 8.2 (5.6, and 5.3 mg/L represent 60% saturation at 19ºC, and 21ºC, respectively; and 9.7, and 9.3 mg/L represent 105% saturation at 19ºC, and 21ºC, respectively)
18-21°C
1.8 mg/L (dilution water, July 2013)
Not reported
Not detected
Not detected
Not reported
Dilution water had a hardness of 160 mg/L as CaCO3 (same as culture water).

In addition, representative samples of dilution water were analyzed monthly for TOC concentration.

Hardness:
EPA recommends  40 - 48 mg/L as CaCO3 (OECD recommends 140 - 250 mg/L)
pH:
EPA recommends: 7.2 - 7.6 (OECD recommends pH of 6-9); measured at start and end of test in control, high, medium, and low test concentrations
Temperature:
EPA recommends: 20[o]C for Daphnia (measured hourly) in at least one test vessel or if water baths are used, every 6 hr, may not vary > 1[o]C;
OECD recommends range of 18-22C (+-1C)
Dissolved oxygen:
EPA recommends: Measured at start and every 48 hours thereafter in control, high, medium, and low test concentrations.
Static: 60-100% during 1[st] 48 hr and 40-100% during 2[nd] 48 hr
Flow-through: 60-100% at all times
Number of replicates
Negative control:
Solvent control:
Treatments:

4
4
4 per level
Daphnids were impartially selected and distributed.

EPA requires 2 or more containers for each treatment group; individuals must be randomly assigned to test vessels

OECD recommends 4 groups of 5 animals for each test concentration and the controls
Number of organisms per replicate
Negative control:
Solvent control:
Treatments:

5
5
5 per level
20 daphnids per concentration and control.

EPA/OECD requires 5 treatment levels plus one or more control groups; no more than 10% or 5% of control organisms should die during a static or flow-through study, respectively

EPA requires a minimum of 20 daphnids in 2 or more containers per treatment; however, if a limit test is conducted, it must be shown that the LC50/EC50 is >100 mg/L by exposing 30 organisms to >=100 mg/L or greater. Biomass loading rate for static <= 0.8 g/L at <= 17[o]C and  0.5 g/L at > 17[o]C; flow-through:  10 g/L at <= 17[]C and <=5 g/L at > 17[]C.

OECD recommends a minimum of 20 animals, preferably with 4 groups of 5 animals for each test concentration. There should be at least 2ml of test solution for each animal.
Treatment concentrations
Nominal:

Mean-Measured:

0 (negative and solvent controls), 0.031, 0.063, 0.13, 0.25 and 0.50 mg a.i./L

<0.0026 (<LOQ, controls), 0.032, 0.066, 0.13, 0.27 and 0.55 mg a.i./L

Treatment concentrations should include a geometric series of at least five concentrations plus a control with each recommended concentration being at least 60% of the next higher one. The variability of measured concentrations between replicates of the same concentration should not exceed 1.5.

OECD recommends that the highest test concentration should result in 100% immobilization and not be >=1 g/L, while the lowest concentration should have no observable effect.
Solvent (type, percentage, if used)
Dimethylformamaide (DMF)
0.1 mL/L

Solvents should not exceed 0.5 ml/L for static tests or 0.1 ml/L for flow-though tests. OECD recommends that the solvent not exceed 100 mg/L.
Lighting
16-hours light/8-hours dark photoperiod. Fluorescent lighting with an intensity 650 to 830 lux (60-77 footcandles) in the culture area; and 370 to 850 lux (34-79 footcandles) in the test area. 30-minute transition period of low light intensity was provided when lights went on and off.

EPA-recommended photoperiod is 16 hours of light and 8 hours of dark with a 15-30 minute transition period.
OECD: optional light-dark cycle or complete darkness.
Stability of chemical in the test system
The mean-measured concentrations were 100 to 110% of nominal concentrations.
The highest nominal concentration is at the solubility limit for DCPA (0.5 mg/L). Stock solutions, and test concentrations were mixed by inversion and were clear and colorless w/ no undissolved test substance throughout test.
Recovery of chemical
Level of Quantitation (LOQ)
Level of Detection
100-110% of nominal
0.0026 mg/L
Not reported
At exposure initiation (0 hour) and exposure termination (48 hours), a single sample was removed from each test solution and control and analyzed for dacthal concentration. Samples removed at exposure initiation were taken from the intermediate vessels prior to division into replicate test vessels. The samples at exposure termination were a composite of all replicates within each concentration.

The method validation was conducted prior to test initiation (24 June 2013) and established an average recovery of 97.9 +- 4.86% for dacthal (DCPA) from 20%. filtered seawater (Appendix 2; pg. 40 in the study report).
Positive control {if used, indicate the chemical and concentrations}
N/A

Other parameters, if any
None

2. Observations:

Table 2:  Observations
                                   Criteria
                                    Details
                                    Remarks
Parameters measured including the sublethal effects
Immobility and sublethal effects (abnormal behavior or appearance)
Immobilization was defined as those animals not able to swim within 15 seconds after gentle agitation of the test vessel.
Observation intervals
0, 24 and 48 hours after test initiation

Were raw data included?
Yes

Other observations, if any
None

II. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

   A. MORTALITY:

   After 48 hours, no immobility was observed in the control or treatment groups. The EC50 was estimated as >0.55 mg a.i./L, based on the mean-measured concentrations.

Table 3:  Effect of Dacthal(R) (DCPA) on Mortality of Daphnia sp.[a]
                                Mean-measured
                         (and nominal) Concentrations
                                  (mg a.i./L)
                               No. of organisms
                              Observation period

                                   24 hours
                                   48 hours

                                   No. Dead
                                  % Immobile
                                   No. Dead
                                  % Immobile
<LOQ[b] (Dilution water only Control)
                                      20
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
<LOQ[b] (Solvent Control)
                                      20
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
0.032 (0.031)
                                      20
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
0.066 (0.063)
                                      20
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
0.13 (0.13)
                                      20
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
0.27 (0.25)
                                      20
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
0.55 (0.50)
                                      20
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
EC50 (with 95% CI)
>0.55 mg a.i./L
a	Data were obtained from Table 3 on page 24 of the study report.
b	LOQ = 0.0026 mg a.i./L

   B. SUB-LETHAL TOXICITY ENDPOINTS:

   No sublethal effects were observed for any treatment group during the test.

Table 4:  Effect of Dacthal(R) (DCPA) on Sublethal Effects  -  Daphnia magna
                                Mean-measured
                         (and nominal) Concentrations
                                  (mg a.i./L)
                              Observation Period

                                   24 hours
                                   48 hours

                                  % Affected
                                  % Affected
<LOQ[a] (Dilution water only Control)
                                       0
                                       0
<LOQ[a] (Solvent Control)
                                       0
                                       0
0.032 (0.031)
                                       0
                                       0
0.066 (0.063)
                                       0
                                       0
0.13 (0.13)
                                       0
                                       0
0.27 (0.25)
                                       0
                                       0
0.55 (0.50)
                                       0
                                       0
EC50
>0.55 mg a.i./L
Positive control, if used  % sublethal effect: EC50:
N/A
  a 	LOQ = 0.0026 mg a.i./L

   C. REPORTED STATISTICS:

   Due to the lack of immobility in the control and treatment groups, no statistical analyses were performed.

   D. VERIFICATION OF STATISTICAL RESULTS:

   Statistical Method: The mortality data and mean-measured concentrations of the test material were entered into the program CETIS, (Version <IP_ADDRESS>) with backend settings implemented by EFED on 10/20/15. There were no mortalities in the test, so statistical analyses were not conducted.

   48-hour EC50: >0.55 mg a.i./L	(>550 ug a.i./L)		95% C.I.: N/A
   Probit Slope:	 N/A								95% C.I.: N/A

   E.  STUDY DEFICIENCIES:

   Though minor deviations were noted, there were no major study deficiencies.

   F.  REVIEWER'S COMMENTS:

   The reviewer's results are in complete agreement with those of the study author's.

   The study was conducted following the draft OPPTS 850.1010 (1996) guideline, and the reviewer considered both the draft and the final OCSPP 850.1010 (2016) guideline in their evaluation of the data.

   The in-life phase of the definitive test was conducted from July 23 to July 25, 2013.

   Although the highest nominal concentration is at/above the solubility limit for DCPA (0.5 mg/L). Both the stock solutions, and test concentrations were mixed by inversion and were clear and colorless with no undissolved test substance throughout the test, indicating that the test material was in solution and deemed to be reliable.

   The method validation (June 24, 2013) as documented in Appendix 2 (pg. 40-53 in the study report) used 20%. seawater for the recovery method. It was conducted prior to test initiation and established an average recovery of 97.9 +- 4.86% for DCPA from 20%. filtered seawater. Although tested in `seawater' this was usable and acceptable method for recovery of DCPA in aquatic environments.

G. CONCLUSIONS:

   This study is scientifically sound and is classified as acceptable. After 48 hours, no mortalities or sublethal effects were observed in the controls or treatment groups. Based on the lack of effects, the EC50 value was >0.55 mg a.i./L (>550 ug a.i./L) and the observed NOAEC was 0.55 mg a.i./L (550 ug a.i./L) based on the mean-measured concentrations.

   48-hour EC50: >0.55 mg a.i./L	(>550 ug a.i./L)		95% C.I.: N/A
   Probit Slope:  N/A								95% C.I.: N/A
   Observational NOAEC: 0.55 mg a.i./L (550 ug a.i./L)

   Endpoint(s) Affected:  None

III. REFERENCES:

ASTM, 2002. Standard practice for conducting acute toxicity tests with fishes, macroinvertebrates and amphibians. Standard E729-88a. American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

Ives, M.  2013.  CETIS, Comprehensive Environmental Toxicity Information System (TM).  User's Guide.  Tidepool Scientific Software, McKinleyville, California.

U.S. EPA, 1996. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Ecological Effects Test Guideline. OCSPP 850.1010. Aquatic Invertebrate Acute Toxicity Test, Freshwater Daphnids, "Public Draft". EPA 712-C-96-114. April 1996. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.


MEMORANDUM

TO:  Portland Cement Rulemaking Docket

SUBJECT:	Meeting with Portland Cement Association and Cement Industry Representatives to discuss their concerns on the Final Portland Cement NESHAP and NSPS

LOCATION:	 US Environmental Protection Agency, 1220 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC 20460

DATE OF MEETING:  December 16, 2010

Participants:

Portland Cement Association (PCA)

And Cement Industry Counsels

Bryan Brendle, PCA

Jon Jewett, GCHI

Dick Stoll, Foley & Lardner, LLP

Debra Jezouit, Baker Botts, LLP

Roger Martella, Sidley Austin, LLP

Jason Morin, Holcim (by phone)	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Gina McCarthy

Joe Goffman

Janet McCabe

Peter Tsirigotis (by phone)

Steve Silverman

Keith Barnett (by phone)

The Portland Cement Association (PCA) met with EPA to discuss the issues laid out in their letter of December 3, 2010 (attached).


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30297-30298]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13649]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2019-31]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; L. Salcedo

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before July 16, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2019-0284
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Ross<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 18, 2019.
Brandon Roberts,
Acting Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2019-00284.
    Petitioner: L. Salcedo.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: 121.311(a), (b), (c).
    Description of Relief Sought: Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR
part 121.311(b) to the extent necessary to allow her son to use a child
restraint system (CRS), Frontier ClickTight Harness-2-Booster Seat,
manufactured by Britax. This request, if granted, would be precedent
setting because relief has not previously been given for the Frontier
ClickTight Harness-2-Booster Seat, manufactured by Britax. Therefore,
the FAA seeks public comment on whether the FAA should grant the
petitioner's request for an

exemption from 14 CFR 121.311(b) to allow her son to use a CRS,
Frontier ClickTight Harness-2-Booster Seat, manufactured by Britax,
during all phases of flight while on board U.S.-registered aircraft in
commercial air carrier operations under part 121.

[FR Doc. 2019-13649 Filed 6-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 36172]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15406]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: License
Requirements for Operation of a Launch Site

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The information to be collected includes data required for
performing launch site location analysis. The launch site license is
valid for a period of 5 years. Respondents are licensees authorized to
operate sites.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by August 22, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Scott on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0644.
    Title: License Requirements for Operation of a Launch Site.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The data requested for a license application to operate
a commercial launch site are required by 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, 701--
Commercial Space Launch Activities, 49 U.S.C. 70101-70119 (1994). The
information is needed in order to demonstrate to the FAA Office of
Commercial Space Transportation (FAA/AST) that the proposed activity
meets applicable public safety, national security, and foreign policy
interest of the United States.
    Respondents: Approximately 3 applicants.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 2,322 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 6,966 hours.
    Addresses: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms.
Carla Scott, Room 336, Federal Aviation Administration, AES-300, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 15, 2011.
Carla Scott,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2011-15406 Filed 6-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P