d.	Absorbed Daily dose (mg/kg/day) = exposure (mg/day) * conversion ratio (0.427) * absorption factor (NA for dermal and 100% for inhalation)/body weight (70 kg).

e.			MOE = NOAEL (mg/kg/day) / Daily dose [Where ST/IT (systemic) NOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day for dermal and ST/IT/LT NOAEL = 5 mg/kg/day for inhalation]. Target MOE is 100 for dermal exposure and 1000 for inhalation exposure.

Diptank Operators

	Exposures to diptank operators were also assessed using surrogate data from the DDAC study (Bestari et al., 1999). The diptank scenario assessment was conducted differently than for the other job functions because the concentration of DDAC in the diptank solution was provided.  Typical registered product use rates for dip treatments (dipping, diptank, immersion) are at levels of 0.11% to 1.25% ai. Non-pressure dip treatment of wood intended for ground contact is usually specified for levels of 1.0% ai or more. The exposures were estimated based on the maximum application rate for dipping treatment to control sapstain cited on product labeling for EPA Reg. No. 3008-91 which is a 34.18 % ai concentrate used to make water-based treatment solutions of up to 2.3% ai [i.e., 1:15 v/v use dilution (0.0666) x 34.18 % ai in product = 2.3 % ai].  Product labeling cites use of eye protection and rubber gloves as PPE.

	The exposure data for diptank operators wearing gloves were converted into “unit exposures” in terms of mg a.i. for each 1% of concentration of the product. The calculation of the dermal and inhalation unit exposures (2.99 and 0.046 mg/1% solution, respectively) is presented in Table B-2 in Appendix B.  The air concentrations presented in the DDAC study were converted to unit exposures using an inhalation rate of 1.0 m3/hr (light activity) and a sample duration of 8 hrs/day.

The following equations are used to estimate dermal and inhalation handler exposure:

Daily Dose = DDAC UE x AI x AB

		BW

Where

DDAC UE	=	DDAC dermal unit exposure (mg/ 1% in solution);

AI		=	AI (2.3% ai in solution/day);

AB	=	Absorption factor (NA for dermal, 100% for inhalation); and

BW		=	Body weight (70 kg).

	Table 6.5 provides the short-term and the intermediate- and long-term doses and MOEs for diptank operators. The dermal ST/IT MOE was 2.037 which is above the target MOE of 100 and therefore not of concern.  The inhalation ST/IT/LT MOE exceeded the Agency target of 1,000, as 3,311, and is also not of concern.  Therefore, a confirmatory inhalation toxicity study is not warranted based on the results of this exposure scenario.

 Table 6.5.  Short-, Intermediate-, and Long-Term Exposures and MOEs for Diptank Operator

Exposure Scenarioa

(number of replicates)	Dermal Unit Exposureb

(mg DDAC/1% solution)	Inhalation Unit Exposureb

(mg DDAC/1% solution)	App Rate

(% a.i. in solution/ day)c 	Absorbed Daily Dosesd

(mg/kg/day)	MOEse

Dermal	Inhalation	Dermal

ST/IT

Target MOE = 100	Inhalation

ST/IT/LT

Target MOE = 1000

Occupational Handler

Dipping, with gloves (n=7)

	2.99	0.046	2.3	0.0982	0.00151

2,037

	3,311

ST = 	Short-term duration;  IT =Intermediate-term duration; and LT = long-term.

a. 	The exposure scenario represents a worker wearing long-sleeved shirts, cotton work trousers, and gloves. Gloves were worn only when near chemical, not when operating the diptank.

b.	Dermal and inhalation unit exposures are from DDAC study (MRID 455243-04). Refer to Table B-2 in Appendix B for the dermal and inhalation unit exposure calculations. Inhalation exposure (mg) was calculated using the following equation: Air concentration (mg/m3) x Inhalation rate (1.0 m3/hr) x Sample Duration (8 hr).  The inhalation rate is from USEPA, 1997a.

c.	The maximum application rate for sapstain control dip application method is 2.3% ai solution (3008-91).

d.	Absorbed Daily dose (mg/kg/day) = unit exposure (mg/1% ai solution) * percent active ingredient in solution (2.3) * absorption factor (NA for dermal and 100% for inhalation) / body weight (70 kg).

e.			MOE = NOAEL (mg/kg/day) / Daily dose [Where ST/IT (systemic) NOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day for dermal and ST/IT/LT NOAEL = 5 mg/kg/day for inhalation]. Target MOE is 100 for dermal exposure and 1000 for inhalation exposure.

Construction Workers

	Not enough data exists to estimate the amount of exposure associated with construction workers who install treated wood.  In particular, values for the transfer coefficient associated with a construction worker handling the wood could not be determined. However, it is believed that the construction worker using a trim saw will have larger dermal and inhalation exposures than the installer, due to the amount of sawdust generated and the greater amount of hand contact that would be necessary to handle the wood when using a saw compared to installing the wood.

	6.4.2	Pressure Treatment Scenarios (Handler and Post-Application)

	Oxine-Copper wood preservatives may be used to treat wood and wood products using pressurized application methods, specifically empty-cell vacuum pressure techniques.  Pressure treatment solutions of solubilized Oxine-Copper are predominantly oil or solvent-based.  However, there are a few water-borne products registered as well. Typical registered product use rates for pressure treatment are at levels of 0.25% ai. The maximum rate of application used in this assessment is 1% ai solution based on product labeling for EPA Reg. Nos. 2829-135 and 2829-136 which are 10% ai concentrates, and indicate that pressure treatment use solutions of up to 1% ai can be made [i.e., 10% w/w use dilution (10) x 10% ai in product (0.10) = 1% ai].

	Oxine-Copper is listed in the American Wood-Preservers’Association (AWPA) Book of Standards for treatment of several softwood species used in exposed, above-ground applications. AWPA has standardized oil-borne treatments using solubilized Oxine-Copper in their AWPA Standard P8 for oil-borne preservatives.  The minimum specified retention (as Oxine-Copper active ingredient) for these applications is 0.32 kg/m3 (0.02 lb/ft3).

	Chemical-specific exposure data are not available on Oxine-Copper for assessment of pressure treatment exposure.  Therefore, the assessment relies on surrogate chromated copper arsenate (CCA) data (ACC, 2002) and was based on the approach used in a previous Agency exposure assessment (USEPA, 2003).

Surrogate Unit Exposure Data

	Dermal and inhalation exposures for pressure treatment uses are derived from information in the exposure study sponsored by the American Chemistry Council (2002) entitled “Assessment of Potential Inhalation and Dermal Exposure Associated with Pressure Treatment of Wood with Arsenical Wood Products” (ACC, 2002).  In this study, a treatment solution of CCA was approximately 0.5 percent active ingredient.  The CCA exposure monitoring study has been reviewed by the Agency and is considered a valid surrogate source of data for pressure treatment applications and is therefore used in estimating exposure to Oxine-Copper.

(5 ≤ n ≤ 15).

	The measured CCA dermal and inhalation exposure values were normalized by the treatment solution concentration used at each of the 3 facilities (i.e., unit exposure reported as µg arsenic/ppm treatment solution).  The normalization by treatment solution concentration was performed to extrapolate the measured exposures in the CCA study (monitored at ~0.5% ai solution) to the maximum Oxine-Copper treatment solution concentration (1% ai solution).  Table 6.6 presents the dermal and inhalation unit exposure values normalized to the treatment solution concentration in ppm for (1) all sites, (2) treatment operator (TA handler), (3) treatment assistant (TA handler), and (4) all post-application job functions (TS, SO, LO, S, TB, TM).

	Note: The U.S. and Canadian sites indicate a 7x difference in the mean dermal exposures (US site mean is 0.40 µg As/ppm compared to the Canadian site mean of 2.84 µg As/ppm).  It is recommended that additional analysis be performed to determine if the increased exposure levels at the Canadian site can be attributed to differences in site-specific engineering controls or facility design.

Table 6.6.  Dermal and Inhalation Exposure Values from a CCA Pressure Treatment Study (Exposure Data used as Surrogate Unit Exposures for Oxine-Copper Assessment)

Site	Treatment Solution  	Statistic	Dermal Unit Exposure

((g As/ppm)	Air

Concentrationb

((g As/m3/ppm)	Inhalation Unit Exposurec

((g As/ppm)

	%	ppma

All sites - All Data

(n = 64)	0.438 to 0.595	4,380 to 5,950	Average ± std	0.97 ± Unknown 0.00013 ± 0.00023	0.00104

	Median	0.36	0.00013	0.00104

	90th percentile	2.07	0.00077	0.00617

	Maximum	7.74	0.0011	0.00882

All sites - Handler Treatment Operator

(n = 15)	0.438 to 0.595	4,380 to 5,950	Average ± std	2.04 ± 2.68 0.00032 ± 0.00038	0.00257

	Median	0.37	0.00013	0.00104

	90th percentile	5.39	0.00092	0.00737

	Maximum	7.74	0.0011	0.00882

All sites - Handler Treatment Assistant

(n = 10)	0.438 to 0.595	4,380 to 5,950	Average ± std	0.24 ± 0.14 0.0001 ± 0.00004	0.000802

	Median	0.23	0.00013	0.00104

	90th percentile	0.40	0.00013	0.00104

	Maximum	0.52	0.00014	0.00112

All sites – Post-application: All job functions (TS, SO, LO, S, TB, TM)

(n = 39)	--	--	Average ± std	0.74 ± 0.73	0.00020 ± 0.00025	0.00160

	Median	0.42	0.00013	0.00104

	90th percentile	1.81	0.00050	0.00401

	Maximum	3.11	0.0011	0.00882

	a.	ppm = (% treatment solution) * (10,000).

	b.	Air concentration was calculated as (g collected per sample per ppm / (480 min per day x 2 L/min).

	c.	Inhalation unit exposure = air concentration ((g As/m3/ppm) * breathing rate for light activities (0.0167 	m3/min) * sample duration (480 min).  Values shown in bold are used for the assessment.

Exposure Calculations

The following equation was used to estimate dermal and inhalation handler exposure:

Absorbed Daily Dose = 	UE x AI x AB

	      	       BW

Where

UE	=	Unit exposure (mg As/ppm);

AI	=	Percent active ingredient (1% ai in solution);

AB	=	Absorption factor (Not applicable [NA] for dermal, 100% for inhalation); and

BW	=	Body weight (70 kg).

Results

	The estimated dermal and inhalation exposures and risks for Oxine-Copper pressure treatment uses are presented in Table 6.7.  The calculated ST/IT dermal MOEs are all above the target MOE of 100 and do not pose a risk concern.  Also, the inhalation ST/IT/LT MOEs for all scenarios and durations are above the target MOE of 1000, therefore, a confirmatory inhalation toxicity study is not warranted based on the screening-level results.

Table 6.7.  Short-, Intermediate-, and Long-Term Exposures and MOEs for Pressure Treatment Handler and Post-application Scenarios Related to Oxine-Copper Use

Exposure Scenarioa

Unit Exposurea

((g As/ppm)

Application Rate

(% ai solution) 	Absorbed Daily Dosesb

(mg/kg/day)	MOEsc

	Dermal	Inhalation

Dermal	Inhalation	Dermal

ST/IT

Target = 100	Inhalation

ST/IT/LT

Target=1000

Occupational Handler

Treatment Operator (TO)	2.04	0.00257	1	0.291	0.000367	687	13,624

Treatment Assistant (TA)	0.24	0.000802	1	0.0343	0.000115	5,831	43,478

Occupational Post-application

All Job Functions

(Tram setter, stacker operator, loader operator, supervisor, test borer, and tallyman) 	0.74	0.00160	1	0.106	0.000229	1,887	21,834

ST = 	Short-term duration; IT = Intermediate-term duration; and LT = long-term.

a. 	Unit exposure values are taken from CCA study as shown above and in Table 6.6.

μg) * absorption factor (NA for dermal; 100% for inhalation) / Body weight (70 kg).

c.			MOE = NOAEL (mg/kg/day) / Daily dose [Where ST/IT (systemic) NOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day for dermal and ST/IT/LT NOAEL = 5 mg/kg/day for inhalation]. Target MOE is 100 for dermal exposure and 1000 for inhalation exposure.

	6.5	Data Limitations/Uncertainties tc \l2 "6.3	Data Limitations/Uncertainties

	There are several data limitations and uncertainties associated with the occupational handler and post-application exposure assessments.  These include:

Surrogate dermal and inhalation unit exposure values were taken from the proprietary Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) antimicrobial exposure study (USEPA, 1999: DP Barcode D247642) or from the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (USEPA, 1998) (See Appendix A for summaries of these data sources).   Since the CMA data are of poor quality, the Agency may request that confirmatory data be submitted in order to support the occupational scenarios assessed in this document.

The low pressure spray unit exposure data from PHED were used to assess both outdoor environmental surface treatments (materials preservative) and applications of wood coatings/water repellents (wood preservatives).  As the low pressure spray data are representative of treating low to mid level range targets (shrubs/greenhouse benches) and the scenarios assessed in this document represents treatments that may also occur above the waist, the unit exposure value may underestimate exposure to the head and the upper body.

For the wood preservative pressure treatment scenarios, surrogate CCA exposure data were used for lack of chemical-specific exposure data for this use pattern. For the wood preservative non-pressure treatment scenarios, surrogate DDAC exposure data were used for the lack of chemical-specific exposure data.  Limitations and uncertainties associated with the use of these data include:

The assumption was made that exposure patterns for workers at treatment facilities using CCA and DDAC would be similar to exposure patterns for workers at treatment facilities using Oxine-Copper, and therefore the exposures could be used as surrogate data for workers that treat wood with Oxine-Copper based formulations.

For environmental modeling, it was assumed that the leaching process from wood treated with Oxine-Copper would be similar to that of CCA and DDAC. However, due to the lack of robust data for Oxine-Copper -treated wood, it is not possible to verify this assumption.

The quantities handled/treated were estimated based on information from various sources, including Agency standard assumptions, HED’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Residential Exposure Assessments (USEPA, 2000 and 2001), and professional judgment based on Agency understanding of industrial practices.  In certain cases, no standard values were available for some scenarios.  Assumptions for these scenarios were based on AD estimates and could be further refined with input from registrants.

7.0	REFERENCES tc \l1 "7.0	REFERENCES

American Chemistry Council (ACC). 2002.  Assessment of Potential Inhalation and Dermal Exposure Associated With Pressure Treatment of Wood with Arsenical Wood Products.  MRID 4550211-01.

Bestari et al.. 1999. [Sapstain Industry Group (SIG)-Consortium Task Force] Measurement and Assessment of Dermal and Inhalation Exposures to Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium Chloride (DDAC) Used in the Protection of Cut Lumber (Phase III). Unpublished Study Prepared by University of Guelph. 309 p. (MRID 455243-04, SIG Task Force #73154).

Bharat Textiles. 2007. Weight/Density Estimate for Army Duck Canvas taken from a Specification Chart on the internet site   HYPERLINK "http://www.tentandcanvas.com/product.htm"  http://www.tentandcanvas.com/product.htm  of this canvas exporter. Last viewed April 18, 2007.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Freeman, N , Jimenez M, Reed KJ,Gurunathan S, Edwards RD, Roy A, Adgate JL, Pellizzari ED, Quackenboss J, Sexton K, Lioy PJ, 2001.  Quantitative analysis of children’s microactivity patterns:  The Minnesota Children’s Pesticide Exposure Study.  Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology.  11(6): 501-509.

SIMetric. 2005.    HYPERLINK "http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_materials.htm"  http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_materials.htm   Last viewed November 9, 2005.

USEPA.  1997.  Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Residential Exposure Assessments.  EPA Office of Pesticide Programs(Human Health Effects Division (HED). Dated December 18, 1997.

USEPA.  1997a.  Exposure Factors Handbook. Volume I-II.  Office of Research and Development.  Washington, D.C.  EPA/600/P-95/002Fa. August 1997.

USEPA. 1998. PHED Surrogate Exposure Guide. Estimates of Worker Exposure from the Pesticide Handler Exposure Database Version 1.1.   Washington, DC:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 USEPA. 1999.  Evaluation of Chemical Manufacturers Association Antimicrobial Exposure Assessment Study (Amended on December 8,1992).  Memorandum from Siroos Mostaghimi, PH.D., USEPA to Julie Fairfax, USEPA. Dated November, 4 1999.  DP Barcode D247642.

USEPA.  2000.  Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Residential Exposure Assessments. Prepared for EPA Office of Pesticide Programs, Health Effects Division. Dated April 5, 2000.

USEPA.  2001.  HED Science Advisory Council for Exposure. Policy Update, November 12, 2001.  Recommended Revisions to the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Residential Exposure Assessment, February 22, 2001.

USEPA. 2003.  Assessment of the Proposed Bardac Wood Preservative Pressure Treatment Use.  Memorandum from Tim Leighton and Siroos Mostaghimi.  February 11, 2003.

USEPA. 2004.  Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment for Carboquat WP-50.  Memorandum from Siroos Mostaghimi, USEPA to Velma Noble, USEPA.   Dated November 4, 2004. DP Barcodes D303714 and D303938.

USEPA.  2005.  Antimicrobials Division’s Draft Standard Operating Procedures for Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessments.  July, 2005. (Unpublished Internal Guidance).

USEPA.  2005a.  A Probabilistic Exposure Assessment for Children Who Contact CCA-Treated Playsets and Decks.  Final Report, February, 2005.  US EPA Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory.

USEPA.  2006.  Coppers: Second Revised Human Health Chapter of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document (RED). Reregistration Case Numbers 0636, 0649, 4025 and 4026. DP Barcode 319683. Dated January 17, 2006. Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0558-0006. (EPA Docket: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0558; Copper Cases; Coppers Reregistration Eligibility Decision, Notice of Availability, January 25, 2006.).

USEPA. 2006a. Review Memorandum: Oxine Copper (copper 8-quinolinolate) – Endpoint Selection Report from T.F. McMahon, Ph.D., Senior Toxicologist, AD. June 13, 2006.

USEPA. 2006b. Meeting Minutes of SMART Meeting Conference Call for Copper 8-Quniolinolate. Reregistration Case 4026. November 8, 2006.  Transmittal from K. Avivah Jakob, Chemical Review Manager, USEPA to Copper 8-Quniolinolate RED Team Members, USEPA. Dated November 16, 2006.

USEPA. 2006c. Review Memorandum: Environmental Fate Transport Assessment for Copper 8-Quinolinolate from A. Najm Shamim, Ph.D., Chemist, AD. November 3, 2006.

APPENDIX A:

Summary of CMA and PHED Data

Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) Data:

In response to an EPA Data Call-In Notice, a study was undertaken by the Institute of Agricultural Medicine and Occupational Health of The University of Iowa under contract to the Chemical Manufacturers Association.  In order to meet the requirements of Subdivision U of the Pesticide Assessment Guidelines (superseded by  Series 875.1000-875.1600 of the Pesticide Assessment Guidelines), handler exposure data are required from the chemical manufacturer specifically registering the antimicrobial pesticide.   The applicator exposure study must comply with the assessment guidelines for “Applicator Exposure Monitoring” in Subdivision U and the “Occupational and Residential Exposure Test Guidelines” in Series 875.  For this purpose, CMA submitted a study on  February 28, 1990, entitled "Antimicrobial Exposure Assessment Study (amended on December 8, 1992)" which was conducted by William Popendorf, et al..  It was evaluated and accepted by the Occupational and Residential Exposure Branch (OREB) of Health Effect Division (HED), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) of EPA in 1990.  The purpose of this CMA study was to characterize exposure to antimicrobial chemicals in order to support pesticide reregistrations (CMA, 1992).  The unit exposures presented in the most recent EPA evaluation of the CMA database (USEPA, 1999) were used in this assessment.

The Agency determined that the CMA study had fulfilled the basic requirements of Subdivision U - Applicator Exposure Monitoring.  The advantages of CMA data over other “surrogate data sets” is that the chemicals and the job functions of mixer/loader/applicator were defined based on common application methods used for antimicrobial pesticides.  A few of the deficiencies in the CMA data are noted below:

The inhalation concentrations were typically below the detection limits, so the unit exposures for the inhalation exposure route could not be accurately calculated.

QA/QC problems including lack of either/or field fortification, laboratory recoveries, and storage stability information.

Data have an insufficient amount of replicates.

The Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED):

The Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED) has been developed by a Task Force consisting of representatives from Health Canada, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the American Crop Protection Association (ACPA).  PHED provides generic pesticide worker (i.e., mixer/loader and applicator) exposure estimates.  The dermal and inhalation exposure estimates generated by PHED are based on actual field monitoring data, which are reported generically (i.e., chemical specific names not reported) in PHED.  It has been the Agency’s policy to use “surrogate” or “generic” exposure data for pesticide applicators in certain circumstances because it is believed that the physical parameters (e.g., packaging type) or application technique (e.g., aerosol can), not the chemical properties of the pesticide, attribute to exposure levels. [Note: Vapor pressures for the chemicals in PHED are in the range of E-5 to E-7 mm Hg.]  Chemical specific properties are accounted for by correcting the exposure data for study specific field and laboratory recovery values as specified by the PHED grading criteria.

PHED handler exposure data are generally provided on a normalized basis for use in exposure assessments.  The most common method for normalizing exposure is by pounds of active ingredient (ai) handled per replicate (i.e., exposure in mg per replicate is divided by the amount of ai handled in that particular replicate).  These unit exposures are expressed as mg/lb ai handled.  This normalization method presumes that dermal and inhalation exposures are linear based on the amount of active ingredient handled.

APPENDIX B:

Calculation of DDAC Unit Exposure ValuesTable B-1:  DDAC Dermal and Inhalation Exposure Values for Chemical Operators, Graders, Millwrights, Clean-up Crews, and Trim Saw Operators a

Replicate Number	Chemical Operator	Grader	Trim Saw Operator	Millwright Cleanup Crew

	Dermal	Inhalation	Dermal	Inhalation	Dermal	Inhalation	Dermal	Inhalation Dermal	Inhalation

	Potential exposure (mg)	Air Concentration ((g/m3) b, c	Potential exposured (mg)	Potential exposure (mg)	Air Concentration

((g/m3) b, c	Potential exposure d (mg)	Potential exposure (mg)	Air Concentration ((g/m3) b, c	Potential exposured (mg)	Potential exposure (mg)	Air Concentra-tion ((g/m3) b, c	Potential exposured (mg)	Potential exposure (mg)	Air Concentration ((g/m3) b, c	Potential exposured (mg)

1	3.5	10.1	0.0808	3.05	2.90	0.0232	0.78	2.83	0.0227	1.31	2.92	0.0233 68.3	2.99145	0.0239

2	6.11	2.80	0.0224	7.47	2.93	0.0234	1.98	12.3	0.0984	29.08	2.83	0.0226 0.720	2.78840	0.0223

3	6.07	2.79	0.0223	1.09	2.91	0.0233

8.03	15.6	0.1248	166	30.3	0.2424

4	46.37	2.82	0.0226	10.51	3.00	0.0240

	95.2	412	3.2960

5	0.94	2.93	0.0235	0.61	2.82	0.0226

	1.20	2.83585	0.0227

6	22.15	2.83	0.0227	0.98	2.85	0.0228

	0.260	2.80989	0.0225

7	21.45	2.77	0.0222	2.63	2.91	0.0233

	8	0.22	2.73	0.0218	5.23	2.85	0.0228

	9	0.44	2.77	0.0222	0.19	13.20	0.1056

	10	0.33	3.14	0.0251	1.47	2.89	0.0231

	11	0.29	2.88	0.0230	2.38	2.85	0.0228

	12

4.09	2.81	0.0225

	13

1.03	2.94	0.0235

	Arithmetic Mean	9.81	3.51	0.0281	3.13	3.68	0.0295	1.38	7.57	0.061	12.8 7.12	0.057	55.3	75.6	0.60

Minimum	0.22	2.73	0.0218	0.19	2.81	0.0225	0.78	2.83	0.0227	1.31	2.83 0.0226	0.260	2.79	0.0223

Maximum	46.4	10.1	0.081	10.51	13.2	0.106	1.98	12.3	0.098	29.1	15.6	0.125 166	412	3.30

a.	“Measurement and Assessment of Dermal and Inhalation Exposures to Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium Chloride (DDAC) Used in the Protection of Cut Lumber (Phase III)” is the proprietary Sapstain Industry Group (SIG) study that values were obtained from for this table (Bestari et al., 1999, MRID 455243-04, SIG Task Force #73154 ).

b.	The inhalation LOD was not provided for chemical operators, graders, trim saw operators, millwrights, or the clean-up crew.  Therefore, the LOD provided for the diptank operator (5.6 (g) was used for these positions.  Residues less than the LOD were adjusted to 1/2 LOD.

c.	The inhalation limit of detection was converted to (g/m3 using the following equation: Air concentration ((g /m3) = 5.6 (g / [average flow rate (L/min) * sampling duration (480 min) * 1000 L/m3.  Data was obtained from Bestari et al (1999).

d.	DDAC air concentrations were converted to inhalation exposure using the following equation: Air concentration ((g /m3) x inhalation rate (1.0 m3/hr) x Conversion factor (1mg/1000(g) x sample duration (8 hours/day).

Note: Arithmetic Mean values shown in bold typeface by job function are recommended for use in dermal and inhalation exposure assessments for non-pressure wood preservative treatments, where appropriate.

Table B-2:  Normalization of DDAC Dermal and Inhalation Exposure Values for Diptank Operators a

Worker ID	Mill number	Sample Time (min)	DDAC

Conc. in

Diptank

(%)	Gloves	Dermal Body Exposure b (mg)	Hand Exposure b (mg)	Total Dermal Exposure (mg)	Normalized Total Dermal Unit Exposure c

(mg/ 1 % solution)	Air Conc.d

(mg/m3)	Inhalation Exposure e (mg)	Normalized Inhalation Unit Exposure c

g

Ï

Ð

Ó

à

á

ç

è

ï

ò

ó

  hD@

  hD@

  hD@

 hD@

hD@

hD@

 hD@

 hD@

hD@

B

d

e

²

Ò

Ó

è

ó

h

䀀&摧䁄

3

Q

U

h

  hD@

hD@

  hD@

  hD@

  hD@

hD@

  hD@

  hD@

  hD@

h

i

j

k

l

m

n

o

¡

Ö

萑৘葠৘ᄀh

i

m

o

¡

Æ

Ü

þ

਀萑´葠´

਀萑Ũ葠Ũ

h™

h

h™

h

h 5

h 5

Ø	@

Ø	@

Ø	@

@

Ø	@

@

@

Ø	@

Ø	@

hÑ

hÑ

Ø	@

@

Æ+Ð

@

Ø	@

Ø	@

Ø	@

ᄀ킄㄂Ĥ葠ː

ഀ׆Āﭕᄀ肄ㄖĤ葠

ഀ׆ĀﭕᄀꂄㄅĤ葠֠

@

@

h˜

Ø	@

Ø	@

Ø	@

Ø	@

Ø	@

Ø	@

Ø	@

Ø	@

Ø	@

Ø	@

Ø	@

$

Ø	@

hÝ

h«

  ho

葞Ƃ葠ﹾ摧͛Q

  ho

  ho

  ho

 ho

㄀Ĥ

唁û萏ː萑ﴰ␱䀁&葞ː葠ﴰ

$

B*

B*

B*

) h

h

h

	ഀ׆Āﭕ㄀Ĥ

␃愃̤摧癉

hIv

hÞ

ഀ׆Āﭕༀ킄ᄂやㇽĤ葞ː葠ﴰ

hÙ

hÙ

hÙ

$̀Ĥ옍)

$̀Ĥ옍)

$̀Ĥ옍)

$̀Ĥ옍)

$̀Ĥ옍)

$

@

@

h-

$

@

h-

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

@

kd

@

@

@

@

̀Ĥ옍)

옍)

€

‚

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

㄀Ĥသ਀&䘋

သ਀&䘋

ရ਀&䘋

’

“

½

1

˜

ž

®

̀Ĥ옍)

옍#

@

@

옍#

သ਀&䘋

 h{

  h{

@

Ê

 h{

  h{

 h{

옍

 h{

 h{

 h{

  h{

 h{

H* h{

 h{

H* h{

  h{

 h{

  h{

 h{

 h{

  h{

 h{

 h{

  h{

옍

 h{

 h{

 h{

옍

옍

  h{

 h{

 h{

 h{

 h{

&

&

 h{

 h{

  h{

  h{

h-

&

@

㓿ۖĀ̊x替Ĵ瑹倔?咊଀蟝蟞

옍#

옍#

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

ᜆ

@

@

h

h

h

h

@

CJ

aJ

hå

CJ

aJ

CJ

aJ

CJ

aJ

h

@

h

CJ

aJ

CJ

aJ

h

$

@

CJ

aJ

h

CJ

aJ

h

h

$

@

h

h

h

CJ

aJ

@

@

h

CJ

aJ

h

h

CJ

aJ

h

@

@

yt

CJ

aJ

h

hå

  hå

hå

hå

CJ

aJ

CJ

aJ

CJ

aJ

h

CJ

aJ

T

T

  hå

  hå

  hå

hå

  hå

hå

CJ

aJ

hå

CJ

aJ

  hå

T

h^

옍)

옍)

 hcy

  hcy

 hcy

  hcy

 hcy

hÌQ

  hcy

 hcy

 hcy

 hcy

hÌQ

帀怀愀Ĥ摧䙽Ûဤ̀Ĥ옍#

hí

  h^

@

 h^

hí

 h^

  h^

@

hÖS

hÖS

#

:

=

>

E

K

P

a

m

š

›

¬

µ

Â

×

Ü

Ý

Þ

æ

hÌQ

@

H

I

„

…

‡

›

œ

©

®

¯

±

Ó

æ

ú

hÌQ

	a

k

‡

ž

ª

°

±

²

³

´

µ

¼

Ç

Î

Ô

Ö

ç

愀Ĥ摧䙽Ûကç

ò

ü

ý

옍

h

hx

hÌQ

옍)

옍)

 hS

hÌQ

hÌQ

Ff

&

@

hÌQ

hÌQ

愀Ĥ摧䙽Ûഀ㐒㐓

@

옍)

옍)

옍)

hf

@

@

@

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

h"n

h"n

hf

옍)

摧渢

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

㄀Ĥ摧噞̀Ĥ옍)

옍)

h

 h

h

 h

 h

h

옍)

 h

 h

Ffá

@

h¶

h

h¶

  h¶

h¶

0.057

M11P9A	11	395	0.63	Leather	0.15	3.33	3.48	5.52	0.003	0.024	0.0381

M11P9B	11	480	0.63	Leather	0.1	0.45	0.55	0.87	0.003	0.024	0.0381

Arithmetic Mean	0.17	1.59	1.76	2.99	0.0030	0.0240	0.046

Standard Deviation	0.18	1.39	1.53	2.32	0.0000	0.0000	0.0103

Median	0.10	1.34	1.38	3.29	0.0030	0.0240	0.0381

Geometric Mean	0.10	0.83	0.99	1.86	0.0030	0.0240	0.045

90%tile	0.39	3.37	3.66	5.78	0.0030	0.0240	0.057

Maximum	0.50	3.44	3.94	6.16	0.0030	0.0240	0.057

a.	“Measurement and Assessment of Dermal and Inhalation Exposures to Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium Chloride (DDAC) Used in the Protection of Cut Lumber (Phase III)” is the proprietary Sapstain Industry Group (SIG) study that values were obtained from for this table (Bestari et al., 1999, MRID 455243-04, SIG Task Force #73154).

b.	DDAC concentration that was detected in the monitoring study (MRID #455243-04).

c.	Normalization of DDAC data for percent ai treatment.  Normalized Unit Exposure (mg/1% ai solution) = Exposure (mg DDAC) / concentration in diptank solution (% DDAC)

d.	All inhalation residues were <LOD (5.6 (g or 0.0056 mg/m3). 1/2 LOD was used in all calculations (0.003 mg/m3). Air Concentration (mg/m3) = 5.6 (g / (~2 L/min flow rate x ~480 min) x 1000 L/m3 conversion x 0.001 (g /mg = 0.003 mg/m3

e.	Inhalation exposure (mg) = air concentration (mg/m3) x inhalation rate (1.0 m3/hr) x sample duration (8 hours/day).

f.	Residues were <LOD for dermal samples M8P4A, M8P4B.  Sample size of ~11,231 cm2 x <0.007 ug/cm2 = LOD of 0.079 mg.  1/2 LOD reported (i.e., 0.04 mg)

Note: Arithmetic Mean values shown in bold typeface are the recommended Normalized Dermal and Inhalation Unit Exposure values for use in exposure assessments for non-pressure wood preservative treatments, where appropriate.

 	Based on an Agency query of the Office of Pesticide Programs Information Network (OPPIN), there are several cancelled registrations for Oxine-Copper products which represent use patterns no longer supported for this pesticide. These include: agricultural fungicide uses in greenhouse fogging applications as foliar treatments against powdery mildew on ornamentals (e.g., cultivation of carnations, roses, chrysanthemums), surface treatments against mold, rot and mildew on walls, floors and ceilings in food processing establishment premises (e.g., bakeries, canneries); also use in materials and wood preservation for carpet underlays (for government and/or military sites), thread, thatched roofs and cooling tower wood.

 	Osmose, Inc. also holds the registration for an industrial-use EP (34.18% a.i. soluble concentrate).

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

 PAGE  45

 PAGE  65


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15250-15251]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05516]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2009-0072]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on February 25, 2020, the Tri-
County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet)
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to renew a waiver
of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained at 49 CFR part 222, Use of Locomotive Horns at
Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. FRA assigned the petition Docket
Number FRA-2009-0072.
    TriMet seeks to renew its waiver to not be required to routinely
sound its locomotive horn when approaching three public highway-rail
grade crossings on the Lombard segment of TriMet's Westside Express
Service (WES), and to be permitted to use a 60 dB(A) locomotive bell in
lieu of the locomotive horn at these three crossings. Specifically,
TriMet seeks a waiver from the provisions of 49 CFR 222.21(a) and
222.21(b)(2), which require locomotive horns to be sounded when
approaching public highway-rail grade crossings, using the ``long-long-
short-long'' pattern that begins 15 to 20 seconds before the locomotive
reaches the crossing, but no further than \1/4\ mile from the crossing.
    TriMet states that, at these three crossings, their use of a 60
dB(A) bell provides a level of safety equivalent to that of the
required locomotive horn.

TriMet contends because WES trains will be sounding the bell, the
``long-long-short-long'' requirement of Sec.  222.21 would be
redundant, and should not be required at these three crossings.
    In November 2014, TriMet sought, and in August 2015, FRA granted,
five years of regulatory relief from the requirements of Sec.  222.21
as described above. The current petition seeks permanent relief from
these same requirements.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by May 1, 2020 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-05516 Filed 3-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 12, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70372-70373]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24658]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2016 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9151; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-15]

Proposed Revocation of Class E Airspace and Establishment of
Class E Airspace; Ruston, LA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to remove Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ruston Municipal Airport,
Ruston, LA, as the airport has closed and controlled airspace is no
longer required. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface would be established at the new Ruston Regional Airport,
Ruston, LA, for safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR)
operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 28, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2016-9151; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-15, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend Class E airspace in the Ruston, LA, area.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-9151/
Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-15.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective
September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by removing Class E airspace at Ruston
Municipal Airport, Ruston, LA, as the airport has been closed;
therefore controlled airspace is no longer needed. Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile
radius of Ruston Regional Airport, Ruston, LA would be established.
Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of
standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the
airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005. Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700
feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.
* * * * *

ASW LA E5 Ruston, LA [Removed]

* * * * *

ASW LA E5 Ruston, LA [New]

Ruston Regional Airport, LA
    (Lat. 32[deg]30'53'' N., long. 92[deg]35'18'' W.)
    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 3, 2016.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-24658 Filed 10-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 54440-54442]
[DOCID:fr19se08-107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58546; File No. SR-BATS-2008-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
BATS Rule 11.5, Entitled ``Orders and Modifiers,'' To Provide for a New
Order Type--Modified Destination Specific Order

September 15, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 8, 2008, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. BATS has
designated the proposed rule change as constituting a non-controversial
rule change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is proposing to amend BATS Rule 11.5, entitled
``Orders and Modifiers,'' to provide for a new order type, a Modified
Destination Specific Order.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to provide an additional
order type to Users of the Exchange. The proposed new order type is a
``Modified Destination Specific Order,'' which is a market or limit
order that instructs the System to route the order to a specified away
trading center or centers as approved by the Exchange from time to
time. Such trading centers may include execution venues know as ``dark
books.'' The order would not be exposed to the BATS Book before being
routed to a specified destination or destinations. An order that is not
executed in full after routing away would return to the Exchange,
receive a new timestamp, and be processed in the manner described in
Rule 11.9(a)(2). The routing performed in connection with this new
order type will be conducted by an affiliate of the Exchange, BATS
Trading, Inc. (the ``Outbound Router''), which is regulated as a
facility of the Exchange (as defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Act),\4\
subject to Section 6 of the Act.\5\ The role and functions of the
Outbound Router are set forth in BATS Rule 2.11, which has previously
been approved by the Commission. Routing of Modified Destination
Specific Orders will be subject to the same requirements as other
orders routed by the Outbound Router, which are contained in Rule 2.11.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that routing of Modified Destination
Specific Orders is consistent with the previously approved functions of
the Outbound Router, and the Exchange does not believe that such
functions are expanded through the addition of this order type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(2).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that a Modified Destination Specific Order
will enhance order execution opportunities for market participants by
allowing such participants to access, at a potentially reduced fee,
pools of liquidity in addition to orders resting on the Exchange.
Accordingly, the addition of a Modified Destination Specific Order type
to BATS Rule 11.5 promotes just and equitable principles of trade,
removes impediments to, and perfects the mechanism of, a free and open
market and a national market system.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b).\6\ In particular, for the
reasons described above, the proposed change is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ because it would promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism
of, a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b). [sic]
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change is non-controversial and
does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the
public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Upon request from BATS, the
Commission has waived the requirement that the Exchange provide
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing. 17 CFR
240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the addition of the new order type, a
Modified Destination Specific Order, is consistent with other rules of
the Exchange previously approved by the Commission, including: (1) Its
Destination Specific Order, which operates similarly to the proposed
order type, except that a Destination Specific Order does not bypass
the BATS Book when first received by the Exchange,\10\ and (2) Rule
2.11, which governs the Outbound Router of the Exchange. Furthermore,
the Exchange believes that a Modified Destination Specific Order will
enhance order execution opportunities for market participants by
allowing such participants to access, at a potentially reduced fee,
pools of liquidity in addition to orders resting on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See BATS Rule 11.5(c)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2008-003 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-BATS-2008-003. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
BATS-2008-003 and should be submitted on or before October 10, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21947 Filed 9-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P