[Federal Register: April 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 77)]
[Notices]
[Page 21087-21088]
[DOCID:fr22ap10-134]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61931; File No. SR-BX-2010-030]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify
Fees for Members Using the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities System

April 16, 2010.
    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 April 13, 2010, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'') 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 BX. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ BX has designated this proposal as
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge, which renders the
proposed rule change effective upon filing. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    BX proposes to modify pricing for BX members using the NASDAQ OMX
BX Equities System. BX will implement the proposed change on April 15,
2010. The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://
nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at BX's principal office, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, BX 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. BX 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
    BX is proposing to modify its fees for orders that execute at
prices below $1. Currently, BX charges 0.3% (30 basis points) of the
total dollar value of the execution to members accessing liquidity, and
provides a rebate of 0.25% (25 basis points) of the total dollar value
to members providing liquidity. Through this filing, BX will reduce the
fee to access liquidity to 0.15% (15 basis points) of the total dollar
value and the rebate for providing liquidity to 0.05% (5 basis points)
of the total dollar value. The change is a competitive response to
several other transaction venues that have made mid-April changes to
fees for securities priced under $1.\5\ The new fees are consistent
with the limitations of Regulation NMS, SEC Rule 610(c), for securities
with a price of less than $1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See http://apps.nyse.com/commdata/pub19b4.nsf/docs/
50B8C6B6842FEA1E85257700006A989D/$FILE/NYSEArca-2010-26.pdf (NYSE
Arca); http://www.nsx.com/resources/content/5/1/documents/SR-NSX-
2010-04.pdf (National Stock Exchange); http://www.ise.com/assets/
documents/OptionsExchange/legal/proposed_rule_changes/2010/SR-ISE-
2010-29$Proposed_Rule_Change_Relating_to_Direct_Edge%20_ECN_
Fee_Change_for_ISE_Members$20100405.pdf (Direct Edge).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    BX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system
which BX operates or controls. The impact of the price changes upon the
net fees paid by a particular market participant will depend upon a
number of variables, including the relative availability of liquidity
on BX and other venues, the prices of the market participant's quotes
and orders relative to the national best bid and offer (i.e., its
propensity to add or remove liquidity), and the types of securities
that it trades. BX believes that the proposed changes are reasonable
and equitable in that they apply uniformly to all similarly situated
members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    BX 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, as amended. Because the market
for order execution and routing is extremely competitive, members may
readily direct orders to BX's competitors if they object to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \8\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\9\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-BX-2010-030 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-BX-2010-030. 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 the filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the self-regulatory
organization. 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-BX-
2010-030 and should be submitted on or before May 13, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-9362 Filed 4-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 17 (Thursday, January 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5048-5050]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01515]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96722; File No. SR-ICEEU-2023-001]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating
to Amendments to Clearing Fees for ICE Futures Europe Gilt Futures and
Options and Euribor Options Contracts

January 20, 2023.
    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 January 9, 2023, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'' or
the ``Clearing House'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule changes described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by
ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ such that the proposed rule change was immediately
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\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'' or the ``Clearing
House'') proposes changes to certain of its clearing fees for ICE
Futures Europe Gilt Futures and Options and Euribor Options
contracts.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings specified in the ICE Clear Europe Clearing Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe 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. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

(a) Purpose
    ICE Clear Europe is proposing to increase certain clearing fees for
ICE Futures Europe (``IFEU'') Gilt Futures and Options and Euribor
Options contracts. The fee changes are intended to provide revenue to
support the further development of IFEU's Gilt markets and bring fees
related to these contracts in line with the fees of other government
bond futures and options traded on other Exchanges. For Euribor
options, the changes would be made to align fees with existing ICE
Clear Europe clearing fees for the underlying Euribor futures.\6\ The
amendments do not otherwise change the terms and conditions of the
relevant contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ IFEU is contemporaneously increasing certain trading fees
relating to these contracts, and is expected to announce such
increases by circular in advance of implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fees with respect to the Gilt contracts have not been changed since
2017. The fee increases are intended to align fees for the Gilt
contracts more closely with those of government bond futures and
options traded on other exchanges. In addition, there is only limited
open interest in certain Gilt contracts (particularly the short, medium
and ultra-long contracts). The proposed fee increases (together with
planned increases in trading fees at IFEU) are intended to provide
revenue to support additional business development activity with
respect to these contracts, including funding liquidity provider and
other incentives that may be adopted in the future. In ICE Clear
Europe's experience with similar contracts, such incentives will likely
be needed in order to generate additional market activity and liquidity
in contacts with limited existing open interest.
    With respect to Euribor options, the Clearing House proposes to
increase the clearing fees to align with the underlying Euribor futures
contracts. ICE Clear Europe believes that the changes will eliminate an
unnecessary distinction between the cost of trading futures and
options. ICE Clear Europe notes that clearing fees with respect to
these contracts have not changed since ICE Clear Europe commenced
clearing them in 2014.
    The fee tables below set forth the proposed clearing fee changes.
The proposed new fees are intended to come into effect on February 1,
2023, subject to regulatory approval. ICE Clear Europe intends,
together with IFEU, to publish a Circular to inform market participants
of the changes in advance of such proposed effective date.
Gilt Futures and Options Proposed Exchange and Clearing Fees
    Below is a table showing the existing and proposed clearing fees
and a table showing the proposed amended Exchange and Clearing fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Clearing fees applicable to deliveries would be unchanged.
Fee information for deliveries is included in the table for
completeness.
    \8\ Clearing fees applicable to futures contracts and futures/
basis block transactions would be unchanged. Fee information for
these contracts is included for completeness.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Existing      Proposed new
                                           clearing fee    clearing fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract--Short, Medium, Long and Ultra-
 Long Gilts:
    Futures Contracts...................            0.20            0.24
    Futures Basis/Block.................            0.20            0.24
    Futures Block with Delayed                      0.34            0.36
     Publication........................
    Deliveries..........................            2.50        \7\ 2.50
    Options Contracts (Long Gilt only)..            0.20            0.24
    Options Block (Long Gilt only)......            0.20            0.24
    Options Block with Delayed                      0.34            0.36
     Publication (Long Gilt only).......
    Option Exercise (Long Gilt only)....            0.20            0.33
Contract--Euribor[supreg]:
    Futures Contracts...................            0.20        \8\ 0.20
    Futures Basis/Block.................            0.20            0.20
    Futures Block with Delayed                      0.34            0.36
     Publication........................
    Cash Settlement.....................            0.25            0.28
    Options Contracts...................            0.18            0.20
    Options Block.......................            0.18            0.20
    Options Block with Delayed                      0.34            0.36
     Publication........................
    Option Exercise.....................            0.25            0.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Statutory Basis
    ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed rule changes are
consistent with the requirements of the Act, including Section 17A of
the Act \9\ and regulations thereunder applicable to it. In particular,
Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act \10\ requires that ``[t]he rules of the
clearing agency provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its participants.'' ICE Clear Europe
believes that its clearing fees, as proposed to be amended, would be
reasonable and appropriate for the relevant Contracts. ICE Clear
Europe's fees are imposed at the product level on a per transaction
basis (as are the applicable Exchange fees), and would be generally
applicable to market participants trading in the contracts. As set
forth above, ICE Clear Europe is proposing to increase clearing fees
for the relevant Gilt contracts in order to support further development
of trading and liquidity in those contracts, in light of the lack of
current open interest. ICE Clear Europe believes the higher fees will
facilitate funding of liquidity and other incentives that will support
the contract. The amended fees will also be consistent with the fees
applicable to government bond futures contracts traded at other
exchanges. ICE Clear Europe has determined that the increased fees
would provide an appropriate balance between the costs of clearing for
market participants and the expenses incurred by ICE Clear Europe in
offering clearing of the relevant contracts, and permit greater support
by ICE Clear Europe of clearing such products. As such, in ICE Clear
Europe's view, the amendments are consistent with the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its
Clearing Members and other market participants, within the meaning of
Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments are also consistent with the requirements
of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \12\ which requires, among other
things, that ``[t]he rules of a clearing agency [. . .] are not
designed to permit unfair discrimination in the admission of
participants or among participants in the use of the clearing agency.''
As noted above, the fees, as proposed to be amended, would apply on a
per transaction and would apply to market participants generally.
Although ICE Clear Europe may use revenue from additional fees to
support liquidity and other incentive arrangements for Gilt contracts,
ICE Clear Europe believes that any such incentives that may be adopted
will be appropriately tailored to support additional trading and
liquidity in the contracts. As a result, the amendments would not
result in any unfair discrimination among Clearing Members in their use
of the Clearing House, within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of
the Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule changes would
have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. Although ICE
Clear Europe is increasing certain clearing fees, as set forth herein,
it believes such changes are appropriate to reflect the costs and
expenses incurred by the Clearing House in clearing the relevant
Contracts and are consistent with other contracts cleared at the
Clearing House and similar contracts cleared on other venues. The
amendments would also support appropriate liquidity and other incentive
arrangements to further develop trading. ICE Clear Europe does not
believe that the amendments would adversely affect the ability of
Clearing Members or other market participants generally to access
clearing services for the Contracts. Further, since the revised fees
will be the base rate applicable to all Clearing Members and market
participants that clear the products, ICE Clear Europe believes that
the amendments would not otherwise affect competition among Clearing
Members, adversely affect the market for clearing services or limit
market participants' choices for obtaining clearing services. As a
result, ICE Clear Europe does not believe the amendments would have any
impact or impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed amendment has not been
solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify
the Commission of any comments received with respect to the proposed
rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)

of the Act \14\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \15\ thereunder. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, security-based swap submission or advance notice 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-ICEEU-2023-001 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-ICEEU-2023-001. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet 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 Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Europe and on ICE
Clear Europe's website at https://www.theice.com/clear-europe/regulation.
    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-ICEEU-2023-001 and should be
submitted on or before February 16, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01515 Filed 1-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27738-27740]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12711]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0282; FRL-9979-34--Region 9]

Approval of Air Plan Revisions; Approvals and Promulgations:
California; Placer County Air Pollution Control District; Stationary
Source Permits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District
(PCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).
This revision concerns the District's Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permitting program for new and modified sources of
air pollution. We are proposing action on a local rule under the Clean
Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on
this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by July 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2018-0282 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Laura
Yannayon, at [email protected]. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3534, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. The EPA's Proposed Action and Public Comment
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates
that it was amended by the PCAPCD and submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB), which is the governor's designee for California
SIP submittals.

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Adopted or
                  Rule No.                                Rule title                  amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
518.........................................  Prevention of Significant                 10/13/16         1/24/17
                                               Deterioration (PSD) Permit
                                               Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 17, 2017, the EPA determined that CARB's January 24, 2017,
SIP submittal package conformed to the completeness criteria in 40 CFR
part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    The current SIP-approved version of Rule 518--Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program was approved by EPA on
December 10, 2012. 77 FR 73316.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?

    Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires states to submit
regulations that include a preconstruction permit program for certain
new or modified stationary sources of pollutants, including a permit
program as required by part C of title I of the CAA. This part, and the
EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.166, provide requirements
for the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program, which
applies to new and modified major sources of regulated New Source
Review pollutants located in areas that are designated attainment or
unclassifiable for those pollutants.
    Rule 518 implements the federal PSD permit program for Placer
County. The submitted rule has been revised to update and clarify the
rule. See our technical support document (TSD), which can be found in
the docket for this rule, for additional information about the rule and
rule revisions.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?

    The submitted rule must meet the CAA's general requirements for
SIPs and SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) as well as
the applicable requirements for a PSD permit program contained in part
C of title I of the Act and 40 CFR 51.166.
    Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act requires that SIP rules be
enforceable. Section 110(l) provides that the EPA may not approve a SIP
revision if it would interfere with any applicable requirements
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA. In addition, section 110(a)(2) and
section 110(l) of the Act require that each SIP or revision to a SIP
submitted by a state must be adopted after reasonable notice and public
hearing.
    Part C of title I of the Act contains the general permit
requirements for new major sources and major modifications proposing to
construct in attainment areas. Additionally, 40 CFR 51.166 sets forth
the EPA's regulatory requirements for SIP approval of a PSD permit
program.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    The EPA has reviewed the submitted rule in accordance with the rule
evaluation criteria described above. With respect to the procedural
requirements at CAA sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l), we are proposing to
approve the submitted rule because we have determined, based on our
review of the public process documentation included in the January 24,
2017 submittal, that the PCAPCD has provided sufficient evidence of
public notice and opportunity for comment and public hearing prior to
adoption and submittal of this rule.
    With respect to the rest of the evaluation criteria, we are
proposing to approve the submitted rule because we have determined that
the rule satisfies the substantive statutory and regulatory
requirements for a PSD permit program as set forth in the applicable
provisions of part C of title I of the Act and in 40 CFR 51.166. This
determination is based on our review of Rule 518 and clarifying
information provided by the District in a letter dated May 22, 2018
(available in the docket for this action). Our TSD for this action
contains a more detailed discussion of our evaluation.

C. The EPA's Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the submitted rule because it fulfills all relevant
requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
until July 16, 2018. If we take final action to approve the submitted
rule, our final action will incorporate this rule into the Placer
County portion of the California SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the PCAPCD rule described in Table 1 of this preamble. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available
through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, New source review, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: June 4, 2018.
Michael Stoker,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2018-12711 Filed 6-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 MEMORANDUM Date: October 5, 2005 Subject: Ecological Hazard and Environmental Risk Assessment for 4 tertamylphenol and salts to be included in the RED. ( DP Barcode 316278; Decision# 356355; PC Code 064101)

From: David C. Bays, Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch ( RASSB), Antimicrobials Division ( 7510W)

To: Adam Heyward, Product Manager, # 34, Antimicrobials Division ( 7510W) and Killian Swift, Risk Manager Reviewer, # 36, Antimicrobials Division Thru: Rick Petrie, Team Leader, RASSB3, AD and Norm Cook, Branch Chief, RASSB, AD RASSB has completed the Ecological Hazard and Environmental Risk Assessment for 4 tertamylphenol and its salts ( Ecotoxicity RED chapter). The registrant has not submitted any ecological effects data to support this RED. The only data that was available was found in the peer reviewed literature. None of these studies met current guideline requirements and therefore, could not be used in a risk assessment. There is a concern about the possibility of endocrine disruption in fish, since 4 tert amylphenol is considered an ecoestrogen. This was documented in several studies on carp ( Cyprinus carpio), whose findings were included in the ecotoxicity chapter. However, since this chemical is restricted to indoor uses only, the possibility for exposure of fish to 4 tert amylphenol would be limited. Therefore, no additional testing on 2 ecoestrogen activity is required for this RED. The registrant does have to submit three ecological effects studies on the acute toxicity of this chemical. These include an avian acute oral toxicity test, preferably using the bobwhite quail, ( 850.2100/ 71 1), a freshwater fish acute toxicity test, preferably using the rainbow trout, ( 850.1075/ 72 1), and an acute freshwater invertebrate test ( 850.1010/ 72 2). These tests are required in order to document potential acute toxicity to these organisms in the unlikely event that exposure to 4 tert amylphenol and its salts does occur.

Summary of Uses:

4 tertiary amylphenol, and salts ( potassium and sodium) are a disinfectant, sanitizer, and deodorizer, primarily used on hard, non porous surfaces. There are several different use sites. These sites include disinfecting equipment: such as egg hatching, processing and milking equipment; eating establishment equipment and utensils; food marketing, storage, and distribution equipment and utensils; hospital critical items, such as those that enter blood or living tissue; hospital semi critical items, such as those that contact mucosal membranes; hospital non critical items, such as those that contact only unbroken skin; hospital janitorial equipment; barber and beauty shop instruments and equipment; morgues, mortuaries and funeral equipment; human bedding; human clothing; laundry equipment; diapers; refuse and solid waste containers; tires; farm or agricultural equipment; mushroom house equipment; food dispensing equipment; shoes; closets; bird cages; telephones; door knobs; wheel chairs; light switches; metal beds and springs; office machinery; carpet and rugs.

A second major use site is the treating of structures, such as barns; household dwellings; household sickrooms; buses; ships; railway cars; aircraft; automobiles; recreational vehicles; taxis; limousines; food processing plants; canneries; milk processing plants; feed mills and stores; meat processing plants; poultry processing plants; frozen food plants; beverage processing plants; eating establishments; food marketing, storage and distribution facilities; food stores and markets; hospitals which includes operating rooms, clinics, wards, labs, and waiting rooms; veterinary hospitals; morgues; mortuaries; bathrooms which include toilet bowls, urinals, toilet tanks, and water closets; refuse and solid waste sites; farm or agricultural structures; hotels; day care facilities; prisoner holding areas; blood banks; kitchens; supermarkets; mushroom house environs; schools; business, medical and dental offices; swine facilities; zoos; kennels; animal research facilities; livestock operations; nursing homes; air treatment of rooms ( fogging).

A potential outdoor use, wood protection to treat unseasoned forest products, is apparently no longer supported by any registrant. The following assessment of ecological and environmental risk is therefore based only on indoor uses for these chemicals.

1. Ecological Toxicity Data 3 a. Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals ( 1). Birds, Acute and Subacute For indoor uses, an acute oral toxicity study using the technical grade of the active ingredient ( TGAI) is required to establish the toxicity of 4 tert amylphenol and its salts to birds. The preferred test species is either mallard duck ( a waterfowl) or northern bobwhite quail ( an upland game bird). Two avian acute toxicity studies were found in the Agency's files for 4 tertamylphenol or its salts. The tests were conducted in 1974 using the bobwhite quail ( MRID # 240116618) and mallard duck ( MRID # 011504216). The tests were conducted using antiquated procedures and do not meet the current guideline requirements. The results showed moderate toxicity, which makes it important that a test using current guideline requirement be conducted by the registrant. Avian acute oral toxicity testing ( 850.2100/ 71 1), preferably using the bobwhite quail, is required to support the currently registered uses of 4 tert amylphenol and it salts. Avian dietary toxicity studies using the TGAI of 4 t amylphenol and its salts are not required for the indoor uses of 4 t amylphenol and its salts.

( 2) Mammals A summary of the mammalian toxicity of 4 t amylphenol and its salts is presented in the " Evaluation of Toxicology Database for Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document Disciplinary Chapter" July 12, 2005, memo from M. Ottley to K. Swift.

b. Toxicity to Aquatic Animals ( 1). Freshwater Fish, Acute Freshwater fish toxicity studies using the TGAI are required to establish the toxicity of 4 tertamylphenol to fish. Data are generally required for only one species. Testing in two fish species is required for stable chemicals with high volume effluents ( e. g., including, but not limited to, egg washing, fruit and vegetable rinses, swimming pools or materials preservatives) and if the LC 50 in the first species is greater than (>) 1 ppm. The preferred test species are rainbow trout ( a coldwater fish) and bluegill sunfish ( a warmwater fish), although other test species identified in the OPPTS Guideline ( i. e., OPPTS 850.1075 ( e)( 4)( i)( A)) may also be used. No freshwater fish acute toxicity studies were identified from peer reviewed literature. Two fish studies were found in the agency's files, but no studies have been submitted to support registration of 4 tertamylphenol The first study ( MRID # 240116619) was conducted in 1974 and tested both rainbow trout and bluegill sunfish in the same study. The second study( MRID # 444742 08) was 4 conducted in 1992 using zebra fish, but only tested one concentration of TGAI. Neither of these studies meet current guideline requirements and cannot be used in a risk assessment. Freshwater fish acute toxicity testing ( 850.1075/ 72 1) on one species preferably the rainbow trout is required to support the currently registered uses of 4 tert amylphenol and its salts.

The results from freshwater fish acute toxicity studies obtained from peer reviewed literature are summarized in the table below ( Table 1).

Table 1. Acute Toxicity of 4 tert amylphenol and salts to Freshwater Fish Organism Results  LC50 ( mg/ L) ( 95% Confidence Limit) Toxicity Category Comments Reference Fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas) 2.50 ( 1.87  3.34) moderately toxic  96h test duration;  flow through bioassay  caused necrosis in fish Holcombe, G W et al. 1984 Environ Pollut ser A Ecol Biol 35: 367 81 Fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas) 16 slightly toxic  No information available on the test parameters Russon, C L et al. 1997 Environ. Toxicol. Chem 16: 948 As shown in Table 1, acute toxicity for freshwater fish ranged from 2.50 mg/ L to 16 mg/ L in the fathead minnow. The first study was conducted using criteria similar to OPP/ OPTS guidelines and would have more weight than the second study which did not provide any information on how the study was conducted. Therefore, the data indicates that 4 tertamylphenol is moderately toxic to coldwater species, such as the fathead minnow. The fathead minnow is considered to be less sensitive than the bluegill.

( 2). Freshwater Fish, Chronic Fish early life stage testing is not required for the currently registered indoor uses of 4 tamylphenol and its salts.

( 3). Freshwater Invertebrates, Acute A freshwater aquatic invertebrate toxicity test using the TGAI is required to establish the toxicity of a pesticide to aquatic invertebrates. The preferred test species is Daphnia magna or Daphnia pulex. No toxicity studies were identified for these species in peer reviewed literature. 5 No studies have been submitted by registrants to support the registered uses of 4 tert amylphenol and its salts. Freshwater invertebrate acute toxicity testing ( 850.1010/ 72 2) is required for the currently registered uses of 4 tert amylphenol and its salts.

( 4). Toxicity to Estuarine and Marine Organisms Acute toxicity testing with estuarine and marine organisms using the TGAI is not required for the indoor uses of 4 t amylphenol and its salts. No studies on marine/ estuarine invertebrates were found in the ECOTOX database ( EPA, 2002). One study was found in the peer reviewed literature.

Table 3: Toxicity of 4 tert amylphenol to Marine/ Estuarine Invertebrates Organism Results Comments Reference Shrimp ( Crangon septemspinosa) 96h LC50 = 1.7 mg/ L  96h test duration;  aerated gently and changed at 49 hours McLeese, D W 1981 Chemosphere 10( 7): 723 As shown in Table 3, acute toxicity to shrimp was LC50 = 1.7 mg/ L. This indicated that 4 tertamylphenol was moderately toxic to shrimp. The study does not meet current guideline requirements and could not be used in a risk assessment.

( 5). Endocrine Disruption Effects in Fish Examples of 4 tert amylphenol and other phenol chemicals affecting the reproductive processes of fish have been reported in the peer reported literature. Since the use pattern for this chemical is restricted to indoor uses, exposure to fish, such as carp, should be limited. Therefore, no additional testing for endocrine disruption effects on fish is necessary. 6 Table 4: Examples of 4 tert amylphenol Affecting the Endocrine System in Fish Organism Results Toxicity Category Comments Reference Male common carp ( Cyprinus carpio) caused formation of oviducts in male fish and reduced the number of primordial germ cells in gonads identified as an ecoestrogen  test concentration 0.14 mg/ L  exposed embryos and fingerlings at various ages Gimeno et al. 1997 Environ Sci Technol 31( 10): 2884 2890.

Male common carp ( Cyprinus carpio) 30 day EC50 for oviduct formation = 63 ug/ L NOEC for oviduct formation = < 36 ug/ L primordial germ cells lower in treated fish NOEC for vitellogenin induction = 90 256 ug/ L identified as causing endocrine disruption effects  120 male carp tested  nominal concentrations of 100, 320, & 1000 ug/ L were tested  160 day test duration  intermittent flow through system Gimeno, S. et al. 1998a Aquatic Toxicology ( Amsterdam) 43: 77 92.

Cultured hepatocytes from geneticallyuniform all male, F1 hybrid progenies of common carp ( Cyprinus capio) vitellogenin induction in carp hepatocytes with LOEC ranging from 5 50 uM, cytotoxic at 100uM identified as causing endocrine disruption effects  six month old hepatocytes with fully mature testes containing mature sperm Smeets, J. M. et al. 1999. Toxicol. Sci. 50( 2): 206 213.

Trout RTH 149 Recombinant trout ER Estrogenic LOEC =  6 log M; IC50 = 7.6x10 7 M identified as causing endocrine disruption effects  relative potency is 0.036 approx. 75% of maximum E2 Hornung et al. 2003 Partial life cycle carp ( Cyprinus carpio) Estrogenic LOEC =  6.2 log M identified as causing endocrine disruption effects  oviduct development in male Gimeno et al. 1996 Partial life cycle Medaka ( Oryzias latipes) Estrogenic LOEC =  5.8 log M identified as causing endocrine disruption effects  sex reversal; Inhibition of P450 11B hydroxylase mRNA levels Yokota et al. 2005 Full life cycle Estrogenic LOEC = identified as  Vtg induction at  6.5 Seki et al. 2003 7 Medaka ( Oryzias latipes)  6.5; cytoxicity =  5.2 F0 and  5.8 F1 causing endocrine disruption effects log M Rainbow trout cytosol ER competitive binding Estrogenic LOEC =  5 log M; IC50 = 2.2x10 4 M; RBA 0.004 % identified as causing endocrine disruption effects Tapper et al. 2005 Male rainbow trout liver slice/ Vtg gene expression Estrogenic LOEC =  3.7log M; IC50 = 1.8x10 4 M; cytoxicity =  3 log M identified as causing endocrine disruption effects  relative potency = 0.004 %, approx. 75% of maximum E2 Tapper et al. 2005 Male common carp ( Cyprinus carpio) elevated levels of vitellogenin, inhibition of spermatogenesis, disappearance of speratozoa and spermatogenic cysts, reduced diameter of seminiferous lobules, reduced spermatocrit values and early appearance of ovotestes LOAEL= 0.032 mg/ L identified as causing endocrine disruption effects and no mortality or growth effects  3 month test duration  nominal concentrations of 32, 100, 320 and 1000 ug/ L were tested Gimeno et al. 1998b Aquatic Toxicology ( Amsterdam) 43: 93 109.

C. Toxicity to Plants Terrestrial and aquatic plant testing is not required for the registered indoor uses of 4 tertamylphenol and its salts. There were no aquatic phytotoxicity endpoints reported in the ECOTOX database ( EPA, 2002). No studies were found in the peer reviewed literature that addressed plant toxicity to this chemical.

2. Environmental Risk Characterization A. Environmental Fate Assessment ( Refer to the Environmental Fate Science Chapter of 8 this RED)

B. Environmental Exposure Assessment Environmental exposure modeling was not conducted for the indoor uses of 4 tert amylphenol and its salts considered in this RED.

C. Environmental Risk Assessment The indoor uses of 4 tert amylphenol and its salts considered in this RED make it unlikely that any appreciable exposure to terrestrial or aquatic organisms would occur when 4 tert amylphenol and its salts are used according to label directions. Even though there is a low potential for risk due to the lack of expected environmental exposure from the registered uses of this product, three acute toxicity studies ( avian acute oral toxicity test [ 850.2100/ 71 1] preferably using the bobwhite quail; freshwater fish acute toxicity test [ 850.1075/ 72 1] preferably using the rainbow trout; and an acute freshwater invertebrate test [ 850.1010/ 72 2]), will need to be submitted by the registrant in order to determine potential toxicity to birds and aquatic organisms in the unlikely event that exposure does occur.

D. Endangered Species Considerations The Agency has developed the Endangered Species Protection Program to identify pesticides whose use may cause adverse impacts on endangered and threatened species, and to implement mitigation measures that address these impacts. The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. To analyze the potential of registered pesticide uses to affect any particular species, EPA puts basic toxicity and exposure data developed for risk assessments into context for individual listed species and their locations by evaluating important ecological parameters, pesticide use information, the geographic relationship between specific pesticide uses and species locations, and biological requirements and behavioral aspects of the particular species. A determination that there is a likelihood of potential impact to a listed species may result in limitations on use of the pesticide, other measures to mitigate any potential impact, or consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service and/ or the National Marine Fisheries Service as necessary.

Based on the low likelihood of environmental exposure from the registered indoor uses of 4 tertamylphenol and its salts to fish, aquatic invertebrates, and aquatic plants, adverse impacts to endangered species are not expected from the registered uses of 4 tert amylphenol and its salts..

REFERENCES 9 Gimeno, S., Gerritsen, A., Bowmer, T., and Komen, H. ( 1996) Feminization of male carp. Nature 384: 221 222.

Gimeno, S., Komen, H., Venderbosch, P. W., and Bowner, T. ( 1997) Disruption of sexual differentiation in genetic male carp ( Cyprinus carpio) exposed to an alkyphenol during different life stages. Environ. Sci. Technol. 31( 10): 2884 2890.

Gimeno, S., Komen, H., Gerritsen, A. G., and Bowner, T. ( 1998a): Feminisation of young males of the common carp, Cyprinus carpio, exposed to 4 tert pentyphenol during sexual differentiation. Aquatic Toxicology ( Amsterdam) 43: 77 92.

Gimeno, S., Komen, H., Jobling, S., Sumpter, J., and Bowner, T. ( 1998b): Demasculinisation of sexually mature male common carp, Cyprinus carpio, exposed to 4 tert amylphenol during spermatogenesis. Aquatic Toxicology ( Amsterdam) 43: 93 109.

Holcombe, G. W., Phipps, G. L., Knuth, M. L., and Felhabert, T. ( 1984) The acute toxicity of selected substituted phenols, benzenes and benzoic acid ester to fathead minnows Pimephales promelas. Environ. Pollut. Ser. A Ecol. Biol. 35( 4): 367 381.

Hornung, M., Ankley, G. T., and Schmieder, P. ( 2003) Induction of an estrogen responsive reporter gene in rainbow trout hepatoma cells ( RTH 149) at 11 or 18C. Environ Toxicol. Chem. 22: 866 871.

McLeese, D. W. ( 1981) Lethality and accumulation of alkyphenols in aquatic fauna. Chemosphere 10( 7): 723.

Russon, C. L., Bradbury, S. P., Broderius, S. J., Hammermeister, R. A., and Drummond, R. A. ( 1997) [ no title given] environ. Toxicol. Chem. 16: 948.

Seki, M., Yokota, H., Matsubara, H., Maeda, M.., Tadokoro, H., and Kobayashi, K. ( 2003) Fish full life cycle testing for the weak estrogen 4 1 pentylophenol on medaka ( Oryzias latipes). Environ Toxicol Chem 22: 1487 1496.

Smeets, J. M. W., van Holsteijn, I., Giesy, J., Seinen, W., and van den Berg, M. ( 1999) Estrogenic potencies of several environmental pollutants, as determined by vitellogenin induction in a carp hepatocyte assay. Toxicological Sciences 50: 206 213.

Tapper, M., Sheedy, B., Denny, J., and Schmieder, P. ( 2005) Rainbow trout estrogen ( ER) binding and ER mediated vitellogenin production in a trout liver slice assay. 10 [ Measurements made at the EPA/ ORD/ NHEERL/ Midcontinent Ecology Division ( MED) Duluth, MN]

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). 2002. ECOTOX User Guide: ECOTOXicology Database System. Version 3.0. Available: http:// www. epa. gov/ ecotox/

Yokota, H., Abe, T., Nakai, M., Murakami, H., Eto, C., and Yakabe, Y. ( 2005) Effects of 4 tertpemtyulphenol on the gene expression of P450 11B hydroxylase in the gonad of medaka. Aquatic Toxicology 71: 121 132.


[Federal Register: January 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 18)]
[Corrections]
[Page 4644-4645]
[DOCID:fr27ja06-103]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142

[EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0043; FRL-8012-1]
RIN 2040-AD38

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule

Correction

    In rule document 06-3 beginning on page 388 in the issue of
Wednesday, January 4, 2006, make the following corrections:
    1. On page 424, in the third column, in the last paragraph, in the
second line, ``complete'' should read ``completing''.
    2. On the same page, in the same column, in the same paragraph, in
the 12th line, ``complete'' should read ``completing''.
    3. On page 426, the table is corrected to read as set forth below:

                                                Table IV.G-1.--IDSE Monitoring Frequencies and Locations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Distribution system monitoring locations \1\
                                                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
          Source water type                Population size       Monitoring periods and   Total per                  Average
                                               category          frequency of sampling    monitoring   Near entry   residence    High TTHM    High HAA5
                                                                                period       points        time      locations    locations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart H
                                       < 500 consecutive         one (during peak                   2            1  ...........            1
                                        systems.                 historical month) \2\.
                                       < 500 non-consecutive     .......................            2  ...........  ...........            1            1
                                        systems.
--------------------------------------
                                       500-3,300 non-           four (every 90 days)...            2            1  ...........            1  ...........
                                        consecutive systems.
                                       500-3,300 consecutive    .......................            2  ...........  ...........            1            1
                                        systems.
                                       3,301-9,999............  .......................            4  ...........            1            2            1
--------------------------------------
                                       10,000-49,999..........  six (every 60 days)....            8            1            2            3            2
                                       50,000-249,999.........  .......................           16            3            4            5            4
                                       250,000-999,999........  .......................           24            4            6            8            6
                                       1,000,000-4,999,999....  .......................           32            6            8           10            8
                                       >=5,000,000............  .......................           40            8           10           12           10
======================================
Ground Water
                                       < 500 consecutive         one (during peak                   2            1  ...........            1  ...........
                                        systems.                 historical month) \2\.
                                       < 500 non-consecutive     .......................            2  ...........  ...........            1            1
                                        systems.
--------------------------------------
                                       500-9,999..............  four (every 90 days)...            2  ...........  ...........            1            1
                                       10,000-99,999..........  .......................            6            1            1            2            2
                                       100,000-499,999........  .......................            8            1            1            3            3
                                       >=500,000..............  .......................           12            2            2            4           4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A dual sample set (i.e., a TTHM and an HAA5 sample) must be taken at each monitoring location during each monitoring period.
\2\ The peak historical month is the month with the highest TTHM or HAA5 levels or the warmest water temperature.

    4. On page 433, in the second column, in the third full paragraph,
in the sixth and seventh lines, ``2x10/b 2x10-4,
10-4 and 10-6'' should read
``2x10-4''.
    5. On pages 434 and 435, Table IV.K-1 is corrected to read as set
forth below:

   Table IV.K-1.--Technologies Considered and Predicted To Be Used in
                  Compliance Forecast for Small Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            SW Water Plants                      GW Water Plants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Switching to chloramines as a    Switching to
 residual disinfectant.                   chloramines as a residual
                                          disinfectant
 Chlorine dioxide (not for        UV
 systems serving fewer than 100 people).
 UV............................   Ozone (not for systems
                                          serving fewer than 100 people)
 Ozone (not for systems serving   GAC20
 fewer than 100 people).
 Micro-filtration/Ultra-          Nanofiltration
 filtration.
 GAC20.........................
 GAC20 + Advanced disinfectants
 Integrated Membranes..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Italicized technologies are those predicted to be used in the
  compliance forecast.

Source: Exhibits 5.11b and 5.14b, USEPA 2005a.

    6. On page 435, in Table IV.K-2, in column H, in the second line,
``9'' should read ``0''.
    7. On page 464, in Table VI.K-1, in the ``Notes:'', in the third
line, ``established exposure'' should read ``established between
exposure''.

Sec.  9.1  [Corrected]

    8. On page 477, in Sec.  9.1, in the third column, in the table
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation, under ``OMB
control No.'', in the first line, ``2040-0265'' should read ``2040-
0205''.

Sec.  141.620  [Corrected]

    9. On page 489, in Sec.  141.620(c), in the table, in the first
column, in entry (4), ``System serving > 10,000'' should read ``System
serving <  10,000''.

[FR Doc. C6-3 Filed 1-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 64 (Friday, April 3, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18133-18136]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07488]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0159; FRL-9925-60-Region 7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa;
2014 Iowa State Implementation Plan; Permit Modifications; Muscatine,
Iowa

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Iowa
to include modified permits for Muscatine County, Iowa. The SIP
revision addresses modifications to construction permits that were
included in the 2006 24-hour particulate matter less than 2.5
micrometers (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) control strategy proposed on August 11, 2014, and published as
a final rule in the Federal Register on December 1, 2014, with the
effective date of December 31, 2014. The state's submission of modified
permits includes a revised air dispersion modeling analysis that
demonstrated continued attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. This action will also make an administrative correction to
permit numbers.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective June 2, 2015, without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by May 4, 2015. If
EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2015-0159 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Heather Hamilton, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2015-0159. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, 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
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30
excluding legal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24
hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. What action is EPA taking?

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve SIP revisions to
replace specific EPA SIP-approved construction permits with modified
permits in Muscatine County, Iowa. The modified permits are associated
with PM2.5 emission points at Union Tank Car (UTLX) and
Muscatine Power and Water (MPW). Prior versions of these permits were
included in the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS control strategy
proposed in the Federal Register on August 11, 2014, (79 FR 71027) and
published as a final rule on December 1, 2014, (79 FR 71025) with an
effective date of December 31, 2014. Prior to publication of the final
action, modifications to permits submitted with the control strategy
were pending (under review by the state and undergoing public comment)
for MPW and UTLX.
    Permits for UTLX were modified to reflect current operating
conditions, stack configurations, and revised PM2.5 emission
limits. The permit conditions pertaining to compliance demonstrations
and operating condition monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting were
included in each modified permit. The Iowa Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR) initiated the public comment period that ended on
August 28, 2014, for the UTLX modified permits. No comments were
received.
    Permits for MPW were modified to include updated PM2.5
emission limitations associated with the rail unloading system. The
permit conditions pertaining to compliance demonstrations and operating
condition monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting were included in each
modified permit. IDNR initiated the public comment period that ended on
September 4, 2014, for the MPW modified permits. No comments were
received.

    The modified permits submission included a technical demonstration
and an updated air dispersion modeling analysis. The modeling analysis,
as well as the modified permits were reviewed by EPA and it was
determined that the modifications continue to demonstrate emission
reductions and attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in
Muscatine, Iowa, and therefore, does not relax the SIP. Additional
technical detail regarding permit modifications is included in the
Technical Support Document included in the docket for this rulemaking.
    This action will also make an administrative correction to a permit
number.

II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In
addition, as explained above and in more detail in the identified
docket documents, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements
of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve SIP revisions to
include modified permits for the Muscatine County, Iowa, area. The
modified permits are for emission points at UTLX and MPW which were
included in the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS control strategy.
The control strategy was proposed in the Federal Register on August 11,
2014, and published as a final rule on December 1, 2014, with the
effective date of December 31, 2014.
    This action also includes an administrative correction to the
permit number for (44) Muscatine Power and Water (Permit NO. 95-A-373-
P2).
    We are publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed
rule because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and
anticipate no adverse comment because the revisions are largely
administrative and consistent with Federal regulations. The detailed
rationale for the approval is set forth in the technical support
document that can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0159.
However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register,
we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed
rule to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are received on
this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period
on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this
time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the
ADDRESSES section of this document.
    If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this
direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public
comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Iowa's EPA-
Approved Iowa Source-Specific Orders/Permits, section 52.820 (d),
described in the direct final amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or
in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble for more information).
    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms
of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
    A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published
in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 2, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 20, 2015.
Mark Hague,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart Q--Iowa

0
2. In Sec.  52.820(d) the table is amended by revising entries (41),
(42), (44), (45), (47), (54), (76), (77), (78), (79), (80), (85), (86),
(87), (92), (95), (97), (103), (104), (105), (106), (107), and (108) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.820  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                EPA-Approved Iowa Source-Specific Orders/Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
          Name of source             Order/Permit No.     effective     EPA Approval date        Explanation
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(41) Muscatine Power and Water...  Permit NO. 93-A-288-      9/12/14  4/3/15 and [Insert     ...................
                                    S4.                                Federal Register
                                                                       citation].
(42) Muscatine Power and Water...  Permit NO. 93-A-289-      9/12/14  4/3/15 and [Insert     ...................
                                    S4.                                Federal Register
                                                                       citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
(44) Muscatine Power and Water...  Permit NO. 95-A-373-      7/22/13  4/3/15 and [Insert     ...................
                                    P2.                                Federal Register
                                                                       citation].
(45) Muscatine Power and Water...  Permit NO. 00-A-638-      7/22/13  4/3/15 and [Insert     ...................
                                    S1.                                Federal Register
                                                                       citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
(47) Muscatine Power and Water...  Permit NO. 00-A-683-      7/22/13  4/3/15 and [Insert     ...................
                                    S1.                                Federal Register
                                                                       citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
(54) Muscatine Power and Water...  Permit NO. 04-A-617-      7/22/13  4/3/15 and [Insert     ...................
                                    S1.                                Federal Register
                                                                       citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
(76) Muscatine Power and Water...  Permit NO. 80-A-196-      7/22/13  4/3/15 and [Insert     ...................
                                    S4.                                Federal Register
                                                                       citation].
(77) Muscatine Power and Water...  Permit NO. 93-A-286-      7/22/13  4/3/15 and [Insert     ...................
                                    S5.                                Federal Register
                                                                       citation].
(78) Muscatine Power and Water...  Permit NO. 01-A-457-      7/22/13  4/3/15 and [Insert     ...................
                                    S5.                                Federal Register
                                                                       citation].
(79) Muscatine Power and Water...  Permit NO. 06-A-650-      7/22/13  4/3/15 and [Insert     ...................
                                    S3.                                Federal Register
                                                                       citation].
(80) Muscatine Power and Water...  Permit NO. 13-A-160-      7/22/13  4/3/15 and [Insert     ...................
                                    S1.                                Federal Register
                                                                       citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
(85) Union Tank Car Company......  Permit NO. 00-A-1086-      9/2/14  4/3/15 and [Insert     ...................
                                    S3.                                Federal Register
                                                                       citation].
(86) Union Tank Car Company......  Permit NO. 00-A-1087-      9/2/14  4/3/15 and [Insert     ...................
                                    S3.                                Federal Register
                                                                       citation].
(87) Union Tank Car Company......  Permit NO. 00-A-1088-      9/2/14  4/3/15 and [Insert     ...................
                                    S3.                                Federal Register
                                                                       citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
(92) Union Tank Car Company......  Permit NO. 96-A-636-       9/2/14  4/3/15 and [Insert     ...................
                                    S4.                                Federal Register
                                                                       citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
(95) Union Tank Car Company......  Permit NO. 00-A-531-       9/2/14  4/3/15 and [Insert     ...................
                                    S3.                                Federal Register
                                                                       citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
(97) Union Tank Car Company......  Permit NO. 00-A-533-       9/2/14  4/3/15 and [Insert     ...................
                                    S3.                                Federal Register
                                                                       citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
(103) Union Tank Car Company.....  Permit NO. 00-A-1089-      9/2/14  4/3/15 and [Insert     ...................
                                    S3.                                Federal Register
                                                                       citation].
(104) Union Tank Car Company.....  Permit NO. 00-A-1090-      9/2/14  4/3/15 and [Insert     ...................
                                    S3.                                Federal Register
                                                                       citation].
(105) Union Tank Car Company.....  Permit NO. 00-A-1091-      9/2/14  4/3/15 and [Insert     ...................
                                    S3.                                Federal Register
                                                                       citation].
(106) Union Tank Car Company.....  Permit NO. 10-A-043-       9/2/14  4/3/15 and [Insert     ...................
                                    S3.                                Federal Register
                                                                       citation].
(107) Union Tank Car Company.....  Permit NO. 09-A-009-       9/2/14  4/3/15 and [Insert     ...................
                                    S3.                                Federal Register
                                                                       citation].
(108) Union Tank Car Company.....  Permit NO. 09-A-010-       9/2/14  4/3/15 and [Insert     ...................
                                    S3.                                Federal Register
                                                                       citation].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-07488 Filed 4-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 17 (Friday, January 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 5439]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01586]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9007-3]

Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 01/14/2013 Through 01/18/2013
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As of October 1, 2012, EPA will not accept
paper copies or CDs of EISs for filing purposes; all submissions on or
after October 1, 2012 must be made through e-NEPA.
    While this system eliminates the need to submit paper or CD copies
to EPA to meet filing requirements, electronic submission does not
change requirements for distribution of EISs for public review and
comment. To begin using e-NEPA, you must first register with EPA's
electronic reporting site--https://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp

EIS No. 20130009, Final EIS, NPS, HI, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Project, Protecting and Restoring Native Ecosystems by Managing Non-
Native Ungulates, Hawaii County, HI, Review Period Ends: 02/25/2013,
Contact: Rhonda Loh<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20130010, Draft EIS, BLM, CO, Grand Junction Field Office
Resource Management Plan, Mesa, Garfield, Montrose and Rio Blanco
Counties, CO, Comment Period Ends: 04/25/2013, Contact: Collin Ewing
970-244-3627.
EIS No. 20130011, Draft EIS, NPS, TX, Lake Meredith National Recreation
Area, Off-Road Management Plan, TX, Comment Period Ends: 03/26/2013,
Contact: Arlene Wimer<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20130012, Draft EIS, USFS, MT, Blackfoot Travel Plan, Lincoln
Ranger District, Helena National Forest, Lewis and Clark and Powell
Counties, MT, Comment Period Ends: 03/11/2013, Contact: Amber Kamps
406-362-7002.
EIS No. 20130013, Final EIS, USFS, ID, Scriver Creek Integrated
Restoration Project, Emmett Ranger District, Boise National Forest,
Boise and Valley Counties, ID, Review Period Ends: 03/12/2013, Contact:
Randal Hayman<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20130014, Final EIS, FHWA, 00, Illiana Corridor Project Tier
One Transportation System Improvements, Will and Kankakee Counties, IL
and Lake County, IN, Contact: J. Michael Bowen<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20130015, Draft Supplement, FHWA, CA, Mid County Parkway, a new
Freeway from the City of Perris to the City of San Jacinto, Riverside
County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 03/11/2013, Contact: Larry Vinzant
916-498-5040.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20090231, Draft EIS, BIA, CA, Point Molate Mixed-Use Tribal
Destination Resort and Casino, Proposed Project is to Strengthen the
Tribal Government and Improve the Social Economic Status, Guidiville
Band of Pomo Indian of the Guidiville Rancheria (Tribe), City of
Richmond, Contra Costa County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 10/23/2009,
Contact: Larry Blevin<PHONE_NUMBER>. Revision to FR Notice Published 10/
09/2009; The U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs
has Officially Cancelled the above project.
EIS No. 20120369, Draft EIS, NOAA, CA, Authorization of Incidental Take
and Implementation of the Mendocino Redwood Habitat Conservation Plan/
Natural Community Conservation and Timber Management Plan, Mendocino
County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 04/22/2013, Contact: Eric Shott 707-
575-6089. Revision to FR Notice Published 11/23/2012; Extending Comment
Period from 02/21/2013 to 04/22/2013.
EIS No. 20120383, Draft EIS, USACE, CA, Gregory Canyon Landfill,
Application for Permit Authorizing Discharge of Fill in U.S. Waters,
San Diego County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 04/15/2013, Contact: William
H. Miller<PHONE_NUMBER>. Revision to FR Notice Published 11/23/2012;
Extending Comment Period from 02/21/2013 to 04/22/2013.

    Dated: January 22, 2013.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2013-01586 Filed 1-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Aldicarb Meeting Minutes August 31, 2005 On August 31, 2005 Bayer CropScience met with the Office of Pesticide Programs to discuss the endangered species risk assessment. Attached are the meeting agenda and slides that were presented by Bayer CropScience.

Attendees:

US EPA Mika J. Hunter, SRRD Eric Olson, SRRD Robert McNally, SRRD Jeanette Martinez, EFED Diana Eignor, EFED Michelle Embry, EFED Dana Spatz, EFED Ed Odenkirchen, EFED Melissa Panger, EFED Tom Bailey, EFED Derek Berwald, BEAD Bayer CropScience Tilghman Hall David Fischer Larry Hodges Iain Kelly Tharacad Ramanarayanan Lee Hall J. D. Fish