[Federal Register: June 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 105)]
[Notices]
[Page 30845]
[DOCID:fr02jn10-91]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2010-0453]

National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of open teleconference meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a teleconference meeting of the National
Offshore Safety Advisory Committee (NOSAC) to discuss items listed in
the agenda as well as other items that NOSAC may consider. This meeting
will be open to the public.

DATES: The teleconference meeting will take place on Thursday, July 1,
2010, from 11 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. EST. This meeting may close early if
all business is finished. Written material and requests to make oral
presentations should reach the Coast Guard on or before June 17, 2010.
Requests to have a copy of your material distributed to each member of
the committee should reach the Coast Guard on or before June 17, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet, via telephone conference, on July
1, 2010. Public participation is welcome and members of the public
wishing to participate may contact Commander P.W. Clark at<PHONE_NUMBER>
for call-in information, or they may participate in person by coming to
Room 5-1224, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters Building, 2100 Second
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593. As there are a limited number of
teleconference lines, public participation will be on a first come
basis. Written comments should be sent to Commander P.W. Clark,
Designated Federal Officer of NOSAC, Commandant (CG-5222), 2100 Second
Street, SW., Stop 7126, Washington, DC 20593-0001; or by fax to 202-372
1926, at least 10 days prior to the meeting. This notice is available
in our online docket, USCG-2010-0453, at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander P.W. Clark, Designated
Federal Officer of NOSAC, or Mr. Kevin Pekarek, Assistant Designated
Federal Officer, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2.

Agenda of Meeting

    The agenda for the July 1, 2010 Committee meeting is as follows:
    (1) Roll call of Committee members and the public participating in
the teleconference.
    (2) Approval of minutes from the April 8, 2010, meeting.
    (3) Consideration and possible action on a subcommittee's Final
Report containing recommendations concerning Dynamic Positioning (DP)
Systems.
    (4) Consideration and possible action on a proposed Task Statement
and formation of a subcommittee to study the matter of Electrical
Hazards in Explosive Atmospheres.
    (5) An update on safe lifting initiatives.
    (6) Period for Public Comment.
    (7) Confirmation of the date/time for the next NOSAC Meeting
(Tuesday, November 9, 2010 in Houston, TX).

Procedural

    This meeting is open to the public. Please note that the meeting
may close early if all business is finished. At the Chair's discretion,
members of the public may make oral presentations during the meeting.
If you would like to make an oral presentation during the
teleconference, please notify the DFO no later than June 17, 2010.
Written material for distribution to Committee members should reach the
Coast Guard no later than June 17, 2010.

Minutes

    Minutes from the meeting will be available for the public review
and copying 30 days following the teleconference meeting.

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
Mr. Kevin Pekarek at<PHONE_NUMBER> as soon as possible.

    Dated: May 25, 2010.
F.J. Sturm,
Acting Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2010-13117 Filed 6-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 145 (Monday, July 29, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45477-45478]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18142]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0516; Airspace Docket No. 13-AAL-2]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Akutan, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Akutan
Airport, Akutan, AK. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate
aircraft using the new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System
(GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. The FAA
is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of
aircraft operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 12, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2013-
0516; Airspace Docket No. 13-AAL-2, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2013-0516 and Airspace Docket No. 13-AAL-2) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2013-0516 and Airspace Docket No. 13-AAL-2''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRM's

    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/airports_airtraffic/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 Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 3.5-mile radius of
Akutan Airport, Akutan, AK, with a segment extending from the 3.5-mile
radius to 5.5 miles northwest of the airport. Controlled airspace is
needed to accommodate aircraft using the new RNAV (GPS) standard
instrument approaches and departures at the airport. This action would
enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at the
airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of
FAA Order 7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in this Order.
    The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (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 this proposed 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.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes
the authority for 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 the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would modify controlled airspace at Akutan Airport,
Akutan, AK.
    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``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(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 the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Akutan, AK [New]

    Akutan Airport, AK
    (Lat. 54[deg]08'41'' N., long. 165[deg]36'15'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 3.5-mile radius of the Akutan Airport and within 1-mile
each side of the 311[deg] bearing extending from the 3.5-mile radius
to 5.5-miles northwest of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on July 22, 2013.
Christopher Ramirez,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-18142 Filed 7-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 232)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 73169-73171]
[DOCID:fr02de08-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1122; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-35-AD;
Amendment 39-15759; AD 2008-25-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Trent 500 Series
Turbofan Engines

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    Recent analysis of the low-pressure turbine (LPT) discs 1-5
carried out by Rolls-Royce plc concluded that it is necessary to
reduce the declared safe cyclic life of all Trent 500

LPT stage 3 discs, part number (P/N) FK29581.

Rolls-Royce plc has reduced the declared safe cyclic life of these LPT
stage 3 discs to 7,990 cycles-since-new (CSN). This AD requires actions
that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the
MCAI, which could result in uncontained failure of LPT stage 3 discs,
resulting in damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 17, 2008.
    We must receive comments on this AD by January 2, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the same as
the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD 2008-0098, dated May 21, 2008, to correct an unsafe condition for
the specified products. The EASA AD states:

    Recent analysis of the LPT discs 1-5 carried out by Rolls-Royce
plc concluded that it is necessary to reduce the declared safe
cyclic life of all Trent 500 LPT stage 3 discs, P/N FK29581.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the
United Kingdom, and is approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the United Kingdom, they have
notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we
evaluated all information provided by EASA, and determined the unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of
the same type design. This AD requires removing LPT stage 3 discs, P/N
FK29581, from service before reaching the new reduced declared safe
cyclic life of 7,990 CSN.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    Since there are currently no domestic operators of these engine
models, notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this
AD are unnecessary. Therefore, a situation exists that allows the
immediate adoption of this regulation.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-1122; Directorate
Identifier 2008-NE-35-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-25-01 Rolls-Royce plc: Amendment 39-15759; Docket No. FAA-2008-
1122; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-35-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective December
17, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Trent 553-61,
553A2-61, 556-61, 556A2-61, 556B-61, 556B2-61, 560-61, and 560A2-61
turbofan engines with a low-pressure turbine (LPT) stage 3 disc,
part number (P/N) FK29581, installed. These engines are installed
on, but not limited to, Airbus A340-500 and A340-600 series
airplanes.

Reason

    (d) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2008-0098,
dated May 21, 2008, states the unsafe condition as follows:
    Recent analysis of the LPT discs 1-5 carried out by Rolls-Royce
plc concluded that it is necessary to reduce the declared safe
cyclic life of all Trent 500 LPT stage 3 discs, P/N FK29581.
    Rolls-Royce plc has reduced the declared safe cyclic life of
these LPT stage 3 discs to 7,990 cycles-since-new (CSN). We are
issuing this AD to prevent an uncontained failure of the LPT stage 3
disc, resulting in damage to the airplane.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) After the effective date of this AD, remove LPT stage 3
discs, P/N FK29581, from service before reaching the new reduced
declared safe cyclic life of 7,990 CSN.
    (f) Do not install an LPT stage 3 disc, P/N FK29581, onto any
engine, unless it has been verified that the disc has not yet
accumulated 7,990 CSN.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to EASA Airworthiness Directive 2008-0098, dated May
21, 2008, and Rolls-Royce plc Alert Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-
AF781, dated April 2, 2008, for related information. Contact Rolls-
Royce plc, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE248BJ; telephone: 011-44-
1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-245418, for the alert service
bulletin.
    (i) Contact James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (781) 238-
7199, for more information about this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 24, 2008.
Francis A. Favara,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-28549 Filed 12-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 203 (Thursday, October 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65225-65228]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27200]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65576; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-133]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating To
the RSQT Fee

October 14, 2011.
    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 October 3, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Remote Streaming Quote Trader
(``RSQT'') \3\ Fee in Section VI of the Exchange's Fee Schedule
entitled ``Access Service, Cancellation, Membership, Regulatory and
Other Fees.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Registered Options Trader (``ROT'') includes a Streaming
Quote Trader (``SQT''), a Remote Streaming Quote Trader (``RSQT'')
and a Non-SQT ROT, which by definition is neither a SQT or a RSQT. A
ROT is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b) as a regular member or a
foreign currency options participant of the Exchange located on the
trading floor who has received permission from the Exchange to trade
in options for his own account. See Exchange Rule 1014 (b)(i) and
(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative on November 1, 2011.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at the
principal office of the Exchange, on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov/ 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 aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the RSQT Fee in Section VI of the
Exchange's Fee Schedule, entitled ``Access Service, Cancellation,
Membership, Regulatory and Other Fees,'' in order to simplify its RSQT
Fee and automate its billing of this fee.
    An RSQT is an ROT that is a member or member organization with no
physical trading floor presence who has received permission from the
Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically in
options to which such RSQT has been assigned.\4\ An RSQT may only
submit such quotations electronically from off the floor of the
Exchange.\5\ An RSQT shall not submit option quotations in eligible
options to which such RSQT is assigned to the extent that the RSQT is
also approved as a Remote Specialist in the same options.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A qualified RSQT may function as a Remote Specialist upon
Exchange approval.
    \5\ See Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B). No person who is either
directly or indirectly affiliated with an RSQT shall submit
quotations as a specialist, SQT, RSQT or non-SQT ROT in options in
which such affiliated RSQT is assigned. An RSQT may only trade in a
market making capacity in classes of options in which he is assigned
or approved as a Remote Specialist.
    \6\ See Exchange Rules 1014(b) and 507 for qualifications
relating to assignments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange assesses its RSQT Fee in seven categories
as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
RSQT Category I........................  $1700.00 per calendar month.
                                         RSQT is Eligible to trade:
                                            1 issue selected
                                         from the top 5 national volume
                                         leaders.
                                            1 issue selected
                                         from the 6th to 10th national
                                         volume leaders.
                                            3 issues selected
                                         from the 11th to 25th national
                                         volume leaders.
                                            4 issues selected
                                         from the 26th to 50th national
                                         volume leaders.
                                            1 index issue.
                                            190 other issues.
RSQT Category II.......................  $3200.00 per calendar month.
                                         RSQT is Eligible to trade:
                                            2 issues selected
                                         from the top 5 national volume
                                         leaders.
                                            2 issues selected
                                         from the 6th to 10th national
                                         volume leaders.
                                            6 issues selected
                                         from the 11th to 25th national
                                         volume leaders.
                                            8 issues selected
                                         from the 26th to 50th national
                                         volume leaders.
                                            2 index issues.
                                            380 other issues.
RSQT Category III......................  $4700.00 per calendar month.
                                         RSQT is Eligible to trade:
                                            3 issues selected
                                         from the top 5 national volume
                                         leaders.
                                            3 issues selected
                                         from the 6th to 10th national
                                         volume leaders.
                                            9 issues selected
                                         from the 11th to 25th national
                                         volume leaders.
                                            12 issues selected
                                         from the 26th to 50th national
                                         volume leaders.
                                            3 index issues.
                                            570 other issues.
RSQT Category IV.......................  $6200.00 per calendar month.
                                         RSQT is Eligible to trade:
                                            4 issues selected
                                         from the top 5 national volume
                                         leaders.
                                            4 issues selected
                                         from the 6th to 10th national
                                         volume leaders.
                                            12 issues selected
                                         from the 11th to 25th national
                                         volume leaders.
                                            16 issues selected
                                         from the 26th to 50th national
                                         volume leaders.
                                            5 index issues.
                                            759 other issues.
RSQT Category V........................  $7700.00 per calendar month.
                                         RSQT is Eligible to trade:
                                            5 issues selected
                                         from the top 5 national volume
                                         leaders.
                                            5 issues selected
                                         from the 6th to 10th national
                                         volume leaders.
                                            15 issues selected
                                         from the 11th to 25th national
                                         volume leaders.
                                            20 issues selected
                                         from the 26th to 50th national
                                         volume leaders.
                                            7 index issues.
                                            948 other issues.
RSQT Category VI.......................  $9200.00 per calendar month.
                                         RSQT is Eligible to trade:
                                            5 issues selected
                                         from the top 5 national volume
                                         leaders.
                                            5 issues selected
                                         from the 6th to 10th national
                                         volume leaders.
                                            15 issues selected
                                         from the 11th to 25th national
                                         volume leaders.
                                            25 issues selected
                                         from the 26th to 50th national
                                         volume leaders.
                                            9 index issues.
                                            1141 other issues.
RSQT Category VII......................  $10,700.00 per calendar month.
                                           RSQT is eligible to trade all
                                         equity option and index option
                                         issues.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, each RSQT is assessed an RSQT Fee based on the number
and type of option issues (as described above) in which an RSQT is
assigned. The national volume leader calculations are performed by the
Exchange.\7\ Each additional category is a progressively higher fee for
an RSQT to submit quotations from off the floor of the Exchange in a
progressively greater number of options in each aforementioned national
volume grouping and in a greater number of index options. Accordingly,
in order to submit electronic quotations from off the floor of the
Exchange in all options traded on the Exchange, an RSQT would be
required to pay fees applicable to a Category VII RSQT. The RSQT Fee is
assessed based on the highest RSQT category level in which the RSQT was
qualified to trade at any time during a particular calendar month.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange calculates the national volume for equity
options and options overlying Exchange-Traded Fund Shares every six
months, effective from January 1 through June 30, and again from
July 1 through December 31. The January-June national volume
rankings are based on the total national volume for a particular
option traded during the previous month of October, as determined by
The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC''); the July-December
national volume rankings will be based on the total national volume
for a particular option traded during the previous month of May, as
determined by the OCC. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51428
(March 24, 2005), 70 FR 16325 (March 30, 2005) (SR-Phlx-2005-12).
    \8\ For example, if an RSQT is eligible to trade at any time in
a given calendar month as a Category I RSQT, and sometime during
that calendar month becomes qualified and eligible to trade as a
Category II RSQT, the RSQT will be assessed the fee applicable to a
Category II RSQT, regardless of when such RSQT became eligible to
trade at the Category II level, and regardless of whether or not,
during that calendar month, the RSQT resumed eligibility as a
Category I RSQT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the current RSQT Fee and instead
adopt a new RSQT Fee based solely on the number of options assigned to
a particular RSQT. The Exchange proposes to adopt the following monthly
RSQT Fee based on the corresponding number of option class
assignments:\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For purposes of this filing, the term ``issues'' and
``classes'' have the same meaning.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Number of option class assignments                RSQT fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 100 classes..................  $5,000 per month.
More than 100 classes and less than 999  $8,000 per month.
 classes.
1000 or more classes...................  $11,000 per month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In calculating the RSQT Fee, the Exchange will calculate the number
of option class assignments for equity options including exchange-
traded funds (``ETFs''), exchange-traded notes (``ETNs'') \10\ and
HOLDRS.\11\ The Exchange will not include and therefore not assess a
fee for currencies or indexes in calculating the number of option class
assignments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ETNs are also known as ``Index-Linked Securities,'' which
are designed for investors who desire to participate in a specific
market segment by providing exposure to one or more identifiable
underlying securities, commodities, currencies, derivative
instruments or market indexes of the foregoing. Index-Linked
Securities are the non-convertible debt of an issuer that have a
term of at least one (1) year but not greater than thirty (30)
years. Despite the fact that Index-Linked Securities are linked to
an underlying index, each trade as a single, exchange-listed
security. Accordingly, rules pertaining to the listing and trading
of standard equity options apply to Index-Linked Securities.
    \11\ HOLDRS are Holding Company Depository Receipts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative on November 1, 2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \13\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the RSQT Fee
are reasonable because the Exchange is creating a simple method for
calculating the RSQT Fee. The proposal will calculate the RSQT Fee on
the number of option assignments as compared to the national volume for
equity options and options overlying Exchange-Traded Fund Shares. This
new calculation will enable RSQTs to easily determine the amount of
option class assignments and therefore the RSQT Fee on a monthly basis
without the need for a more comprehensive calculation. The Exchange
believes that this revised form of calculating the RSQT Fee will be
more transparent to members, create a simple calculation of the fee
based solely on the number of option class assignments and allow for
ease of automation of this fee.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed RSQT Fee is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed fee is more
representative of system usage by RSQTs and costs to the Exchange.
While several factors determine a particular RSQT's Fee in any given
month, a comparison of the current RSQT Fee and the proposal which is
based solely on option assignments is not a fair determination of the
impact of this fee proposal. The Exchange believes that a majority of
RSQTs will experience an increase or decrease in the RSQT Fee of
approximately $300-$1800 a month based on this proposal. The Exchange
has not increased this fee since it was established in 2005 and
believes that the proposed fee is a fair representation of the
Exchange's technology costs and the increased amount of system usage
attributable to each RSQT.

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or 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.\14\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

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

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 No. SR-Phlx-2011-133 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 No. SR-Phlx-2011-133. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2011-133 and should be
submitted on or before November 10, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-27200 Filed 10-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                              Acetochlor (121601)
                     Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)
                            Date: August 10, 2015

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?
 Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.
 Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.
What does it contain?
 Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.
 Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used on.
 Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce 80% or more of a crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases, depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.
 Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural crop.
 Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).
What assumptions can I make about the reported data?
 Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all observations, then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated values between 500 & <1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.  Estimated values of 1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant digits.)
 Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, & rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.  If the estimated value is less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.
 Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.
What are the data sources used?
 USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)  -  pesticide usage data from 2004 to 2013.
 Private pesticide market research  -  pesticide usage data from 2004 to 2013.
 California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) data for 2004 to 2012.
What are the limitations to the data?
 Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).
 Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply zero usage.
 Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the SLUA.
 Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control, etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to receive these estimates.
 Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited to Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical, data collection errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

     Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Acetochlor (121601)
                             Sorted Alphabetically
                          Reporting Years: 2004-2013
                               August 10, 2015

                                Annual Average
                             Percent Crop Treated

Crop
                               Lbs. A.I. Applied
                                    Average
                                    Maximum
                                                                              1
Corn
                                                                     30,400,000
                                                                             25
                                                                             30
                                                                              2
Corn, Sweet
                                                                         50,000
                                                                              5
                                                                             15
                                                                              3
Cotton
                                                                      1,200,000
                                                                             10
                                                                             20
                                                                              4
Fallow
                                                                          2,000
                                                                          <1
                                                                        <2.5
                                                                              5
Potatoes [+ ~]
                                                                          3,000
                                                                          <1
                                                                        <2.5
                                                                              6
Sorghum
                                                                        200,000
                                                                        <2.5
                                                                              5
                                                                              7
Soybeans
                                                                      1,400,000
                                                                        <2.5
                                                                              5

All numbers are rounded.
  	<2.5: less than 2.5 percent of crop is treated.
 	 <1: less than 1 percent of crop is treated.

+ Potatoes are not known to be listed on active end use product registrations or Section 18 emergency exemptions at the time of this report.

~ There is a tolerance for "indirect or inadvertent residues" of acetochlor on potatoes.

SLUA data sources include:
  USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)
Private Pesticide Market Research

These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are releasable to the public.


Draft, 4/ 12/ 05; subject to change 5 1 5.0 Industrial Laundries 5.1 Introduction In 1999, EPA published a final action for facilities in the Industrial Laundries point source category. See 64 Fed. Reg. 45,071 ( Aug. 18, 1999). EPA determined that all wastewater discharges associated with this industry were indirect to Publicly Owned Treatment Works ( POTWs). EPA determined that indirect discharges from industrial laundries did not warrant national regulation because of the small amount of pollutants removed by the pretreatment options that were found to be economically achievable. EPA's review found that POTWs are generally not experiencing problems with discharges from this industry, and such discharges will rarely, if ever, present a problem. To the extent that isolated problem discharges occur, existing pretreatment authority is available to control these isolated discharges. EPA concluded that for this industry, the best way to control effluent discharges of certain organic pollutants is to remove the pollutants which are contained on the laundry items before they are washed.

In addition, at the time of EPA's final decision, representatives from this industry agreed to a voluntary pollutant reduction program. The industry refers to this program as the Laundry Environmental Stewardship Program or LaundryESP ® . The industry designed this program to encourage improvement in four areas: water usage; energy usage; pollutant discharges to the sewer; and use of wash chemicals with a more positive environmental profile. As part of this program, the industry has been collecting information from program participants in the four improvement areas. In 2004, the industry collated this information and provided a summary of the results to date. This information serves as the primary information source for this review.

5.2 Industry Profile Industrial laundries primarily include facilities in SIC codes 7211 and 7218.

7211: Establishments primarily engaged in operating mechanical laundries with steam or other power. Excluded are establishments which have power laundry equipment but which are primarily engaged in a specialty, such as industrial laundering, linen rental, or diaper service.

7218: Establishments primarily engaged in supplying laundered or drycleaned work uniforms, wiping towels, protective apparel ( gloves, flame resistant clothing, etc.), dust control items ( treated mats or rugs, mops, cloths, etc.), and similar items to industrial, commercial, and government users. These items may belong to the industrial launderers and be supplied to users on a rental basis, or they may belong to the customers. Establishments included in this industry may or may not operate their own laundry or drycleaning facilities. Draft, 4/ 12/ 05; subject to change 5 2 Table 5 1 presents Census data for the Industrial Laundries Category.

Table 5 1. Census Data SIC Code NAICS Code Number of Facilities in 1997 Number of Facilities in 2002 7211: Power laundries, family and commercial 812320: Laundries, family and commercial 1,740 NA 7218: Industrial launderers 812332: Industrial launderers 1,613 1,488 NA: The 2002 data in the U. S. Census lists the total number of establishments for NAICS Code 812320, which includes dry cleaning plants; laundries, family and commercial, and all other laundry and garment services. The total number of all of these types of facilities is 27,066, which is not representative of industrial laundries.

Of the approximately 3,000 industrial laundry facilities in the U. S. ( 1997 U. S. Census), none reported to the 2000 TRI or PCS. The U. S. EPA Technical Development Document for the Final Action Regarding Pretreatment Standards for the Industrial Laundries Point Source Category ( 2000 TDD), published in March 2000, contains data on the laundering processes used by industrial laundry facilities. Table 5 2 presents the different types of laundering processes used, and the number of facilities performing each process.

Table 5 2. Laundering Processes from 2000 TDD Process Estimated Number of Facilities Performing the Process Estimated Percentage of Facilities Performing the Process Estimated Percentage of Total Production1 (%)

Water Washing 1,725 99 97 Dual Phase Washing  Petroleum solvent wash followed by water washing 18 1 < 1 Dual Phase Washing  Water wash followed by perchloroethylene solvent wash 0 0 0 Dry Cleaning  Charged system 125 7 < 1 Dry Cleaning  Fresh soap added to each load 80 5 < 1 Dry Cleaning  No soap added 80 5 < 1 Dry Cleaning Followed by Water Washing ( drying between steps) 29 2 < 1 Dust Control Mop Treatment  Water wash followed by oil treatment applied outside wash wheel 692 40 1 Draft, 4/ 12/ 05; subject to change Table 5 2 ( Continued)

Process Estimated Number of Facilities Performing the Process Estimated Percentage of Facilities Performing the Process Estimated Percentage of Total Production1 (%)

5 3 Dust Control Mop Treatment  Water wash followed by oil treatment applied inside wash wheel 67 4 < 1 Dust Control Mop Treatment Water wash followed by unspecified oil treatment 22 1 < 1 Dust Control Mop Treatment  Oil only 57 3 < 1 Stone/ Acid Washing of Denim 11 1 1 Dyeing2 1 < 1 < 1 Total   100 1Percentages reported are estimated based on the 193 in scope facilities ( including three facilities that were later determined to be out of scope because they process only clean room items), extrapolated using appropriate survey weights to represent the entire industry. 2This process is not considered a laundering process by EPA.

5.3 Wastewater Characteristics For 2000, neither the PCS nor TRI database contains information for any discharging industrial laundries. The 2000 TDD contains data on pollutants of concern and their concentrations in untreated laundry wastewaters. Table 5 3 summarizes laundries raw wastewater characteristics.

Table 5 3. Pollutants of Concern in Laundries Raw Wastewater from 2000 TDD1 Pollutants of Concern Number of Times Analyzed Number of Times Detected Percent Detected (%) Concentration in Untreated Wastewater ( mg/ L)

Minimum Maximum Mean Conventionals Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5 Day ( BOD5) 46 46 100 218 9810 2343.5 Oil and Grease ( measured as HEM) 48 48 100 71.5 11790 1943.92 Total Suspended Solids ( TSS) 46 45 97.83 4 7000 1773.93 Priority Organics 1,1,1 Trichloroethane 48 22 45.83 0.01 156.64 4.01 1,2 Diphenylhydrazine 47 5 10.64 0.02 41.32 1.14 4 Chloro 3 methylphenol 47 8 17.02 0.01 2.06 0.14 Draft, 4/ 12/ 05; subject to change Table 5 3 ( Continued)

Pollutants of Concern Number of Times Analyzed Number of Times Detected Percent Detected (%) Concentration in Untreated Wastewater ( mg/ L)

Minimum Maximum Mean 5 4 Bis( 2 ethylhexyl) Phthalate 47 43 91.49 0.04 42.01 6.8 Butyl Benzyl Phthalate 47 20 42.55 0.01 74.42 2.69 Chlorobenzene 48 8 16.67 0.01 1.41 0.08 Chloroform 48 25 52.08 0.01 1.19 0.07 Di n butyl Phthalate 47 20 42.55 0.01 9.98 0.73 Di n octyl Phthalate 47 25 53.19 0.01 2.61 0.3 Ethylbenzene 48 38 79.17 0.01 18.74 1.24 Isophorone 47 5 10.64 0.01 1 0.12 Methylene Chloride 48 25 52.08 0.01 16.26 0.63 Naphthalene 47 42 89.36 0.01 18.75 2.59 Phenol 47 23 48.94 0.01 0.96 0.15 Tetrachloroethene 48 35 72.92 0.01 46.22 1.97 Toluene 48 44 91.67 0.01 90.97 6.72 trans 1,2 Dichloroethene 48 1 2.08 0.01 0.1 0.03 Trichloroethene 48 7 14.58 0.01 20 0.48 Nonconventional Organics 2 Butanone 48 32 66.67 0.05 272.29 9.07 2 Methylnaphthalene 47 32 68.09 0.01 2.24 0.41 2 Propanone 48 46 95.83 0.05 603.15 20.95 4 Methyl 2 pentanone 48 26 54.17 0.05 65.27 2.65 % Terpineol 47 17 36.17 0.01 5.2 0.33 Benzoic Acid 47 34 72.34 0.05 12.23 1.77 Benzyl Alcohol 47 21 44.68 0.01 12.52 0.81 Hexanoic Acid 47 14 29.79 0.01 1.81 0.12 m Xylene 48 40 83.33 0.01 25.29 2.29 n Decane 47 41 87.23 0.01 712.4 51.6 n Docosane 47 31 65.96 0.01 3.04 0.35 n Dodecane 47 40 85.11 0.01 105.57 14.37 n Eicosane 47 43 91.49 0.01 84.57 4.06 n Hexacosane 47 27 57.45 0.01 3.73 0.36 Draft, 4/ 12/ 05; subject to change Table 5 3 ( Continued)

Pollutants of Concern Number of Times Analyzed Number of Times Detected Percent Detected (%) Concentration in Untreated Wastewater ( mg/ L)

Minimum Maximum Mean 5 5 n Hexadecane 47 43 91.49 0.01 91.57 6.7 n Octacosane 47 21 44.68 0.01 1.44 0.19 n Octadecane 47 42 89.36 0.01 19.36 1.92 n Tetracosane 47 25 53.19 0.01 8.34 0.46 n Tetradecane 47 37 78.72 0.01 41.58 4.39 n Triacontane 47 29 61.7 0.01 1 0.19 o& p Xylene 48 40 83.33 0.01 17.8 1.59 p Cresol 47 1 2.13 0.01 0.2 0.06 p Cymene 47 16 34.04 0.01 19.81 1.43 Pentamethylbenzene 47 11 23.4 0.01 2.33 0.22 Priority Metals and Elements Antimony 47 34 72.34 0.01 8.24 0.26 Arsenic 47 15 31.91 0.01 0.18 0.02 Beryllium 47 18 38.3 0.01 0.02 0.003 Cadmium 47 44 93.62 0.01 0.7 0.1 Chromium 47 45 95.74 0.01 7.31 0.46 Copper 47 47 100 0.04 14.9 3.17 Lead 47 45 95.74 0.03 23.8 1.71 Mercury 47 28 59.57 0.01 0.01 0.001 Nickel 47 45 95.74 0.01 2.87 0.27 Selenium 47 12 25.53 0.01 0.26 0.03 Silver 47 24 51.06 0.01 0.17 0.02 Thallium 47 6 12.77 0.01 0.13 0.01 Zinc 47 46 97.87 0.01 29.4 5.02 Nonconventional Metals and Elements Aluminum 47 47 100 0.03 20.99 7.96 Barium 47 47 100 0.03 6.26 1.51 Boron 47 36 76.6 0.03 37.2 2.31 Cobalt 47 37 78.72 0 3.1 0.24 Iron 47 47 100 0.06 96.6 27.7 Draft, 4/ 12/ 05; subject to change Table 5 3 ( Continued)

Pollutants of Concern Number of Times Analyzed Number of Times Detected Percent Detected (%) Concentration in Untreated Wastewater ( mg/ L)

Minimum Maximum Mean 5 6 Manganese 47 47 100 0.02 1.77 0.56 Molybdenum 47 43 91.49 0.01 5.17 0.53 Tin 47 32 68.09 0.02 0.58 0.11 Titanium 47 45 95.74 0.01 1.32 0.23 Vanadium 47 31 65.96 0.01 0.19 0.04 Yttrium 47 15 31.91 0.01 0.04 0.01 Bulk Nonconventionals Chemical Oxygen Demand ( COD) 47 47 100 80 212000 12730.57 Total Organic Carbon ( TOC) 47 47 100 106 37800 2208.32 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon ( measured as SGT HEM) 43 43 100 7 4543 880.86 5.4 On Site Wastewater Treatment/ Pretreatment and Pollution Prevention All of the industrial laundries identified by EPA discharge their process wastewater indirectly to POTWs. Based on the Uniform and Textile Service Association ( UTSA) and the Textile Rental Service Association ( TRSA) survey conducted in 1998, 55 percent of the industrial laundries do not pre treat their wastewater. Of the remaining 45 percent of the facilities, the primary method of wastewater pre treatment is dissolved air flotation ( DAF). Other wastewater treatment technologies in use include chemical precipitation ( CP), chemical emulsion breaking, microfiltration, ultrafiltration, gravity settling, stream splitting, screening, equalization, sludge dewatering, pH adjustment, centrifugation, media filtration, oil/ water separation and VOC removal technologies.

A review of the 2002 LaundryESP data by UTSA and TRSA indicated that 326 of the 562 reporting facilities ( 58%) used one or more of the following treatment systems: air stripping, carbon absorption, centrifuge, chemical emulsion breaking, dissolved air flotation, induced air flotation, microfilter, oil skimmer, oil/ water separator, pH adjustment, polishing filters, reverse osmosis, rotary screen, and ultrafilter Tables 5 4 and 5 5 show the primary conventional and nonconventional pollutants and their average concentrations in laundry effluents following one of the two main types of laundry pretreatment: chemical precipitation or dissolved air flotation ( DAF). Draft, 4/ 12/ 05; subject to change 5 7 Table 5 4. Pollutant Concentrations ( After Chemical Precipitation)  Industry Wide1 Pollutants of Concern Median Target Average Concentration ( mg/ L)

Conventionals Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5 Day ( BOD5 ) 399 Total Suspended Solids ( TSS) 117 Total Conventionals 516 Non Conventionals 4 Methyl 2 pentanone 1.960 Iron 1.780 2 Butanone 1.680 2 Propanone 1.540 n Dodecane 1.460 Aluminum 1.330 Toluene 0.973 Tetrachloroethene 0.421 1,1,1 Trichloroethane 0.390 Boron 0.383 Benzyl Alcohol 0.342 Zinc 0.303 Isophorone 0.300 Molybdenum 0.275 Copper 0.270 m Xylene 0.241 Hexanoic Acid 0.203 o& p Xylene 0.197 Total Non Conventionals 14.048 1. Data obtained from the 2000 TDD. Draft, 4/ 12/ 05; subject to change 5 8 Table 5 5. Pollutant Concentrations ( After Dissolved Air Flotation)  Industry Wide1 Pollutants of Concern Median Target Average Concentration ( mg/ L)

Conventionals Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5 Day ( BOD5 ) 497.0 Total Suspended Solids ( TSS) 85.5 Total Conventionals 582.5 Non Conventionals 2 Butanone 17.40 2 Propanone 13.60 Iron 2.79 Benzoic Acid 1.58 Aluminum 1.31 Zinc 0.84 Toluene 0.71 4 Methyl 2 pentanone 0.60 Methylene Chloride 0.55 Boron 0.52 Copper 0.48 alpha Terpineol 0.47 Total Non Conventionals 40.84 1. Data obtained from the 2000 TDD.

Industrial laundry pollution prevention can be divided into two categories: preprocess pollution prevention and in process pollution prevention.

The pre process pollution prevention activities include: refusal of items with free liquids, refusal of certain items, centrifugation of items to remove liquids, drycleaning of items before water washing, pre sorting to remove objects and stream/ air stripping of volatile organics. The most common pre process pollution prevention activities are the refusal of items with free liquids and the refusal of certain items.

The in process pollution prevention activities include: change in laundering/ drycleaning chemicals used, improved training of employees, use of a liquid injection system for exact wash chemical addition, improved housekeeping, water softening, equipment modifications/ installations, recycling of laundry materials, removal of lint before air venting to the atmosphere and reduced fuel consumption. The most common in process pollution prevention Draft, 4/ 12/ 05; subject to change 5 9 activities are a change in laundering/ drycleaning chemicals used, improved training of employees and use of a liquid injection system for exact wash chemical addition.

5.5 Laundry Environmental Stewardship Program ( LaundryESP ® )

In addition, this industry also embarked on a voluntary resource conservation and recovery program. The industry designed this program, LaundryESP ® , to achieve better performance in the areas of:

Water usage;

Energy usage;

Wash chemical usage; and

Pollutant discharges.

The industry established goals of reductions of 10 to 25 percent water and energy usage per pound of textile processed; a reduction of 20,000 TWPE of pollutants discharged, and 10 to 25 percent substitution of wash chemicals with chemicals with a more positive environmental profile. As part of this program, the industry established a way for participating facilities to provide relevant data and to monitor the program's performance. In 2004, the industry reviewed its performance through 2002. The results are summarized below.

As of 2002, 170 textile service companies ( 750 laundry plant facilities) were participating in the LaundryESP ® . According to this industry, this participation accounts for nearly 70 percent of the industry's revenue ( 2002). From 1997 2002, the industry conducted three facility surveys, one pollutant data survey, and three wash chemical surveys with the result being 2.3 million fields in the database. For quality control, outside consultants reviewed the raw data, the industry performed QA checks and corrections, and the industry also removed outliers ( using a standard t statistic).

The data demonstrate that from 1997 to 2002 the participating facilities reduced water usage per pound of textile processed by 12.5 percent from an average of 2.61 gallons/ pound of textile processed to an average of 2.28 gallons/ pound of textile processed. In addition, the industry reduced its water usage by 5.5 billion gallons from 1997 to 2002. Energy usage showed a similar trend with an 11.8 percent reduction in the energy use/ pound of textile processed. The average energy usage dropped from 3650 BTU/ lb to 3219 BTU/ lb. The industry also saw a 100 percent increase ( from 3 to 6 million lbs/ yr) in the use of peroxide bleaches as wash chemicals which have fewer toxic byproducts than the standard wash chemicals. Draft, 4/ 12/ 05; subject to change 1The industry calculated the TWPE estimates using information in its database and TWFs from the 1999 Industrial Laundries record.

5 10 The LaundryESP ® database also demonstrated overall toxic pollutant reductions from 1998 to 2002. Table 5 9 below shows the toxic weighted pounds discharged by the industry as a whole from 1998 to 2002, based on information in the LaundryESP ® database1.

Table 5 9. Pollutant Discharges from Industrial Laundry Facilities ( Measured as TWPE)

Year TWPE 1998 40,677 1999 29,090 2000 32,830 2001 22,277 2002 23,162 Data Source: LaundryESP ® 5.6 Multimedia Environmental Releases 5.6.1 Sludge Generation Industrial laundries generate sludge from sources such as trenches; catch basins; settling pits, or other structures that retain the process wastewater prior to discharge; shaker or rotary screens; and wastewater treatment units such as DAF or CP that are designed to remove solids. Sludge may include large objects, sand, grit, lint, lime ( used as a coagulant), metal compounds precipitated from the wastewater and agglomerated organic materials. The sludge is not usually considered to be a hazardous waste, and is normally disposed of in a non hazardous landfill. However, some municipalities may require the sludge to be disposed of in an industrial waste landfill. If the sludge contains a significant amount of organic material, it is suitable for incineration or fuel blending. EPA estimates that DAF units generate a median of 0.031 pounds of sludge per gallon of wastewater, while chemical precipitation units generate a median of 0.039 pounds of sludge per gallon of wastewater.

5.6.2 Volatilization Prior to Reaching POTW Industrial laundry facilities generate volatile organic compounds ( VOCs) in wastewater during the laundering of heavily soiled items. VOCs may be emitted from wastewater prior to and during the wash cycle and during wastewater discharge. Air pollutants may also be emitted from wastewater collection and treatment units. EPA's evaluation of potential air emissions from Industrial laundry facilities is described in Chapter 10 of the Technical Draft, 4/ 12/ 05; subject to change 5 11 Development Document for the 1999 final decision. In that chapter, EPA explained that it believed volatile emissions would be similar from facilities with or without treatment because the wastewater comes in contact with the ambient air in either scenario. In addition, EPA estimated a " worst case" scenario for volatile emissions from industrial laundry facilities. EPA estimated these emissions based on a facility with the highest raw wastewater concentrations out of seven industrial laundries analyzed. EPA also assumed that all organic pollutants in the raw wastewater would volatilize during treatment. The resulting annual estimate of organic emissions was 92 Mg per year, with the most dominant pollutants being n decane, 2 propanone and tetrachloroethene. It is important to note, however, that EPA also indicated that because of its methodology, the calculated emissions are much higher than would actually occur at an industrial laundry.

5.7 Industry Trends Several business and operating trends are emerging in the industrial laundries industry, including changes in industrial laundry processes, facility size and pollution reduction technologies. See Section 5.5 for a discussion of industry trends in water, energy, and wash chemical usage as well as pollutant reductions.

In the 2000 TDD, EPA determined that many industries are moving away from dry cleaning due to the hazardous nature of the dry cleaning solvents and the expense of their disposal. Forty five percent of drycleaning units were purchased in the 1980s whereas only 39 percent of the drycleaning units were purchased between 1990 and 1995.

There has been a trend towards larger firms purchasing smaller firms. The larger firms realize the benefits of diversification ( through having a larger number of specialized laundering services). The smaller firms have difficulty competing with the larger firms due to rising costs of laundry equipment, difficulty in raising capital and utilization of new technologies.

The industry as a whole is moving towards automation in the washing, drying, folding and packaging of items laundered. Another trend is the installation of tunnel washers, which have a built in " reuse cycle" where the final rinse water is automatically cycled back to the first rinse. There is also an industry wide increase in pollution prevention activities such as installation of more efficient washers and extractors, and use of detergents that allow for lower wash temperatures and a lower pH for the removal of oils and grease.

EPA's Design for the Environment ( DfE) Program was created to build on the current industry trends to incorporate environmental factors into design decisions. The DfE maintains partnership projects with the following industries: adhesives, automotive refinishing, computer display, printing, formulator, garment and textile care, industrial and institutional laundry, integrated environmental management systems, lead free solder partnership, nail salons and printed wiring board. The DfE work is on going; information obtained from the EPA website was last updated in March, 2004. Draft, 4/ 12/ 05; subject to change 5 12 5.8 References 1. U. S. EPA. Technical Development Document for the Final Action Regarding Pretreatment Standards for the Industrial Laundries Point Source Category. March, 2000.

2. Federal Register. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards for the Industrial Laundries Point Source Category. Volume 64, Number 159. August 18, 1999.

3. Uniform and Textile Service Association ( UTSA). Comments to the Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan ( Docket OW 2003 0074). March 18, 2004.

4. Uniform and Textile Service Association ( UTSA) and Textile Rental Service Association ( TRSA). LaundryESP ® : Laundry Environmental Stewardship Program, 2004 Results Report. 2004.

5. Uniform and Textile Service Association ( UTSA). Meeting and Correspondence Notes between David Dunlap, UTSA and Jan Matuszko, EPA. November, 2004 January 2005.

6. U. S. EPA. Design for Environment: Considerations for Partnership. http:// www. epa. gov/ dfe/ pubs/ formulat/ consider/ index. htm. March 24, 2004.