[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61425-61428]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25512]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65431; File No. SR-EDGA-2011-31]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change by EDGA Exchange, Inc. To Amend EDGA
Rule 11.14 To Revise the Current Methodology for Determining When To
Halt Trading in All Stocks Due to Extraordinary Market Volatility

September 28, 2011.
    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 September 27, 2011 EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.14 to revise the
current methodology for determining when trading in all stocks will be
halted due to extraordinary market volatility. The text of the proposed
rule change is attached as Exhibit 5 \3\ and is available on the
Exchange's Web site at http://www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's
principal office, and at the Public Reference Room of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission notes that Exhibit 5 is attached to the
filing, not to this Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.14 to revise the
current methodology for determining when trading in all stocks will be
halted due to extraordinary market volatility. The Exchange is
proposing this rule change in consultation with other equity, options
and futures markets, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') and staffs of the Commission and the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission.
    Since May 6, 2010, when the markets experienced excessive
volatility in an abbreviated time period, i.e., the ``flash crash,''
the exchanges and FINRA have implemented market-wide measures designed
to restore investor confidence by reducing the potential for excessive
market volatility. Among the measures adopted include pilot plans for
stock-by-stock trading pauses \4\ and related changes to the clearly
erroneous execution rules \5\ and more stringent market maker quoting
requirements. \6\ In addition, on April 5, 2011, the equities exchanges
and FINRA filed a plan pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS to
address extraordinary market volatility (the ``Limit Up-Limit Down
Plan'').\7\ As proposed, the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan is designed to
prevent trades in individual NMS stocks from occurring outside
specified price bands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EDGA Rule 11.14.
    \5\ EDGA Rule 11.13.
    \6\ See SR-EDGA-2011-29 (August 30, 2011) (mirroring the market
making standards in other exchange rules, such as NYSE Rule
104(a)(1)(B), Nasdaq Rule 4613(a), and BATS Rule 11.8(d)(2)).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64547 (May 25,
2011), 76 FR 31647 (June 1, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Joint CFTC-SEC Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory Issues
(``Committee'') has recommended that, in addition to the initiatives
already adopted or proposed, the markets should consider reforming the
existing market-wide circuit breakers. Among other things, the
Committee noted that the interrelatedness of today's highly electronic
markets warrants the need to review the present operation of the
system-wide circuit breakers now in place. Specifically, the Committee
recommended that the markets consider replacing the Dow Jones
Industrial Average (``DJIA'') with the S&P 500[supreg] Index (``S&P
500''), revising the 10%, 20% and 30% decline percentages, reducing the
length of trading halts, and allowing halts to be triggered up to 3:30
p.m.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Summary Report of the Committee, ``Recommendations
Regarding Regulatory Responses to the Market Events of May 6, 2010''
(Feb, 18, 2011). The Exchange notes that NYSE Euronext submitted a
comment letter to the Committee that recommended, among other
things, reform of the market-wide circuit breaker rules. See Letter
to Elizabeth Murphy, Secretary, Commission, from Janet M. Kissane,
SVP and Corporate Secretary, NYSE Euronext (July 19, 2010). The
proposed reforms set forth in this rule proposal differ slightly
from the changes recommended in that comment letter, and represent
consensus among the markets of how to address reform of the market-
wide circuit breakers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The exchanges and FINRA have taken into consideration the
Committee's recommendations, and with some modifications, have proposed
changes to market-wide circuit breakers. The Exchange believes these
proposed changes will provide for a more meaningful measure, in today's
faster, more electronic markets, of when to halt stocks on a market-
wide basis as a result of rapid market declines.
Background
    EDGA Rule 11.14 provides for market-wide halts in trading at
specified levels in order to promote stability and investor confidence
during a period of significant stress. As the Commission noted in its
approval order for the analogous rule from the New York Stock Exchange
(``NYSE''),\9\ the rule was intended to enable market participants to
establish equilibrium between buying and selling interest and to ensure
that market participants have an opportunity to become aware of and
respond to significant price movements. Importantly, the market-wide
circuit breakers were not intended to prevent markets from adjusting to
new price levels; rather, they provide for a speed bump for extremely
rapid market declines.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See NYSE Rule 80B.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 26198 (Oct. 19,
1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its current form,\11\ the rule provides for Level 1, 2 and 3
declines and specified trading halts following such declines (each a
``Level 1, 2 or 3 Halt,'' respectively). The values of Levels 1, 2 and
3 are calculated at the beginning of each calendar quarter by the
primary listing market, using 10%, 20% and 30%, respectively, of the
average closing value of the DJIA for the month prior to the beginning
of the quarter. Each percentage calculation is rounded to the nearest
fifty points to create the levels' trigger points. The primary listing
markets disseminate the new trigger levels quarterly to the media, via
information memos and publication on their websites. The values then
remain in effect until the next quarterly calculation, notwithstanding
whether the DJIA has moved and a Level 1, 2 or 3 decline is no longer
equal to an actual 10%, 20% or 30% decline in the most recent closing
value of the DJIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NYSE Rule 80B was last amended in 1998, when declines based
on specified point drops in the DJIA were replaced with the current
methodology of using a percentage decline that is recalculated
quarterly. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39846 (April 9,
1998), 63 FR 18477 (April 15, 1998) (SR-NYSE-98-06, SR-Amex-98-09,
SR-BSE-98-06, SR-CHX-98-08, SR-NASD-98-27, and SR-Phlx-98-15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once a Rule 11.14 circuit breaker is in effect, trading in all
stocks halt for the time periods specified below:
Level 1 Halt
    Anytime before 2 p.m.--one hour; at or after 2 p.m. but before 2:30
p.m.--30 minutes; at or after 2:30 p.m.--trading shall continue, unless
there is a Level 2 Halt.
Level 2 Halt
    Anytime before 1 p.m.--two hours; at or after 1 p.m. but before 2
p.m.--one hour; at or after 2 p.m.--trading shall halt and not resume
for the rest of the day.
Level 3 Halt
    At any time--trading shall halt and not resume for the rest of the
day.
    Unless stocks are halted for the remainder of the trading day,
price indications are disseminated by the primary listing market during
a Rule 11.14 trading halt for stocks that comprise the DJIA.
Proposed Amendments
    As noted above, the Exchange, other equities, options, and futures
markets, and FINRA propose to amend the market-wide circuit breakers to
take into consideration the recommendations of the Committee, and to
provide for more meaningful measures in today's markets of when to halt
trading in all stocks. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule
11.14 as follows: (i) Replace the DJIA with the S&P 500; (ii) replace
the quarterly calendar recalculation of Rule 11.14 triggers with daily
recalculations; (iii) replace the 10%, 20% and 30% market decline
percentages with 7%, 13% and 20% market decline percentages (each a
``Level 1, 2 or 3 Market Decline,'' respectively); (iv) modify the
length of the trading halts associated with each market decline level;
and (v) modify the times when a trading halt may be

triggered. The Exchange believes that these proposed amendments update
the rule to reflect today's high-speed, highly electronic trading
market while still meeting the original purpose of the rule: To ensure
that market participants have an opportunity to become aware of and
respond to significant price movements.
    First, the Exchange proposes to replace the DJIA with the S&P 500.
The Exchange believes that because the S&P 500 is based on the trading
prices of 500 stocks, as compared to the 30 stocks that comprise the
DJIA, the S&P 500 represents a broader base of securities against which
to measure whether extraordinary market-wide volatility is occurring.
In addition, as noted by the Committee, using an index that correlates
closely with derivative products, such as the E-Mini and SPDR S&P 500
Exchange-Traded Fund (``SPY''), will allow for a better cross-market
measure of market volatility.
    Second, the Exchange proposes to change the recalculation of the
trigger values from once every calendar quarter to daily. The Exchange
believes that updating the trigger values daily will better reflect
current market conditions. In particular, a daily recalculation will
ensure that the percentage drop triggers relate to current market
conditions, and are not compared to what may be stale market
conditions. As noted in the proposed rule, the daily calculations of
the trigger values will be published before the trading day begins.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The primary listing markets will advise via Trader Update
the specific methodology for publishing the daily calculations, as
well as the manner by which the markets will halt trading in all
stocks should a Rule 11.14 trading halt be triggered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the Exchange proposes to decrease the current Level 1, 2 and
3 declines of 10%, 20% and 30% to a Level 1 Market Decline of 7%, a
Level 2 Market Decline of 13% and Level 3 Market Decline of 20%. In
particular, as demonstrated by the May 6, 2010 flash crash, the current
Level 1 10% decline may be too high a threshold for determining whether
to halt trading across all securities. In fact, since adoption, the
markets have halted only once, on October 27, 1997.\13\ Accordingly, to
reflect the potential that a lower, yet still significant decline may
warrant a market-wide trading halt, the Exchange proposes to lower the
market decline percentage thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ At that time, the triggers were based on absolute declines
in the DJIA (350 point decrease for a Level 1 halt and 550 point
decrease for a Level 2 halt).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As further proposed, trading on the Exchange will be halted based
on a Level 1 or Level 2 Market Decline only once per day. For example,
if a Level 1 Market Decline was to occur and trading was halted,
following the re-opening of trading, trading would not halt again
unless a Level 2 Market Decline was to occur. Likewise, following the
re-opening of trading after a Level 2 Market Decline, trading would not
be halted again unless a Level 3 Market Decline was to occur, at which
point, trading in all stocks would be halted until the primary listing
market opens the next trading day.
    Fourth, to correspond with the lower percentages associated with
triggering a trading halt, the Exchange also proposes to shorten the
length of the market-wide trading halts associated with each level. As
proposed, a Level 1 or 2 Market Decline occurring after 9:30 a.m.
Eastern Time (``ET'') \14\ and up to and including 3:25 p.m. ET, would
result in a trading halt in all stocks for 15 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange notes that all times listed throughout this
filing are in Eastern Time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that by reducing the percentage threshold,
coupled with the reduced length of a trading halt, the proposed rule
would allow for trading halts for serious market declines, while at the
same time, would minimize disruption to the market by allowing for
trading to continue after the proposed more-abbreviated trading halt.
The Exchange believes that in today's markets, where trading
information travels in micro-second speeds, a 15-minute trading halt
strikes the appropriate balance between the need to halt trading for
market participants to assess the market, while at the same time
reducing the time that the market is halted.
    Finally, because the proposed Level 1 and Level 2 trading halts
will now be 15 minutes, the Exchange proposes amending the rule to
allow for a Level 1 or 2 Market Decline to trigger a trading halt up to
3:25 p.m. Under the current rule, a trading halt cannot be triggered
after 2:30 p.m., and this time corresponds to the need for the markets
both to re-open following a 30-minute halt and to engage in a fair and
orderly closing process. However, as the markets experienced on May 6,
2010, even if the Level 1 decline had occurred that day, because the
market decline occurred after 2:30 p.m., it would not have triggered a
halt under the current rule. The Committee recommended that trading
halts be triggered up to 3:30 p.m. The Exchange agrees that the
proposed amendments must strike the appropriate balance between
permitting trading halts as late in the day as feasible without
interrupting the closing process.
    Accordingly, to accommodate existing primary listing market rules
concerning closing procedures, including the publication of imbalance
information beginning at 3:45 p.m. and the restrictions on entry and
cancellation of market on close (``MOC'') and limit on close (``LOC'')
orders after 3:45 p.m., \15\ the Exchange proposes that the last Level
1 or Level 2 Market Decline trading halt should be 3:25 p.m. The
Exchange proposes 3:25 p.m. as the cut-off time so that there is time
following the 15-minute trading halt for the markets to re-open before
the 3:45 p.m. cut-off for entry and cancellation of MOC and LOC orders
under primary listing market rules.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., NYSE Rule 123C.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with current Level 3 declines, under the proposed rule, a Level
3 Market Decline would halt trading for the remainder of the trading
day, including any trading that may take place after 4 p.m. and would
not resume until the next trading day.
    In addition to these proposed changes, the Exchange proposes to add
to Rule 11.14 how the markets will re-open following a 15-minute
trading halt. In particular, similar to the re-opening procedures set
forth in Rule 11.14, the Exchange proposes that if the primary listing
market halts trading in all stocks, all markets will halt trading in
those stocks until the primary listing market has resumed trading or
notice has been provided by the primary listing market that trading may
resume. As further proposed, if the primary listing market does not re-
open a security within 15 minutes following the end of the trading
halt, other markets may resume trading in that security.
    As a result of the proposed changes described above, the Exchange
proposes to delete Interpretations and Policies .01-.04 to Rule 11.14,
move Interpretations and Policies .03 and .04 into the rule text of
Rule 11.14 as sections (c)(1) and (f), respectively, and re-number
existing Interpretation and Policy .05 to Rule 11.14 as Interpretation
and Policy .01 to Rule 11.14. In addition, a conforming amendment is
proposed to be made in Rule 11.13(c)(1) to re-number the cross-
reference to Interpretation .05 of Rule 11.14 as Interpretation .01 of
Rule 11.14.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for these proposed rule changes are [sic]
the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \17\ that an Exchange have rules
that are designed to promote just and equitable

principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest. Specifically, this rule
proposal supports the objectives of perfecting the mechanism of a free
and open market and the national market system because it promotes
uniformity across markets concerning when and how to halt trading in
all stocks as a result of extraordinary market volatility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (a) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change; or
    (b) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed
changes to the market-wide circuit breaker regime are consistent with
the Act. The Commission specifically requests comment on the following:
     As discussed above, the proposed rule change would narrow
the percentage market declines that would trigger a market-wide halt in
trading. How would the proposed changes interact with the existing
single-stock circuit breaker pilot program \18\ or, if approved, the
proposed NMS Plan to establish a limit-up/limit-down mechanism for
individual securities? \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64735 (June 23,
2011), 76 FR 38243 (June 29, 2011) (SR-BATS-2011-016; SR-BYX-2011-
011; SR-BX-2011-025; SR-CBOE-2011-049; SR-CHX-2011-09; SR-EDGA-2011-
15; SR-EDGX-2011-14; SR-FINRA-2011-023; SR-ISE-2011-028; SR-NASDAQ-
2011-067; SR-NYSE-2011-21; SR-NYSEAmex-2011-32; SR-NYSEArca-2011-26;
SR-NSX-2011-06; SR-Phlx-2011-64) (approving the ``Phase III Pilot
Program''). The Phase III Pilot Program has been extended through
January 2012. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release 65094
(August 10, 2011), 76 FR 50779 (August 16, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-
011).
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64547 (May 25,
2011), 76 FR 31647 (June 1, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     To what extent could the concurrent triggering of single
stock circuit breakers in many S&P 500 Index stocks lead to
difficulties in calculating the index? Would the triggering of many
single stock circuit breakers in a general market downturn cause the
index calculation to become stale and thereby delay the triggering of
the market-wide circuit breaker?
     Should the market-wide circuit breaker be triggered if a
sufficient number of single-stock circuit breakers or price limits are
triggered, and materially affect calculations of the S&P 500 Index?
     Should market centers implement rules that mandate
cancellation of pending orders in the event a market-wide circuit
breaker is triggered? If so, should such a rule require cancellation of
all orders or only certain order types (e.g., limit orders)? Should all
trading halts trigger such cancellation policies or should the
cancellation policies apply only to a Level 3 Market Decline?
     Should some provision be made to end the regular trading
session if a market decline suddenly occurs after 3:25 p.m. but does
not reach the 20% level?
     In the event of a Level 3 Market Decline, should some
provision be made for the markets to hold a closing auction?
     Should the primary market have a longer period (e.g., 30
minutes) to reopen trading following a Level 2 Market Decline before
trading resumes in other venues?
     In the event of a Level 3 Market Decline, should the
markets wait for the primary market to reopen trading in a particular
security on the next trading day before trading in that security
resumes?
    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-EDGA-2011-31 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-EDGA-2011-31. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2011-31 and should be
submitted on or before October 25, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-25512 Filed 10-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19472-19473]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07219]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10007-43-OMS]

National and Governmental Advisory Committees to the U.S.
Representative to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting teleconference.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) gives notice of a public meeting of the
National Advisory Committee (NAC) and the Government Advisory Committee
(GAC). The NAC and GAC provide advice the EPA Administrator a broad
range of environmental policy, technology, and management issues. NAC/
GAC members represent academia, business/industry, non-governmental
organizations, and state, local and tribal governments. The purpose of
this meeting is to provide advice to the EPA Administrator, regarding
the draft 2021-2025 Strategic Plan of the Commission for Environmental
Cooperation (CEC). A copy of the meeting agenda will be posted at
http://www.epa.gov/faca/nac-gac. Due to unforeseen administrative
circumstances, EPA is announcing this meeting with less than 15
calendar days notice.

DATES: NAC/GAC will hold a public teleconference on April 10, 2020,
from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. (EST).

ADDRESSES: This meeting will be broadcasted via teleconference only. To
gain access to the meeting please contact Oscar Carrillo, Designated
Federal Officer for the NAC/GAC at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Oscar Carrillo, Program Analyst,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 564-0347, U.S. EPA, Office of Resources,
Operations and Management; Federal Advisory Committee Management
Division (MC1601M), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Requests to make oral comments or to provide
written comments to NAC/GAC should be sent to Oscar Carrillo at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by April 6th, 2020. The teleconference is open
to the public, with limited lines available on a first-come, first-
served basis. Members of the public wishing to participate in the
teleconference should contact Oscar Carrillo via email or by calling
(202) 564-0347 no later than April 6, 2020.
    Meeting Access: Information regarding accessibility and/or
accommodations for individuals with disabilities should be directed to
Oscar Carrillo at the email address or phone number listed above. To
ensure adequate time for processing, please make requests for
accommodations at least 10 days prior to the teleconference meeting.

    Dated: April 1, 2020.
Oscar Carrillo,
Program Analyst.
[FR Doc. 2020-07219 Filed 4-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

FINAL STAFF REPORT

Revised Proposed New Rule 4565

(Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations)

March 30, 2007

Prepared by:		Sandra Lowe-Leseth, Air Quality Engineer

Reviewed by:	Maria Stobbe, Planning Manager

George Heinen, Supervising Air Quality Engineer

Joven Nazareno, Senior Air Quality Engineer

Mike Buss, Senior Air Quality Engineer

Brian Clements, Senior Air Quality Engineer

Lucinda Roth, Senior Air Quality Specialist

Lori Sheriden, Air Quality Inspector

I.	SUMMARY

A.	Reasons for Rule Development and Implementation

In terms of state and federal standards, the California Air Resources
Board (ARB) and United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
classified the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) as a non-attainment
area for ozone.  The District is classified as a serious non-attainment
area for the federal 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).  It is anticipated that attainment of the eight-hour standard
will require the control measures cited in the District’s Extreme
Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan (Ozone Plan), which includes a
control measure for composting/biosolids operations.  Since Rule 4565 is
a control measure in the District’s Ozone Plan, it is subject to
Federal Register, Clean Air Act (CAA), and California Health and Safety
Code (CH&SC) requirements.  Additionally, anti-backsliding provisions
commit the District to develop all control measures listed in the Ozone
Plan (Federal Register Volumes 69 and 70).  This rulemaking project is
intended to satisfy the attainment goal listed in the Ozone Plan.
Additionally, the rulemaking project will seek to obtain as much VOC
emissions reduction from the source category as is expeditiously
practicable, technologically feasible, and economically reasonable, as
determined by the District's Governing Board.  Furthermore, the rule is
intended to satisfy the requirements identified in Table 1.

Table 1: Anti-backsliding and Ozone Plan Commitments

Subject	Reference	Requirement

Anti-backsliding	69 Federal Register 23955	Districts shall develop all
control measures listed in the Ozone Plan until the District is
designated as in attainment for the 8-hour NAAQS.

BACM	Federal Register 8/18/94	Provisions in attainment plans should
include the application of best available control measures (BACM) to
existing major stationary sources.

BARCT	CH&SC 40919(a)(3)	Ozone attainment plans should provide for best
available retrofit technology (BARCT) for existing permitted sources.

Deadlines	Ozone Plan	Rule adoption by the 1st quarter of 2007.

All Feasible Controls	CH&SC 40914(a)(2)	Ozone attainment plans should
include "all feasible control measures."

RACT	Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) Sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)	Ozone
attainment plans shall assure that reasonable available control
technology (RACT) for volatile organic compounds (VOC) is in use at
sources and on source categories at or above the RACT threshold.

RACT Threshold	70 Federal Register 30592-30596	The applicable RACT
threshold for control measures shall be the threshold in effect on June
15, 2004.  The Districts threshold on June 15, 2004 was 10 tons per year
(tpy) for VOC.  Therefore, 10 tpy is the RACT threshold for Proposed
Rule 4565.

Reductions	Ozone Plan	The rule shall reduce VOC emissions by at least
14% from the baseline by 2010. Fourteen percent of the baseline used for
the Ozone Plan (0.7 tpd) is 0.1 tpd.

Timeline	CAA Section 172(c)(1)	Ozone attainment plans shall implement
control measures as expeditiously as practicable, and provide for
attainment.

B.	Description of the Project

The main objective of this rulemaking project is to limit VOC emissions
from facilities that manage biosolids, animal manure or poultry litter.
Biosolids are sewage sludge that has been treated to meet standards for
land application under Part 503 of the Clean Water Act.  Sewage sludge
is treated in the wastewater process, generally through aerobic or
anaerobic microbial activity for a specified time at a specified
temperature.  Sewage sludge requires treatment to ensure that its
release into the environment is protective of human health and the
environment as required by the Clean Water Act.

II.	CURRENT REGULATIONS

Currently, the District does not have any prohibitory rules that
specifically regulate VOC emissions from facilities that manage
biosolids, animal manure, and poultry litter.  However, some composting
facilities may already be subject to permit requirements as a new or
modified source or as a source emitting significant air emissions under
District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) and District Rule 2201 (New and
Modified Stationary Source Review Rule).

III.	DISCUSSION

Biosolids, animal manure, and poultry litter are commonly managed in one
of three ways:  buried in landfill, applied to land to enrich the soil,
or composted either alone or with other materials to make a soil
amendment.  When biosolids, animal manure, or poultry litter are
composted with other materials like greenwaste or bedding, it is called
co-composting.  Looking at biosolids specifically, the California
Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) surveyed facilities that
generate biosolids.  The 750,000 dry tons per year of biosolids in
California are managed in the following ways:

 4% surface disposed

 5% incinerated or stored in temporary storage

 6% disposed of in landfills

12% used as alternative daily cover (ADC) at landfills

54% land applied

16% composted

Rule 4565 would address VOC emissions from landfill, land application,
composting, and co-composting operations.

A.	Section 1.0 Purpose/Section 2.0 Applicability

The purpose of the rule is to limit volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from operations that manage biosolids, animal manure, or
poultry litter.  The rule applies to any facility that landfills,
land-applies, composts, or co-composts material containing one or more
of the following:  biosolids, animal manure, or poultry litter.  Sewage
treatment plants or other wastewater treatment facilities are not
subject to this rule unless the operator landfills, land applies,
composts, or co-composts the treated material (biosolids) on site.

B.	Section 3.0 Definitions

This section lists definitions that pertain to the rule.  During the
course of rule development, adding and modifying definitions have
improved rule clarity.  The rule has changed the carbon dioxide
respiration end points and the Solvita Maturity Index numbers for
active, curing, and finished compost to match Test Methods for the
Examination of Composting and Compost by the US Composting Council
Research and Education Foundation (TMECC) Table 05.08-1 guidelines.
Language was also added to the biosolids definition to clarify that
biosolids that have completed the composting process are considered
finished compost for purposes of this rule.  This distinction was of
concern to some landfill operators who may choose to use composted
material as an alternative daily cover (ADC).

C.	Section 4.0 Exemptions

Except for records that verify the exemption, this section delineates
the facilities that are not subject to rule.  The types of exempt
facilities include:

Facilities subject to District Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) or
specifically exempt under Rule 4570;

Composting/co-composting facilities whose throughput includes a total of
less than 100 wet tons per year of biosolids, animal manure, and poultry
litter;

Facilities that land apply less than 10,000 tons per year of biosolids,
animal manure, or poultry litter; and

Operations that bag un-composted biosolids, animal manure, or poultry
litter for sale.

As required under federal and state mandates with respect to districts
that are in non-attainment of established air quality standards, any
rule project seeks to obtain as much VOC emissions reduction from the
source category as is expeditiously practicable, technologically
feasible, and economically reasonable, as determined by the District's
Governing Board.  Therefore, any source subject to District Rule 4570 is
already subject to VOC limits for its operations, including any
landfill, land application, or composting/co-composting operations.
Facilities that are specifically exempt from Rule 4570 are smaller
operations whose emissions are not significant, as determined during the
rule project.

The exempted compost/co-compost facilities are operations for which
there is no established “best practices.”  Providing an exemption
for these facilities prevents the inclusion of facilities that accept
small amounts of biosolids, but may be accepting large amounts of
greenwaste, which will be addressed later as a separate rule project.

District staff used two concepts to determine the maximum amount of
material that could be land applied at a given facility before
mitigation measures would be required.  The concepts are the
District’s RACT emission level and the research done by South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff for Rule 1133.2 (Emission
Reductions from Co-Composting Operations).  Since there is no
peer-reviewed data about biosolids and land application, the
co-composting emission factor was used as a surrogate.

As noted in Table 1 above, the RACT threshold for the District is 10
tons per year.  SCAQMD Rule 1133.2 uses 1.78 pounds VOC per wet ton of
material as an uncontrolled emission factor.  During the background
research for its rule, SCAQMD staff measured emissions as high as 2.36
pounds VOC per wet ton at a co-composting facility within the
District’s boundaries.  To calculate the amount of material
corresponding to 10 tons VOC emissions per year, the 10 tons per year
RACT limit was divided by the emission factor.  Using the 1.78 figure
yields about 11,200 wet tons of material per year and using the 2.36
figure yields about 8,470 wet tons per year.  District staff rounded the
calculated amount of material land applied to 10,000 tons per year,
which is equivalent to an emission factor of 2.0.

Some facilities bag un-composted animal manure or poultry litter for
sale.  District staff expects that emission from such facilities would
be minimal, since, within 15 days of receipt, the material is placed in
airtight bags or removed from the site.  The facilities are not
deliberately composting the material, so emissions from “incidental”
composting would be minimal.

D.	Section 5.0 Requirements

Section 5.0 of the rule addresses the specific requirements for landfill
operations, land application operations, and composting/co-composting
operations.  This section also includes provisions for VOC control
equipment and source testing.  The paragraphs below outline the main
rule requirements.

1.	Landfill Operations

Within 24 hours of receipt, biosolids, animal manure, or poultry litter
are required to be covered with either six inches of soil, six inches of
finished compost, a waterproof covering, or any other alternative daily
cover (ADC) that landfills are allowed to use under CH&SC Section 20690.
 In addition to covering the biosolids, landfill operators may choose an
alternative mitigation measure that provides at least 10% VOC emission
reduction.  The District and EPA must approve this alternative
mitigation measure.  The procedure for approval is outlined in Section
6.3 of the rule.

Under California rules for solid waste management, landfills must cover
waste at the end of each working day, so this provision will not affect
these operations.  Although the state rule allows 24 hours, waste
arriving at landfills is always moving.  Once material arrives at the
landfill site, within a short time, other wastes are piled on top of the
material or the material moved from the working face and compacted.
Even the very last truckload of material received on a given day would
be covered within a short amount of time, since, under California Code
of Regulations (CCR) for solid waste management, the landfill operator
is required to cover all landfilled material at the end of each
operating day.  This cover is called daily cover.  In addition to
certain materials used at specified depth, the CCR has a list of
allowable alternative materials and depths that can be used as daily
cover.  This is “alternative daily cover” or ADC.

The CCR allows biosolids as ADC, meaning that biosolids can be used as
the cover over the working face of the landfill required at the end of
the working day.  In a 1998 survey, the California Association of
Sanitation Agencies (CASA) estimated that 12% of all biosolids generated
in California are used as ADC.  All of the landfills that reported using
biosolids as ADC are located outside the District boundaries.  This
means that instituting this rule provision will not affect current
landfill operations.  The rule specifically limits the use of biosolids
or biosolids-derived material as ADC.  Operators must notify the
District before using these materials.  In approving biosolids as ADC,
District staff must consider the use of the covers specified in Sections
<IP_ADDRESS> through <IP_ADDRESS> compared with using biosolids or
biosolids-derived material as well as other available controls.  The
notification by operators may also trigger Rule 2201 (New and Modified
Stationary Source Review Rule) Best Available Control Technology (BACT),
emission offsets, and public notification requirements.

Publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), i.e., sewage treatment plants,
generate biosolids on-site and could conceivably landfill those
biosolids on-site and therefore, the phrase “received at the
facility” would have no meaning in this case.  The January 4, 2007
version of the rule mentions “movement from location of generation.”
 The phrase caused more confusion than clarification, so it was removed
from the requirements in the revised proposed rule.

2.	Land Application

As noted at the beginning of Discussion section, the CASA survey found
that 54% of all biosolids were land applied.  This is the single largest
use of biosolids and dwarfs the next three uses combined.  Individual
counties may prohibit or regulate land application of biosolids.  More
specifically, The Strategic County-wide Biosolids Plan for Santa Barbara
noted that, in general:

San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties ban land application of
biosolids,

Fresno, Kings, and Kern counties ban land application of Class B
biosolids, and

Madera County has significant regulations for land application of
biosolids.

According to a report by the Iowa State University and the University of
Iowa Study Group, the following odor reductions were documented for land
application:

Injection with full soil coverage – 85%-90%

Surface applied, incorporated immediately by plowing – 50%

Surface applied, incorporation delayed by 3 hours – 0 – 10%

Surface applied, incorporation delayed by 6 hours – 0 – 5%

Surface applied, incorporation delayed by 12 hours – 0 – 5%

Surface applied, incorporation delayed by 24 hours – 0 – 5%

In the same report, the study group found that covering liquid manure
lagoons with chopped-straw has 75% odor reduction.  Several of the
components of odor are VOCs, and therefore, District staff has equated
odor reduction to VOC emission reduction.

In Rule 4565, operators who land-apply biosolids, animal manure, or
poultry litter would be required to either inject the material at least
three inches below the soil surface, or to apply the material and then
incorporate it within three hours.  Immediate incorporation may not
always be practical.  For example, when there has been significant
rainfall in a short amount of time, it may not be possible to work the
ground on that day.  For those situations when the material cannot be
injected or land-incorporated within the 3-hour timeframe, operators
would be required to cover the material until the material could be
injected or land incorporated.  The three-hour timeframe was chosen to
have at least a 10% emission reduction of the emissions released before
direct injection/land incorporation.  In addition, some facilities
receive materials before daybreak to reduce traffic during the day.  A
special provision has been included to address this situation.  The
provision allows materials received after 6 pm to be incorporated by
12:00 pm (noon) the following day due to safety issues that otherwise
would occur when land incorporating at night.

Publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), i.e., sewage treatment plants,
generate biosolids on-site and could conceivably land apply those
biosolids on-site and therefore, the phrase “received at the
facility” would have no meaning in this case.  The January 4, 2007
version of the rule mentions “movement of material from point of
generation.”  The phrase caused more confusion than clarification, so
it was removed from the requirements of the rule.

3.	Composting/Co-composting Facilities

Recognizing that there is no such thing as a typical composting
facility, and not all options are feasible for all facilities, staff
developed a menu approach for these facilities.  Operators of composting
facilities are required to choose a specified number of practices and
technology from a list, which staff believes satisfies the CH&SC Code
40919(a)(3) requirement for BARCT and Federal Registry 8/18/94
requirement for BACM.  In each case, facilities can use mitigation
measures listed in the rule or develop mitigation measures of their own
to comply with the rule requirements.  The options in the rule include
both management practice options (e.g., managing moisture content;
covering piles with finished compost between turnings) and technology
options (e.g., use of aerated static piles and in-vessel composting
systems).

Furthermore, in order to acknowledge that some VOC mitigation measures
are only cost-effective for larger facilities, staff developed the
concept of Class One and Class Two mitigation measures.  Class One
mitigation measures are considered BARCT and cost-effective options for
all facilities, regardless of size.  These measures are management
practices found to be best practices for all composting operations.
Class Two mitigation measures are the technology options and achieve
reductions greater than Class One mitigation measures, however they are
not cost effective for facilities with throughputs of less than 100,000
wet tons per year.  The estimated cost effectiveness of implementing
Class Two mitigation measures for facilities with throughputs of at
least 100,000 wet tons per year is about $9,800 to $41,300 per ton of
VOC reduced.  On the other hand, for facilities with throughputs less
than 100,000 wet tons per year, the estimated cost effectiveness of
implementing Class Two mitigation measures is between $48,000 to
$860,000 per ton of VOC reduced.  Appendix C of the Final Draft Staff
Report details the costs and cost effectiveness analysis.

In general, aerobic composting conditions result in less VOC emissions
than anaerobic composting conditions.  Based on this premise, the
Southwest Clean Air Agency (SWCAA) identified in their Hanaford Farm
Best Available Control Technology Determination several composting
parameters that minimize emissions by promoting aerobic composting
conditions.  These include:

Scraping/cleaning of process areas—SWCAA stated that scraping or
sweeping clean all process areas of compostable material each day is
required to prevent material from being compacted.  These compacted
materials often give off offensive odors thus, presumably, are decaying
anaerobically;

Maintaining a minimum oxygen concentration of at least 5%, by volume, in
the free air space of composting material and turn piles if low oxygen
levels are detected;

Maintaining a compost moisture content no greater than 70%-- SWCAA
stated that when compost moisture exceeds 70%, the amount of free air
space may be reduced to the point where anaerobic conditions are likely
to develop.  In addition, excessive amounts of water surrounding
composting material can slow oxygen transfer to the point that anaerobic
conditions develop on the surface of the material even when adequate
oxygen exists within the free air space; and

Maintaining carbon to nitrogen ratios of piles of at least 20:1.

Additionally, staff believes that rapid processing or covering of
organic waste material will minimize VOC emissions.  This is based on
discussions by the Dairy Permitting Advisory Group and Rule 4651 (Soil
Decontamination).  Staff believes that the same principals that suggest
minimizing exposed surface area of manure and contaminated soil results
in minimization of VOC emissions would apply to compost piles.

For the Class Two mitigation measures, the rule contains supplementary
requirements for the process.  VOC emissions would be measured on the
fourth day after initial pile formation for aerated static piles (ASPs)
and in-vessel composting.  The capture efficiency of an ASP or in-vessel
process cannot be easily quantified, so the purpose of the testing is to
assure that the process is capturing as much of the VOC generated by the
process as possible.

4.	VOC Emission Control Systems

The most commonly used VOC emission control device at composting
facilities are biofilters.  Currently, biofilters are used at over 200
composting facilities in Europe, over twenty composting facilities in
the United States of America, and at least five composting facilities in
California.

The typical biofilter design consists of fans, ducts, media support (a
bed liner), an air plenum, and the media (typically a blend of finished
compost, soil, and/or wood chips).  Wall ventilation and pit fans blow
air from the building and pit through ducts into an air plenum below the
biofilter media.  The air passes through the media, where microorganisms
treat the air before it is released to the atmosphere.  A schematic of a
biofilter is shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1- Sample Biofilter Design

As shown above, biofilters are technologically simple yet effective VOC
controls.  At Las Virgenes composting facility in Calabasas, CA, the
biofilter routinely removes over 80% of the VOC (Peters).  This is
similar to results found by other researchers.  Rule 4565 requires
operators to monitor the biofilter for five parameters:  temperature,
moisture, pH, appearance (visual inspection), and fugitive VOCs.  Since
the control over a biofilter is less direct than for thermal oxidizers,
monitoring these parameters would allow the operator to determine that
the biofilter is within the most optimal range for VOC removal.

While it is most likely that operators at composting facilities would
choose biofilters as their VOC control device, Rule 4565 does allow for
operational flexibility by also addressing controls for non-biofilters.
Additionally, both biofilters and non-biofilters would be required to
prove their control efficiency through source test every two years.

E.	Section 6.0 Administrative Requirements

Section 6.0 has been designed to match the administrative requirements
with requirements in other sections of the rule.  For example, records
required are in Section 6.1, test methods are in Section 6.2, etc.
Furthermore, the records for exempt facilities are in Section 6.1.1,
records for landfills are in Section 6.1.2, and so forth.  Section 6.3
outlines the procedure for operators wishing to implement an alternative
mitigation measure.  This procedure mirrors the one in SCAQMD Rule
1133.2.  Based on conversations with EPA Region IX staff, approval of
the alternative mitigation measure would include EPA approval in
addition to the APCO approval.

F.	Section 7.0 Compliance Schedule

Landfill operations would be required to comply with all rule provisions
within twelve (12) months of rule adoption.  Land application facilities
have a two tier approach based on amount of material incorporated.
Facilities utilizing less than 100,000 wet tons per year would have 12
months to come into full compliance.  Large facilities, meaning
facilities that handle more than 100,000 wet tons per year of biosolids,
animal manure, or poultry litter would most likely require more
equipment to meet the proposed land application requirements.  For these
largest facilities, the operator would be in full compliance within 18
months of rule adoption.

Operators of compost facilities with throughputs of less than 100,000
wet tons per year would comply within eighteen (18) months of rule
adoption; operators of compost/co-compost facilities with throughputs of
at least 100,000 wet tons per year would comply within thirty-six (36)
months of rule adoption.  For those facilities that plan to convert
compost/co-compost operations to energy generation operations, extended
compliance schedule is allowed if the operator meets specific provisions
within defined timeframes.  Composting/co-composting operations not part
of the energy generation operation would be required to meet the same
compliance schedule as if they were not part of an energy generation
conversion.  A composting/co-composting operation originally planned for
energy generation operation that does not become part of the energy
generation operation would be in-vessel operation with 90% control of
VOC emissions.

IV.	COMPARISON BETWEEN PROPOSED NEW RULE 4565 and SCAQMD RULE 1133.2

Staff noted that there are some significant differences between District
Rule 4565 and SCAQMD Rule 1133.2.  This should not be interpreted to
mean that one rule is more stringent than the other but due, instead, to
the following factors:

Technology has changed significantly since SCAQMD Rule 1133.2 was
adopted;

Additional research projects regarding mitigation measures have been
completed since SCAQMD Rule 1133.2 was adopted; and

The socioeconomic climate of the SCAQMD is significantly different from
that of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.

Table 2 summarizes the significant differences between SCAQMD Rule
1133.2 and SJVUAPCD Rule 4565.  Please note staff only included the
significant differences, not all of the differences, between the two
rules.

Table 2: Significant Differences

	SCAQMD Rule 1133.2	SJVUAPCD Rule 4565	Reason

Facilities Other Than Co-Composting	Rule does not apply to these
operations	Management practices for facilities that landfill and land
apply.

Management practices and control technology for large composting
facilities; management practices only for other composting facilities
Knowledge of VOC control options has increased since Rule 1133.2
adoption and staff believes that cost-effective methods of controlling
VOC emissions from these facilities exist.

Co-Composting Threshold for Applicability	Facilities with at least 1,000
to 3,000 tpy throughput	Facilities that handle 100 tpy or more of
biosolids, animal manure, or poultry litter	Staff believes that there
are reasonable, cost effective options for facilities with throughputs
of at (100 tpy that would not impose an undue burden on operators.

Control Requirements	In-vessel composting with 70 – 80% VOC control
efficiency	VOC control efficiency 10% -80% depending on type of
operation and facility throughput	Management practices (mitigation
measures) are effective, reasonable, and have been achieved in practice
for smaller facilities.

In-vessel composting is not cost-effective for smaller or medium
facilities and there are no known, unsubsidized facilities in the SCAQMD
that would comply with such rule requirements.

V.	VOC EMISSION REDUCTION ANALYSIS

District staff estimates that current VOC emissions from land
application and composting of biosolids, animal manure, and poultry
litter is over 3,500 tons of VOC per year with estimated emission
reduction of 1,430 tons per year when the rule is fully implemented.
This represents about a 40% reduction in the baseline VOC emissions for
this source category.  The VOC emission reduction analysis is included
in Appendix B of the Final Staff Report.

VI.	COSTS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

The California Health and Safety Code 40920.6(a) requires the San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District to conduct a cost
effectiveness analysis of available emission control options before
adopting each BARCT rule. The purpose of conducting a cost effectiveness
analysis is to evaluate the economic reasonableness of the pollution
control measure or rule.  The analysis also serves as a guideline in
developing the control requirements listed in a rule.

District staff has evaluated costs and cost effectiveness for sources
affected by Revised Proposed New Rule 4565.

For landfill operations and land application operations, no additional
costs are expected as a result of following the rule requirements.

For composting facilities, the cost of instituting the Class One
mitigation measures is estimated to have no cost impact, since the
mitigation measures represent best practices for
composting/co-composting operations.

For the largest composting facilities, meaning those that have
throughput of at least 100,000 wet tons per year, total annualized costs
range from about $5.8 million to $24 million for all facilities to
implement the Class Two mitigation measures.  With estimated emission
reductions of 595 tons VOC per year, District staff estimates that the
cost effectiveness would range between $9,800 per ton VOC reduced and
$41,000 per ton VOC reduced.

For composting facilities with throughput less than 100,000 wet tons per
year, the cost effectiveness value ranges from $48,000 to $856,000.
Therefore, District staff believes that it is not cost effective to
require facilities with throughputs less than 100,000 wet tons per year
to implement Class Two mitigation measures.  It should be noted,
however, that the rule provides operators of small composting facilities
with the flexibility to comply by implementing Class One measures only
or a combination of a specified number of Class One and Class Two
measures.

Details of the analysis are in Appendix C of this staff report.

VII.	SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Pursuant to state law, District staff is required to analyze the
socioeconomic impacts of any proposed rule or rule amendment that
significantly affects air quality or strengthens an emission limitation.
 During the first workshop, District staff solicited volunteers from
stakeholders, and manufacturers and vendors of control devices to
participate as members of the socioeconomic focus group for the rule.
District staff worked closely with the focus group to determine direct
compliance costs of the proposed rule provisions.  The District’s
independent consultant participated with the focus group to identify and
analyze the socioeconomic impacts of the proposed rule.  District staff
considered the socioeconomic analysis to further refine the proposed
rule.  The socioeconomic impact analysis report is attached to this
staff report as Appendix D.  A draft of the socioeconomic impact
analysis report was posted for comment to interested parties on February
8, 2007.  The final socioeconomic report was presented to the District
Governing Board at the public hearing for the rule in order to disclose
any expected economic impacts.

VIII.	ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), District
staff has investigated the likely environmental impacts of Rule 4565.
Based on the lack of evidence to the contrary, District staff has
concluded that the revised proposed rule will not have any significant
adverse effects on the environment.  Staff recommends filing a Notice of
Exemption under the provisions of Public Resource Code 15061 (b)(3).

IX.	RULE CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS

Pursuant to state Health and Safety Code, Section 40272.2, District
staff has prepared a rule consistency analysis.  The rule provisions are
consistent with EPA policy and guidelines for sources subject to Rule
4565.  Details of the rule consistency analysis are attached as Appendix
E to this staff report.

X.	Rule Development Process

As part of the rule development process, District staff conducted public
scoping meetings in March 2005 and public workshops in October 2006 and
January 2007.  Staff has conducted a socioeconomic focus group meeting
in order to present, discuss, and solicit comments on the compliance
costs and impact to businesses as part of the socioeconomic impact
analysis.  The proposed socioeconomic impact analysis was posted for
written comment February 8, 2007.

In addition to the workshops, staff has met with stakeholders to receive
comments on the technical aspects and compliance costs of the proposed
rule. The comments received from the public, affected sources,
California Air Resources Board, and United States Environmental
Protection Agency during the public workshop process and technical
consultation meetings have been incorporated into the proposed rule as
appropriate.  Appendix A of the Final Staff Report outlines the
significant comments received and the responses of District staff to the
February 15, 2007 version of the rule.

Proposed New Rule 4565 and the Final Draft Staff Report, including the
analyses mandated by CH&SC, were published before the public hearing for
the District Governing Board to consider the adoption of the proposed
rule.  The notice of the public hearing for this rule project was
published in a general circulation newspaper in each of the eight San
Joaquin Valley counties, and was mailed to affected sources and
interested parties.  The public notice solicited written comments and
identified the name and telephone numbers of the District staff who
answered questions and responded to comments.  The adoption schedule
allowed the District meet the Ozone Plan commitment to adopt a rule by
first quarter of 2007.

XI.	REFERENCES

Anit, Selvi, Artuz, Robert, Biofiltration of Air,
http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem.-eng/Biotech-Environ/MISC/biofilt/biofiltra
tion.htm.

Bartlett, Jerry Vice President Cedar Grove Composting Facility, e-mail
correspondence.

California Air Resources Board 2005 Almanac, available through links at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emseic_query.php?F_YR=2004&F_DIV=-4&F_S
EASON=A&SP=2005&SPN=2005_Almanac&F_AREA=CA&F_EICSUM=199.

California Air Resources Board 2003 Almanac, available through links at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emssumcat_query.php?F_DIV=0&F_DD=Y&F_YR
+2002&F-SESON+A&SP=2003f&F_AREA=CO&F_CO=2003.

California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Division 7 available at
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Regulations/Title14.

CIWMB, SWIS database; Conversion Technologies for Municipal Residuals
May 3, 2001; Best Management Practices for Greenwaste Composting
Operations July 29, 2003; and Second Assessment of California's Compost
and Mulch Producing Infrastructure May 2004, available through links at
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov.

Fondahl, Lauren, Biosolids Coordinator, EPA Region 9, e-mail
correspondence 10/14/04.

Garcia, Elizabeth Legislative and Regulatory Coordinator for Norcal
e-mail correspondence and Norcal website at
http://www.sunsetscavenger.com/jepson_prairie_organics.htm.

Iowa State University and The University of Iowa Study Group,
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Air Quality Study, February 2002;
available on-line at
http://www.public-health.uiowa.edu/ehsrc/CAFOstudy.htm

Peters, Deborah, Communications and Media Coordinator Las Virgenes MWD,
e-mail correspondence.

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Co-composting
Operation BACT Project #S-1032219, Application S-4212.

Sercu, Bram, Kristof Demeestere, et al, Degradation of Isobutanal at
High Loading Rates in a Compost Biofilter, Journal of the Air and Waste
Management Association, 2005, 55:1217-1227.  ISSN 1047-3289.

Schmidt, David, Janni, Kevin, Nicolai, Richard, Biofilter Design
Information, Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering Update, 2004,
BAEU-18, http://www.manure.umn.edu/assets.

Sonoma Technology Inc (STI) Contract 903340 available through links at
http://www.valleyair.org/Workshops/public_workshops_past.htm#Rule%204565
%20(Composting/Biosolids%20Operations).

South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1133, Rule 1133
Technical Report, and Source Tests available through links at
http://www.valleyair.org/Workshops/public_workshops_past.htm#Rule%204565
%20(Composting/Biosolids%20Operations).

Southwest Clean Air Agency, Technical Support Document Little Hanaford
Farms, SWCAA ID: 2228, April 19, 2005.

van Lith, Chris, Leson, Gero, Michelsen, Richard, Evaluating Design
Options for Biofilters, Journal of the AIr and Waste Management
Association, 1997, 47:37-48.  ISSN 1047-3289.

Wallace, Z, How to Interpret Compost Analysis, 2005, available at
http://www.wallacez.freeserve.ca.uk/analysis.

Wheeler, PA, Stewart, I, Dumitrean, P, Donavan, B, Health Effects of
Composting, 2001, ISBN 1 857 05680 9, available through
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

This page intentionally blank.

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report for Rule 4565	March 30, 2007

 PAGE   12

Final Staff Report for Rule 4565

Final Staff Report for Rule 4565

Biofilter Set-Up

Fan

Vent

Media

Air Plenum

Air Duct

Pit

Enclosure with Compost

Scrubbed

Exhaust Air


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 213 (Monday, November 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61798-61801]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24324]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93505; File No. SR-IEX-2021-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend IEX
Rule 11.330 To Retire the IEX Data Platform Data Product

November 2, 2021.
    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 October 25, 2021, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or
the ``Exchange'') 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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,\4\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\ IEX is filing with the Commission
proposed changes to IEX Rule 11.330 to retire the IEX Data Platform
data product. The Exchange has designated this rule change as ``non-
controversial'' under Section 19(b)(3)(A)

of the Act \6\ and provided the Commission with the notice required by
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.iextrading.com, at the principal office of the Exchange,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
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 these statement may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to modify IEX Rule 11.330(a)(2) to retire
the IEX Data Platform data product (``Data Platform''). As discussed
below, IEX is proposing to retire the Data Platform because IEX has
determined that because IEX offers the same data in the Data Platform
through other data products, the costs associated with maintaining and
updating the Data Platform outweigh the benefits of offering the Data
Platform.
    IEX's Data Platform is both a human readable data feed available
through IEX's website that offers aggregated top of book quotations for
all displayed orders resting on IEX's Order Book \8\ and last sale data
(``TOPS Viewer''), and an application programming interface (the
``API'') \9\ that offers aggregated top of book and depth of book
quotations for all displayed orders resting on the Order Book at each
price level as well as last sale data, each in near real time.\10\ IEX
understands that while both TOPS Viewer and the API provide potentially
useful market data, because they are internet based they are subject to
the concomitant latency associated therewith and are thus not generally
utilized for time-sensitive trading decisions but for informational and
research purposes. For example, by the time market data is viewed or
obtained by query or update it will typically be stale and not usable
for determining IEX's current protected quote, midpoint or available
depth of book liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See IEX Rule 1.160(p).
    \9\ The IEX API enables a market participant to query IEX market
data through a computer to computer based protocol. Through such
queries, a market participant can obtain a series of static views of
the IEX order book, or, can receive periodic updates to the top of
book for a particular security.
    \10\ See IEX Rule 11.330(a)(2). The Data Platform would also
include auction information (see IEX Rule 11.330(a)(2)) if there
were any IEX-listed securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX provides all of the data available in TOPS Viewer and the API
through other market data products. Specifically, IEX's ``TOPS'' \11\
feed contains all the data visible in the TOPS Viewer, and IEX's
``DEEP'' \12\ feed contains all the data accessible via the API.
Additionally, IEX's ``HIST'' \13\ offers TOPS and DEEP data on a T+1
basis for download from the Exchange's public website.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See IEX Rule 11.330(a)(1).
    \12\ See IEX Rule 11.330(a)(3).
    \13\ See IEX Rule 11.330(a)(5).
    \14\ HIST data is available for download at https://iextrading.com/trading/market-data/#hist-download.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The TOPS and DEEP feeds also include additional information that is
not included in the TOPS Viewer or API. Specifically, IEX recently
introduced TOPS and DEEP ``snapshots'' that allow subscribers of those
feeds to download point-in-time snapshots of TOPS or DEEP in order to
enable them to accelerate late start recovery (i.e., if a data
subscriber's connection to the data feed is delayed or interrupted, the
snapshot will provide the subscriber with point-in-time data that it
can use to sync up its trading operations going forward).\15\ In
addition, IEX recently began disseminating a ``Retail Liquidity
Indicator'' through both the TOPS and DEEP feeds, which is also
distributed to the SIPs, but not to TOPS Viewer or the API.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Trading Alert No. 2021-003, available at https://iextrading.com/alerts/#/135 and Trading Alert No. 2021-031,
available at https://iextrading.com/alerts/#/163.
    \16\ See Trading Alert 2021-036, https://iextrading.com/alerts/#/169; see also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92398 (July 13,
2021), 86 FR 38166 (July 19, 2021) (SR-IEX-2021-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In view of the significant overlap in the data available in the
Data Platform and in the TOPS and DEEP feeds, IEX has determined that
the costs to maintain and update TOPS Viewer and the API are not
warranted. IEX does not charge any fees to access either TOPS Viewer or
the API, and thus has borne all costs for developing and supporting
both data products. As with all businesses, IEX does not have unlimited
resources and has determined that it is no longer in its commercial
interests to incur costs to maintain and update TOPS Viewer and the
API. Accordingly, IEX proposes to retire TOPS Viewer and the API,
delete the current IEX Rule 11.330(a)(2), and renumber subparagraphs
(a)(3)-(a)(5) to (a)(2)-(a)(4).
    IEX also believes this proposed rule change will eliminate any
possible confusion that may arise from a market participant trying to
access data elements in TOPS Viewer and the API that can only be found
in the TOPS and DEEP data products. Along those lines, in advance of
issuing a formal trading alert as discussed below, IEX has been
advising users of TOPS Viewer and the API that pending the filing and
effectiveness of this rule change, IEX intends to retire both data
products after November 18, 2021.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Notification is being provided via website headers on the
TOPS Viewer and API pages of IEX's website, with a comparable header
returned with any API queries, in order to notify API users that
might not visit the website. The notifications also inform any users
of the API that IEX's market data will continue to be available via
the TOPS and DEEP feeds, as well as through third party vendors of
IEX market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    This proposed rule change is effective on filing, and the Exchange
expects to implement it on November 19, 2021 (meaning November 18, 2021
will be the last day that TOPS Viewer and the API will be available to
users), following the expiration of the 30-day operative delay. IEX
will provide at least ten (10) days' notice to Members \18\ and market
participants of the implementation timeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See IEX Rule 1.160(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives
of Section 6(b)(5), in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. Specifically, the Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because it will continue to provide
all market data currently available in TOPS Viewer and the API

through the TOPS and DEEP feeds. IEX appreciates that retail investors
and other non-professional market participants may not be able to
utilize TOPS or DEEP in lieu of TOPS Viewer or the API. However, IEX
understands that the market data available in TOPS Viewer and through
the API is also available to retail investors and other non-
professional market participants through brokerage accounts that must
be maintained to enter orders on IEX.\19\ Thus, the retirement of TOPS
Viewer and the API will not adversely impact the ability of retail
investors to access IEX market data when making investing decisions.
Additionally, as discussed in the Purpose section, IEX's HIST data
product allows anyone to download TOPS and DEEP data from IEX's public
website on a T+1 basis, so the retirement of TOPS Viewer and the API
will not adversely impact the ability of academics or other non-market
participants to access historical IEX market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Only a Member may enter an order directly on IEX. Thus,
retail investors and other market participants that are not Members
must maintain an account with a Member of IEX in order to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, IEX believes that retiring TOPS Viewer and the API
will allow it to dedicate more resources to the maintenance of and
enhancements to the TOPS and DEEP feeds. This reallocation of IEX's
limited resources should serve to help remove impediments to a free and
open market, in furtherance of the protection of investors and the
public interest.
    Finally, IEX notes that nothing in the Act requires IEX to provide
a near real-time online version of its market data or any API with near
real-time access to IEX's depth of book data product. No other exchange
offers an online version or API that provides depth of book data
analogous to the IEX API. One other exchange family, the Cboe
exchanges, offers a similar, human readable, top of book viewer on its
website free of charge.\20\ The only other human readable top of book
viewer offered by an exchange is offered by Nasdaq, which charges $76/
month per professional subscriber and $15/month per non-professional
subscriber to access the human readable top of book viewer.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/book_viewer/.
    \21\ See https://www.nasdaq.com/solutions/nasdaq-bookviewer#pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary,
the proposal is designed to enhance IEX's competitiveness with other
markets by enabling IEX to focus its limited resources on the continued
maintenance and enhancement of its TOPS and DEEP feeds. Nothing in this
rule change will impact the ability of any other exchange to offer or
not offer comparable market data products. Further, elimination of TOPS
Viewer and the API will not adversely impact any equities exchanges or
other competing venues of IEX since IEX will continue to provide its
market data through the TOPS and DEEP feeds. In this regard, IEX does
not believe that such exchanges and venues utilize either for other
than informational purposes since their non-continuous nature is not
well suited for operating a trading market. For example, by the time
market data is viewed or obtained by query or update it will typically
be stale and not usable for determining IEX's protected quote.
    The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change
will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. All market
participants will continue to be able to obtain IEX's market data
through the TOPS and DEEP feeds, and as discussed in the Purpose
section, there is more data available in the TOPS and DEEP feeds than
in the TOPS Viewer and the API. Thus, this proposal will impact all
market participants equally, any of which can obtain IEX market data
through the TOPS and DEEP feeds, or through a third-party vendor.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \22\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\23\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay in order to discontinue the optional internet-based TOPS Viewer
and API by November 18, 2021 because doing so: (1) Will allow
developers to make code changes in advance of any year-end ``code
freezes,'' and (2) would not adversely impact the ability of persons to
access the same IEX market data.\24\ The Commission finds that waiving
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. Specifically, waiver of the
operative delay will allow the Exchange to retire these optional market
data products in a timely fashion well in advance of year-end code
freezes and better focus its resources on its core market data feeds.
In addition, according to the Exchange, the same and more IEX market
data is available to market participants and others, through the
Exchange's TOPS, DEEP and HIST data products. The proposal does not,
therefore, present any novel issues and, accordingly, the Commission
designates the proposal operative upon filing.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \25\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-IEX-2021-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2021-13. This file
number should be included in the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 Section, 100 F Street NE, Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for inspection
and copying at the IEX's principal office and on its internet website
at www.iextrading.com. All comments received will be posted without
change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact
or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2021-13
and should be submitted on or before November 29, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-24324 Filed 11-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16413-16415]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6661]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0005; FRL-8865-5]

Pesticide Products; Registration Applications

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of applications to register new
uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active
ingredients, pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. EPA is
publishing this Notice of such applications, pursuant to section
3(c)(4) of FIFRA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 22, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number specified within Unit II, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number specified
for the pesticide of interest as shown in the registration application
summaries. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The 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 regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the 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 docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A contact person is listed at the end
of each registration application summary and may be contacted by
telephone or e-mail. The mailing address for each contact person listed
is: Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

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

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

II. Registration Applications

    EPA received applications as follows to register pesticide products
containing currently registered active ingredients pursuant to the
provisions of section 3(c) of FIFRA. Notice of receipt of these
applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these
applications.
    1. Registration Number/File Symbol: 100-1281, 100-RGII. Docket
Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0137. Company Name and Address: Syngenta Crop
Protection, Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. Active
Ingredient: Mandipropamid. Proposed Uses: Outdoor and greenhouse grown
ornamentals. Contact: Tawanda Maignan, Registration Division (7505P),
(703) 308-8050<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. Registration Numbers: 264-824, 264-825. Docket Number: EPA-HQ-
OPP-2011-0053. Company Name and Address: Bayer CropScience LP, 2 T.W.,
Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Active Ingredient:
Prothioconazole. Proposed Uses: Foliar treatment on alfalfa, potato,
and rice; seed treatment on alfalfa, barley, dry bean and peas (crop
subgroup 6C), potato, rice, soybeans, triticale, and wheat; and nursery
seed and seedlings of conifers and hardwood. Contact: Tawanda Maignan,
Registration Division (7505P),<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Registration Numbers: 352-541, 352-542. Docket Number: EPA-HQ-
OPP-2010-1018. Company Name and Address: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, DE 19898. Active Ingredient:
Quizalofop-p-ethyl. Proposed Uses: Sorghum containing the INZEN AII
herbicide tolerance trait and rapeseed subgroup 20A (borage, crambe,
gold of pleasure (camelina), cuphea, echium, hare's ear mustard,
lesquerella, lunaria, meadowfoam, milkweed, mustard seed, oil radish,
poppy seed, rapeseed (canola), sesame, and sweet rocket). Contact:
Mindy Ondish, Registration Division (7505P),<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    4. Registration Numbers: 352-541, 352-542. Docket Number: EPA-HQ-
OPP-2011-0152. Company Name and Address: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, DE 19898. Active Ingredient:
Quizalofop-p-ethyl. Proposed Uses: Propagation of quizalofop-tolerant
field corn. Contact: Mindy Ondish, Registration Division (7505P), (703)
605-0723<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    5. Registration Numbers: 352-555, 352-768. Docket Number: EPA-HQ-
OPP-2010-1017. Company Name and Address: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, DE 19898. Active Ingredient:
Rimsulfuron. Proposed Uses: Bushberry subgroup 13-07B and caneberry
subgroup 13-07A. Contact:

Mindy Ondish, Registration Division (7505P),<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    6. Registration Numbers/File Symbols: 352-782, 352-783, 352-785,
352-786, 352-787, 352-ILR, 352-ILN. Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-
0144. Company Name and Address: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company,
1007 Market Street, Wilmington, DE 19898. Active Ingredient:
Aminocyclopyrachlor. Proposed Uses: Pastures, rangeland, and CRP acres.
Contact: Mindy Ondish, Registration Division (7505P),<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    7. Registration Number: 59639-147. Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-
0621. Company Name and Address: Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 1600 Riviera
Avenue, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. Active Ingredient:
Metconazole. Proposed Uses: Tuberous & corm subgroup 1C & bushberry
subgroup 13-07B. Contact: Tracy Keigwin, Registration Division (7505P),
(703) 305-6605<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    8. Registration Number: 72078-1. Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-
0621. Company Name and Address: Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 1600 Riviera
Avenue, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, Agent for Kureha
Corporation, 3-3-2, Nihonbashi-Hamacho, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 103-8552, Japan.
Active Ingredient: Metconazole. Proposed Uses: Tuberous & corm subgroup
1C & bushberry subgroup 13-07B. Contact: Tracy Keigwin, Registration
Division (7505P),<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    9. Registration Numbers: 10163-209, 10163-277. Docket Number: EPA-
HQ-OPP-2010-0916. Company Name and Address: Gowan Company, 370 South
Main Street, Yuma, AZ 85364. Active Ingredient: Hexythiazox. Proposed
Uses: Greenhouse tomatoes. Contact: Olga Odiott, Registration Division
(7505P),<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.

    Dated: March 15, 2011.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-6661 Filed 3-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P