The causes of elevated aluminum levels in surface water may be numerous and variable and could be natural or anthropogenically influenced. One major reason for increased aluminum in surface waters may be increased acidification of catchment basin soils through atmospheric deposition of acidic compounds. This can have the effect of remobilizing aluminum that had precipitated out (Driscoll, 1985). The large number of potentially impaired locations in eastern Oregon are generally within a region of acid sensitive waters. Elevated acidity also enhances the toxicity of aluminum. Thus, a principal control strategy would likely be about reducing acidity in these waters and watersheds. This could result in load allocations to acid deposition in TMDLs or possibly acknowledgement of water quality limitations through use attainability analysis. A first step in any effort would be to collect monitoring data to evaluate aluminum levels in context of the full capabilities of the aluminum criteria rather than to rely on the conservative values derived for this study.
Nonpoint sources and stormwater may be at least partially responsible for these potential impairments. Typical control strategies for these sources include:
Agricultural and forest lands  -  changes in sediment and erosion controls beyond those specified under existing State and federal regulations and plans;
Mining  -  cleanup and remediation beyond those actions being taken under existing State and federal plans, including excavation and onsite capping of contaminated soils, capping of onsite solid waste mining debris, regrading of tailings to mitigate mass wasting and off-site migration, and abatement and mitigation of physical hazards; and
Stormwater discharges  -  increased or additional nonstructural BMPs (e.g., institutional, educational, or pollution prevention practices designed to limit generation of runoff or reduce the pollutant load in runoff); and structural controls (e.g., engineered and constructed systems designed to provide water quantity or quality control).
However, these strategies typically address overland flow of particulates with adsorbed metals. These types of strategies may or may not be relevant to the underlying cause of elevated aluminum in surface waters, which may or may not reflect levels of concern for aquatic life depending on levels of unmeasured pH, DOC, and total hardness. It is likely that the underlying cause of potential impairments, should they be confirmed, are related to atmospheric deposition of acidic compounds and limited buffering capacity of soils. To the extent that these nonpoint source control strategies described above would be implemented, it is also most likely to be for situations where there are elevated levels of multiple metals, and thus compliance with exiting water quality criteria would put these costs within the baseline. For these reasons, EPA did not quantify additional costs to attribute to this proposal for nonpoint source controls.
If there is incremental water quality impairment under the final criteria, there would be incremental costs for TMDL development. EPA reports that the national average cost to develop a TMDL for a single source of impairment ranges from $27,000 to $29,000 in 2000 dollars (USEPA, 2001a), or $38,000 to $41,000 when updated to 2018 dollars. The inflation adjustment does not account for any increased cost of TMDL development resulting from increased sophistication and expectations surrounding TMDL development that have accrued since the time of this estimate.

The USEPA (2001b) report then estimated an additional set of unit burdens and associated costs to represent efficiencies associated with States coordinating the development of multiple TMDLs for multiple water bodies and similar pollutants. The USEPA (2001b) report validated the estimates by comparing the estimated burden and costs to the actual or estimated burden or costs for 131 TMDLs, the Washington State Workload Model, a May 1996 EPA report containing 14 case studies of TMDL cost, the Gap State Water Quality Management Resource Needs Model and commonly cited high-cost TMDLs (see USEPA 2001b for more details). Finally, the original range of $27,000 to $29,000 reflects a 5- to 10-year transition period over which States are assumed to fully achieve the cost efficiencies that can be realized by clustering water bodies and impairment causes when they develop TMDLs.
Using the economic analysis criteria, EPA determined that there was a potential for an increase in the number of monitoring stations meeting criteria for Category 5  -  impaired waters. If the estimated number of impairments is an indication of the potential increase in the number of TMDLs, then the total costs for TMDL development would range from $2.05 million (54 TMDLs x $38,000) to $2.21 million (54 TMDLs x $41,000). TMDL development costs are one-time costs that would be spread out over several years, because it is not realistic to assume that Oregon would conduct all these analyses simultaneously.
EPA assumed a uniform distribution of costs over a 10-year time period for TMDL development, covering both the time it takes to develop a TMDL and the assumption that Oregon would not start work on all TMDLs simultaneously. The annual costs for TMDL development would range from $205,000 to $221,000 for the development of 54 TMDLs over 10 years, dropping to $0 thereafter. Given that TMDL costs are one-time costs, the fully annualized costs (into perpetuity) are $62,000 to $66,000 at the 3% discount rate, and $144,000 to $155,000 at a 7% discount rate. TMDLs could be combined for common water bodies (i.e., if the State decides to combine development of TMDLs for a class of waters with impairments for similar causes) to reduce development costs. However, EPA has no way to predict whether the State would do this, or for how many TMDLs. Additionally, it is possible that after listing a water as impaired with respect to aluminum based on ecoregional criteria, Oregon could conduct additional monitoring before developing a TMDL. Because the economic analysis criteria are conservative, the additional monitoring could result in the State identifying the water as unimpaired with respect to aluminum, and the State would therefore not develop a TMDL.

Potential Compliance Costs
This section summarizes the potential compliance costs to point sources and nonpoint sources, and discusses the limitations and uncertainties associated with the analyses. EPA used certain assumptions to operationalize the methodologies described in the preamble of the final rule for the purposes of this economic analysis. In this document, EPA refers to the calculated criteria output values used in this analysis as the "economic analysis criteria." This recognizes that the State has discretion in how it selects criteria output values base on the final criteria model, which may differ from the economic analysis criteria EPA generated. The State also has discretion in how it will implement its resulting criteria output values once established. To calculate the economic analysis criteria, EPA used measured pH and measured or estimated DOC and total hardness data from each of Oregon's Level III Ecoregions as inputs to the criteria models. EPA then selected the 10[th] percentile of the model output distributions for each Ecoregion, consistent with Method Two as described in the preamble of the final rule to reconcile model outputs. Estimates of the impacts based on these economic analysis criteria are conservative because more stringent criteria estimates tend to result in overestimates of impacts and costs.
Point Sources
The RPA showed no RP for the discharge from the one facility for which aluminum monitoring data were available, thus no compliance costs were associated with this specific facility using the economic analysis criteria. However, for this economic analysis, which shows waters that would be potential incrementally impaired for aluminum, EPA elected to conduct a supplemental point source analysis of point source costs. To do so, EPA made many assumptions in the absence of facility-specific data; the results of this supplemental analysis are therefore highly speculative as compared to costs estimated using the RPA approach which is a facility-specific, data-based approach.

Because of the lack of data for aluminum from point source discharges in the State, EPA additionally identified potential costs for point source dischargers that utilize aluminum in their operations (aluminum anodizing facilities, drinking water treatment plants, and wastewater treatment facilities) and, therefore, could potentially be affected by the rule by presuming a need for additional controls or product substitution. This analysis supplements the analysis of potential point source costs based on RPA using Oregon facility-specific data.
EPA developed both a low-end and a high-end estimate for the costs to the State's 14 aluminum anodizers, based on two different technology upgrade options. Without facility-specific information on which option each facility would choose if they were to make an upgrade, EPA estimated that if all 14 facilities upgraded to countercurrent cascade rinsing technology, the total annual cost would be $61,600 using a 3% discount rate and $84,000 using a 7% discount rate, both over a 20-year period to match the expected life of the capital equipment (Metcalf & Eddy, 2014; USEPA, 1979). On the high end, EPA estimated that if all 14 facilities upgraded to countercurrent cascade rinsing technology plus chemical precipitation and settling, the total annual cost would be $6.88 million using a 3% discount rate and $6.95 million using a 7% discount rate, again, over the 20-year expected life of the capital equipment (Metcalf & Eddy, 2014; USEPA, 1979). For the 49 drinking water treatment plants assumed to use alum as a coagulant, EPA estimated the annual costs for chemicals and sludge disposal at $0.90 million. For the seven wastewater treatment facilities currently or potentially using alum as a coagulant, EPA found that if they were to switch to a ferrous coagulant, each would realize cost savings. EPA assumes that, in absence of the final rule, the facilities would possess full information regarding the prices of both coagulants and would already be using the lowest cost treatment. To the extent that a facility is not using the lowest cost treatment, EPA assumes that some other circumstance, potentially related to availability, engineering or process requirements, or some other issue that EPA is unaware of, is the reason why the ferrous coagulant is not the preferred alternative. Therefore, although EPA analysis would suggest potential cost savings, EPA concluded that the final rule would result in no change in cost for these facilities. Because these estimates are based on assumed need for control strategies simply based on the potential presence of aluminum in various operations, with no facility-specific knowledge of actual levels in any waste stream, these costs are highly speculative.

Based on the supplemental point source analysis that EPA performed due to the lack of effluent data on aluminum concentrations in discharges, EPA estimated that there could be costs associated with compliance for 14 aluminum anodizers and 49 drinking water treatment facilities. The total annual costs to those facilities are estimated to be between $1.0 million and $7.8 million at a 3% discount rate and between $1.0 million and $7.9 million at a 7% discount rate over a 20-year period.
Nonpoint Sources
Under the baseline, control costs for nonpoint sources (e.g., agricultural and forest operations; contamination from historic mining sites) and municipal stormwater include those needed to reduce instream pollutant levels to baseline criteria or TMDL targets. Although there are no baseline numeric aluminum criteria for aquatic life, there are ongoing baseline efforts to reduce nonpoint sources contributing to other types of impairment sources such as soil erosion or industrial stormwater. Full implementation of these baseline efforts may reduce aluminum loadings as well. Furthermore, waters potentially exceeding the AWQC being finalized here may not be the result of nonpoint sources of aluminum (for which there are no BMPs other than soil erosion controls). It is plausible that the exceedance of the AWQC is due to sources of acidity, and it may be more appropriate to address those sources directly.
Government Regulatory Costs
The ODEQ already has implementation procedures for aquatic life criteria, but the State may adopt new implementation procedures to support implementation of the final criteria. While there may be one-time adjustment costs to switch from narrative to numeric criteria, Oregon has experience implementing other multi-parameter equations and models, including the ammonia criteria and copper biotic ligand model (BLM)-based criteria, and thus would be well-positioned to implement the final aluminum criteria. EPA assumed that the ODEQ would rely largely on existing technical and guidance documents as well as past and on-going ODEQ analyses of aquatic life criteria. Therefore, EPA assumed the incremental costs of implementing the final criteria would be de minimis for the purpose of this cost analysis.
If the ODEQ develops incremental TMDLs for aluminum as a result of the final rule, then it may incur associated costs. If, for example, average TMDL development costs range from $38,000 to $41,000 (USEPA 2001a; updated to 2018$ using the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product), then incremental costs would range from $2.05 million to $2.21 million for 54 incremental listings of impaired stations. TMDL development costs are one-time costs that would be spread out over several years, because it is not realistic to assume that Oregon could conduct all these analyses simultaneously. EPA is assuming a 10-year time period for the TMDLs to be developed, covering both the time it takes to develop a TMDL and the assumption that Oregon will not start work on all TMDLs simultaneously. As such, annual costs will range from $205,000 to $221,000 for the first 10 years after implementation, falling to $0 thereafter. Given that TMDL costs are one-time costs, the fully annualized costs (into perpetuity) are $62,000 to $66,000 at the 3% discount rate, and $144,000 to $155,000 at a 7% discount rate.
It may be possible to combine TMDLs for common water bodies (i.e., if the State decides to combine development of TMDLs for a class of waters with impairments for similar causes) and reduce development costs, though EPA has no way to predict whether the State would do this, or for how many TMDLs. Additionally, it is possible that after listing a water as impaired with respect to aluminum based on ecoregional criteria, Oregon could conduct additional monitoring before developing a TMDL. Because the economic analysis criteria are conservative, the additional monitoring could result in the State identifying the water as unimpaired with respect to aluminum, and the State would therefore not develop a TMDL.
Total Estimated Costs
Based on the RPA, there would be no compliance costs for the one point-source discharger analyzed under the final criteria. Based on the supplemental point source analysis that EPA performed because of the lack of effluent data on aluminum in discharges, EPA estimated that there could be costs associated with compliance for 14 aluminum anodizers and 49 drinking water treatment facilities. The total annual costs to those facilities are estimated at $1.0 million to $7.8 million using at the 3% discount rate, and $1.0 million to $7.9 million at the 7% discount rates over a 20-year period.
If the final criteria result in additional waters being identified as impaired, then the State will incur incremental costs for TMDL development. Using available monitoring data, EPA estimated that 54 stations would be identified as impaired, at a total cost of $2.05 million to $2.21 million. TMDL development costs are one-time costs that would be spread out over a 10-year time period. As such, annual costs will range from $205,000 to $221,000 over the first 10 years for the development of 54 total TMDLs, falling to $0 thereafter.
Combining the potential costs for point source compliance from the supplemental point source analysis with the incremental cost of TMDL development, the total cost annualized at a 3% discount rate would range from $1.2 million to $8.0 million for the first ten years. Using a 7% discount rate, the total cost would range from $1.2 million to $8.1 million for the first 10 years. The cost would be slightly less in subsequent years after the TMDL development is complete.

The number of TMDLs, and therefore costs, could be lower than these estimates depending on choices made by the State (as noted above). Further, if nonpoint sources are the primary cause of some impairments, then the final criteria may result in some costs to nonpoint sources to implement BMPs to reduce aluminum loadings to affected waters. The magnitude of cost impacts to nonpoint sources depends on the extent to which additional practices are needed to meet the final criteria.
The total costs presented in this document are a product of a series of assumptions and subsequent analyses that are intended to be both conservative and as comprehensive as possible. Where there is uncertainty in whether and/or how the application of the aluminum water quality standard would generate costs, the assumptions and analysis err on the side of generating estimates of costs, in the interest of transparency. The final rule includes provisions to ensure that aluminum criteria would be calculated for a given water body to identify only actual, as opposed to speculative, water quality problems in practice. In addition, there are procedures to implement water quality standards that can minimize costs such as identifying the most cost-effective mix of point and nonpoint source controls for TMDLs and identifying aluminum levels that are either natural or cannot be remedied (at least in a short-term horizon).

Uncertainties in the Analysis
There are a number of uncertainties in the analysis associated with data limitations, potential pollutant load reductions achievable, and how dischargers would respond to revised requirements and permit conditions that affect the estimated costs.
Data Limitations
The lack of available facility-specific data for both point and nonpoint sources adds significant uncertainties to the analysis of potential costs associated with meeting the final criteria.
Baseline
As Oregon has no current acute or chronic numeric aquatic life criteria for aluminum (there are narrative toxics criteria), it is difficult to compare the numeric criteria finalized here to the baseline criteria without additional analysis. EPA therefore assumed that the narrative criteria are fully implemented, and in the absence of information to the contrary, was only able to attribute costs identified by the economic analysis as being costs to comply with the numeric aluminum criteria in this final rule. If any waters are in fact impaired under the narrative criteria in the baseline, the costs associated with those waters are baseline costs and should be excluded from costs for the final criteria. EPA cannot determine whether any of the incrementally impaired waters would be considered impaired based on the narrative criteria.
Final Criteria
EPA used a conservative approach to estimate the economic analysis criteria values from available data, which may differ from the approach the ODEQ would employ. Therefore, the ODEQ may apply the criteria differently from the assumptions EPA used for the RPA and water quality impairment analyses. The likely effect of EPA's assumption is that the costs here are over-estimated.
Point Sources
Data are not available for aluminum for all NPDES-permitted facilities, making it difficult to determine which facilities are potentially affected by the final criteria. Specifically, whether an affected facility is meeting baseline standards and whether incremental controls would be needed to meet final criteria. Thus, costs could be higher or lower than estimated in this economic analysis.
For the one facility with effluent data, the data available are limited. If the available data do not reflect typical loadings of aluminum, then the RPA results could be either overstated or understated.
Because of the lack of data for aluminum from point source discharges in the State, EPA additionally identified potential costs for point source discharges that utilize aluminum in their operations (aluminum anodizing facilities, drinking water treatment plants, and wastewater treatment facilities) and, therefore, could potentially be affected by the final rule by presuming a need for additional controls or product substitution. This analysis supplements the analysis of potential point source costs based on RPA using data from specific facilities in Oregon. The supplemental analysis is highly speculative because it is unknown whether any of the facilities included would have RP under the final criteria.
Nonpoint Sources and TMDLs
Uncertainty in estimating the impacts on nonpoint sources may arise from uncertainty in identifying potential incrementally impaired waters. The lack of available monitoring data for some water bodies and the use of economic analysis criteria values instead of site-dependent aluminum criteria prevent reliable estimation of impairments for aluminum. Additionally, the monitoring data used in this analysis is based on a more conservative analytical method, which requires a pH of 2.0 for extraction and may overestimate bioavailable aluminum concentration. Further, an assumption that the net increase in the estimate of impaired stations represents the net increase in the number of TMDLs may overstate the impact if several stations can be addressed by one TMDL.
As described in Section 3, for the nonpoint source component of the economic analysis, EPA used the economic analysis criteria, based on the 10[th] percentile of model output distributions, to derive the final water body-specific criteria. This is a conservative approach in that it likely errs on the side of overestimating impacts because it assumes lower criteria will apply to all sites within an ecoregion. EPA conducted a sensitivity analysis using the alternative economic analysis criteria, calculated using the 50[th] percentile of model output distributions. The sensitivity analysis results in 42 stations identified as impaired rather than 54 based on the 10[th] percentile analysis. Estimated total costs under the sensitivity analysis are reduced from a range of $2.05 to $2.21 million to a range of $1.60 to $1.72 million, while annual costs are reduced from a range of $205,000 to $221,000 to a range of $160,000 to $172,000.

References
ATSDR. 2008. Toxicological Profile for Aluminum. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp22.pdf.

Ballentine, R. K., and L. J. Guarraie (eds.). 1975. The integrity of water." a symposium. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 230 pp.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2003. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Aluminum.
City of Lima, OH. Utilities 2015 Chemical Bids Tabulation.

City of McMinnville, 2009. McMinnville Water Reclamation Facilities Plan

Driscoll, Charles. 1985. Aluminum in Acidic Surface Waters: Chemistry, Transport, and Effects. Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 63, pp. 93-104. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1568493/pdf/envhper00446-0095.pdf.

Eichenberger, E. 1986. The interrelation between essentiality and toxicity of metals in the aquatic ecosystem. In: H. Sigel (Ed.), Metal Ions in Biological Systems, Vol. 20. Concepts on Metal Ion Toxicity. Marcel Dekker, NY, 67-100.
Exley, C. 2003. A biogeochemical cycle for aluminum. J. Inorg. Biochem. 97: 1-7.
Freeman III, A. M. 1993. "Non-use values in natural resource damage assessment. "In R. J. Kopp, V. K. Smith (Eds.), Valuing Natural Assets. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.
Gensemer, R.W. and R.C. Playle. 1999. The bioavailability and toxicity of aluminum in aquatic environments. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 29(4): 315-450.
Jennings, S.R., D.R. Neuman, and P.S. Blicker. 2008. Acid Mine Drainage and Effects on Fish Health and Ecology: A Review. Reclamation Research Group Publication, Bozeman, MT.
Karr, J.R. and Dudley, D.R. 1981. Ecological Perspective on Water Quality Goals.  Environmental Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 55-68.
Kelley, E. and Twohig, E. 2018. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Waste Management & Prevention Division Residual Waste & Emerging Contaminants Program. Wastewater Treatment Sludge and Septage Management in Vermont. https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/wmp/residual/RMSWhitePaper20180507.pdf

Kopp, R. J., Smith, V. K. 1993. Valuing Natural Assets: The Economics of Natural Resource Damage Assessment. Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future.

Kruger. Undated. Physical Chemical Phosphorus Removal. http://www.acsawater.com/sites/default/files/websitefiles/SVWWTPN/Part%202%20Physical%20Chemical%20Phosphorous%20removal%20Compatibility%20M.pdf

Leonard, A. and G.B Gerber. 1988. Mutagenicity, carcinogenicity and teratogenicity of aluminium. Mutat. Res. 196(3): 247-57.

Metcalf & Eddy. 2014. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Resource Recovery. 5[th] Edition. McGraw-Hill, 2014.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Operator Training and Certification Unit. The Basics of Phosphorus Removal.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2006. Phosphorus Treatment and Removal Technologies. Municipal Division, Wastewater Program wq-wwtp9-02. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-wwtp9-02.pdf.
NDWC. 1997. Tech Brief: Ion Exchange and Demineralization. National Drinking Water Clearinghouse. http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/ndwc/pdf/OT/TB/TB4_IonExchange.pdf.
ODA. 2016. A Landowner's Guide to Oregon's Agricultural Water Quality Management Program. Oregon Department of Agriculture, Salem, OR. http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shared/Documents/Publications/NaturalResources/WaterQualityandAgriculture.pdf.
ODA. 2002. Water Quality and Agriculture: SB 1010. Oregon Department of Agriculture, Salem, OR. http://extension.oregonstate.edu/landmarksdvd/documents/ODA_SB_1010.pdf.
ODEQ. 2017a. Municipal Stormwater Permits. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR. https://www.oregon.gov/deq/wq/wqpermits/Pages/MS4-Permits.aspx.
ODEQ. 2017b. MS4 Phase II General Permit Development. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR. https://www.oregon.gov/deq/wq/wqpermits/Pages/MS4-PhaseII-General-Permit.aspx.
ODEQ. 2017c. Industrial Stormwater Permits. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR. https://www.oregon.gov/deq/wq/wqpermits/Pages/Stormwater-Industrial.aspx.
ODEQ. 2014. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Permit. Issued to: Northwest Aluminum Specialties, Inc. EPA Reference No: OR000170-8
ODEQ. 2012a. Fact Sheet: Cleanups of Abandoned Mines in Oregon Complicated by High Cost and Lack of Funding. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR.
ODEQ. 2012b. Internal Management Directive, Reasonable Potential Analysis Process for Toxic Pollutants Version 3.1. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR. Updated February 13, 2012.
ODEQ. 2014. Methodology for Oregon's 2012 Water Quality Report and List of Water Quality Limited Waters. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR.
Oregon Department of Forestry. 2017. Forest Practices Act. http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/Working/Pages/FPA.aspx.
Oregon Forest Resources Institute. 2011. Oregon's Forest Protection Laws: An Illustrated Manual: Revised, Second Edition.
Sparling, D.W. and T.P. Lowe. 1996a. Environmental hazards of aluminum to plants, invertebrates, fish, and wildlife. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 145: 1-127.

Tchounwou, T.B., C.G. Yedjou, A.K. Patlolla and D.J. Sutton. 2012. Heavy metals toxicity and the environment. EXS. 101: 133-164.

USEPA. 2019. ICIS-NPDES. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

USEPA. 2018. Final Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Aluminum in Freshwater. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Pre-Publication Notice. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-12/documents/aluminum-prepub.pdf

USEPA. 2017b. Level III Ecoregions of the Continental United States. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-continental-united-states.

USEPA. 2016. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Rule: Aquatic Life Criteria for Copper and Cadmium in Oregon. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC

USEPA. 2014. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. December 17, 2010, updated May 2014. https://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0568-50.pdf/$file/EE-0568-50.pdf.

USEPA. 2011. Drinking Water Treatment Plant Residuals Management Technical Document. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-820-R-11-003. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/dw-treatment-residuals-mgmt-tech-report-sept-2011.pdf.

USEPA. 2010a. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses.

USEPA. 2010b. NPDES Permit Writer's Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-833-K-10-001. https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/pwm_2010.pdf.

USEPA. 2003. Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products & Machinery Point Source Category. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-B-03-001. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/mp-m_dd_2003.pdf.

USEPA. 2008. Superfund Fact Sheet: Formosa Mine Superfund Site, Douglas County Oregon. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, WA.

USEPA. 2003. Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products & Machinery Point Source Category. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-B-03-001. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/mp-m_dd_2003.pdf.

USEPA. 2001a. The National Costs of the Total Maximum Daily Load Program (Draft Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-841-D-01-003. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/901K0800.PDF?Dockey=901K0800.pdf.

USEPA. 2001b. The National Costs to Develop TMDLs (Draft Report) Support Document #1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA 841-D-01-004. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P1008JEP.txt

USEPA. 1998. R.E.D. Facts: Aluminum and Magnesium Phosphide. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-738-F-98-015. https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/pdf/0025fact.pdf.

USEPA. 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA/505/2-90-001. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/303d_policydocs/338.pdf.

USEPA. 1979. Development Document for Existing Source Pretreatment Standards for the Electroplating Point Source Category. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA 440/1-79/003. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/electroplating_dd_1979.pdf.

USGS. 2015. Estimated Annual Agricultural Use for Aluminum Phosphide, 1996 (EPest-High). Pesticide National Synthesis Project. U.S. Geological Survey. https://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/show_map.php?year=1996&map=ALUMINUMPHOSPHIDE&hilo=H.

Williams, R.J.P. 1999. What is wrong with aluminium? The J.D. Birchall memorial lecture.
J. Inorg. Biochem. 76: 81-88.

Wilson, R.W. 2012. Chapter 2: Aluminum. In: C.M Wood, A.P. Farrel and C.J. Brauner (Eds.), Homeostasis and toxicology of non-essential metals: Volume 31B. Elsevier Inc.

Wood, J.M. 1985. Effects of acidification on the mobility of metals and metalloids: An
overview. Environ. Health Perspect. 63: 115-119.

Wood, J.M. 1984. Microbial strategies in resistance to metal ion toxicity. In: H Sigel (Ed.), Metal Ions in Biological Systems, Vol. 18. Circulation of Metals in the Environment. Marcel Dekker, NY, 333-351.

Woodwell, G.M. 1975. Biological integrity--1975. Pages 141-147 in R. K. Ballentine and L.J. Guarraie, eds. The Integrity of Water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington,
D.C.

Facility Analyses
This appendix provides detailed analyses for the point source facilities.
Northwest Aluminum Company
Facility Description
Northwest Aluminum Company (NPDES permit number OR0001708) owns the site in the City of The Dalles, Oregon, where they had previously operated a primary aluminum smelting facility, which ceased operation and was demolished by July 2009. The site currently has a recycling plant operated by Northwest Aluminum Specialties (NWAS) and a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) tank leachate collection system owned by Lockheed Martin. The recycling plant and CERCLA tank leachate collection system discharge into the Columbia River at river mile 189. The facility's sanitary wastewater and deburring wastewater is collected and treated by the City of The Dalles.
Effluent and Treatment Process
The NWAS recycling plant discharge consists of 0.6-1.8 mgd river water used for non-contact cooling water and 0.2-0.5 mgd well water for cooling the metal jackets around the electro-melt furnaces and the door jambs on the homogenizing furnaces. The CERCLA tank leachate discharge consists of leachate from the CERCLA and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act landfills. The leachate is treated while in the collection system through use bioremediation technology for the reduction of cyanide. The outfall to the Columbia River total about 2.3 mgd currently and 6 mgd maximum production. The facility permit has limits for the following pollutants: total suspended solids, benzo(a)pyrene, antimony, nickel, fluoride, aluminum, oil and grease, pH, and chlorine residual.
Reasonable Potential Analysis
EPA had available data to conduct RPA for aluminum. Dilution factors used in the RPA were provided in the facility permit. The results of the RPA indicate that there was no RP under the final criteria. As such, no effluent limitations were calculated.
References and Sources

ODEQ. 2012. Internal Management Directive, Reasonable Potential Analysis Process for Toxic Pollutants Version 3.1. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
ODEQ. 2009 and 2014. Northwest Aluminum Specialties, Inc. Fact Sheet and NPDES Wastewater Discharge Permit Evaluation. NPDES permit number OR0001708. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
ODEQ. RPAspreadsheetInd  -  excel spreadsheet. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
ODEQ. RPAdomR36(1)  -  excel spreadsheet. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
     Appendix B - Net Present Value of Costs
This appendix presents the net present value (NPV) of the costs of this final rule and the need to have an accounting across regulations to meet EPA's regulatory budget, using both a 3% and a 7% discount rate.

EPA chose a period of three years for the NPV calculation because the State is required to undertake a triennial review of its water quality standards and criteria every three years. If a State or tribe chooses not to adopt new or revised criteria for any parameters for which EPA has published new or updated criteria recommendations under CWA Section 304(a), the State or tribe must explain its decision when reporting the results of the triennial review to EPA under CWA Section 303(c)(1). In addition, based on the cooperative federalism embedded in the CWA regarding State and federal roles in setting State water quality standards, it is not EPA's intention for a federally promulgated rule to remain in place for very long. In most circumstances, EPA is only promulgating a State water quality standards rule because the CWA imposes deadlines on EPA when States are unable to promulgate in a timely manner water quality standards that EPA can approve, based on the federal water quality standards regulations. When EPA issues such regulations, States frequently take action soon after EPA's action, and once EPA approves the State action, EPA acts to remove the federal regulation. This process generally takes less time than the three years associated with the triennial review. However, until EPA can gather data to support a more refined estimate of the time federally-promulgated State water quality standards are in effect, EPA has elected to use three years, based on the triennial review time frame. EPA is also basing the NPV calculation on the lower bound of the cost estimates because the upper bound estimates are much more speculative and require the assumption that facilities currently are not doing anything to control the discharge of aluminum.

The total NPV over three years for the costs of this final rule thus ranges from $3.1 million at a 3% discount rate, to $3.4 million at a 7% percent discount rate.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57781-57784]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23793]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65324; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-122]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Describe Complimentary
Services That Are Offered to Certain New Listings on NASDAQ's Global
and Global Select Markets

 September 12, 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 August 30, 2011, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or the
``NASDAQ Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by NASDAQ. 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

    NASDAQ proposes to add rule text explaining services offered by
NASDAQ to certain newly listing companies. NASDAQ will implement the
proposed rule upon approval.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaqomx.cchwallstreet.com, at NASDAQ's principal office, 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, NASDAQ 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. NASDAQ has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The NASDAQ Exchange is a subsidiary of The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.
(``NASDAQ OMX''). Another subsidiary of NASDAQ OMX is NASDAQ OMX Group
Corporate Solutions, Inc. (``Corporate Solutions'').\3\ Corporate
Solutions offers products and programs to private and public companies,
including companies listed on the NASDAQ Exchange and various European
exchanges owned by NASDAQ OMX, designed to enhance transparency,
mitigate risk, maximize efficiency and facilitate better corporate
governance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NASDAQ believes that Corporate Solutions is not a
``facility'' of the NASDAQ Exchange. 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(2). The Act
defines ``facility'' to include an exchange's ``premises, tangible
or intangible property whether on the premises or not, any right to
the use of such premises or property or any service thereof for the
purpose of effecting or reporting a transaction on an exchange
(including, among other things, any system of communication to or
from the exchange, by ticker or otherwise, maintained by or with the
consent of the exchange), and any right of the exchange to the use
of any property or service.'' Corporate Solutions is a distinct
entity that is separate from the NASDAQ Exchange and engages in a
discrete line of business that is not ``for the purpose of effecting
or reporting a transaction'' on an exchange. While this proposal is
being filed with the Commission under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
because it relates to services offered in connection with a listing
on the NASDAQ Exchange, NASDAQ does not believe it is required to
file Corporate Solutions' price schedule or changes that do not
relate to services offered in connection with a listing on the
NASDAQ Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NASDAQ Exchange intends to offer Corporate Solutions' services
to certain newly listing companies. Specifically, NASDAQ will offer
these services to companies listing on the Global and Global Select
Markets in connection with an initial public offering, upon emerging
from bankruptcy, or in connection with a spin-off or carve-out from
another company (``Eligible New Listings'').\4\ In addition, NASDAQ
will offer products to companies that switch their listing from the New
York Stock Exchange (NYSE) to the Global or Global Select Markets
(``Eligible Switches'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A company transferring from the OTCBB or Pink Sheets or from
the Capital Market will not be eligible to receive these services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Eligible New Listings and Eligible Switches with a market
capitalization of up to $500 million would receive services for two
years from the date of listing. These companies would receive the
following services, which have a total retail value of approximately

$94,000 per year.\5\ In addition, one-time development fees of
approximately $4,000 to establish the services in the first year will
be waived.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Retail values are based on Corporate Solutions' current
price list. If a company does not fully use the services offered in
a year, unused services do not carry forward into future years and
cannot be used to offset the costs of other services or listing
fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Governance Services
    Board Tools: Companies will receive use of Directors Desk, a
comprehensive solution designed to improve board communications and
effectiveness while relieving corporate executives of the paperwork and
time involved in keeping boards informed, for up to 10 users. This
product has an approximate retail value of $20,000 per year.
    Whistleblower Hotline: Companies will receive a financial reporting
hotline that provides employees and others with a fully-automated, safe
and secure means of reporting incidents and concerns. This product has
an approximate retail value of $3,500 per year.
Communications Services
    Investor Relations Web site: Companies will receive a Web site with
all the necessary content and features to communicate with investors,
offering easy access to up-to-date information. Included on this Web
site will be a corporate governance library containing documents such
as the Board committees' charters and the company's code of ethics.
These products have a retail value of approximately $16,000 per year.
    Press Releases: Companies will be provided $15,000 worth of
distribution services for earnings or other press releases, including
photographs, and filing of EDGAR and XBRL reports. The actual number of
press releases will vary based on their length and the regional
distribution network chosen by the company.
Intelligence Services
    Market Analytic Tools: Companies will receive a market analytic
tool, which integrates corporate shareholder communications, capital
market information, investor contact management, and board-level
reporting into a unified, easy-to-use, workflow environment for up to
four users. This tool also provides information about research and
earnings estimates on the company and helps companies identify
potential purchasers of their stock using quantitative targeting and
qualitative insights. This product has an approximate retail value of
$39,000 per year.
    Eligible New Listings and Eligible Switches with a market
capitalization of $500 million or more would receive the services
described above and the additional services set forth below. Eligible
Switches with a market capitalization of $500 million or more would
receive these services for four years from the date of listing.
Eligible New Listings with a market capitalization of $500 million or
more would receive these services for two years from the date of
listing. NASDAQ proposes to offer Eligible Switches with a market
capitalization of $500 million or more four years of services, as
opposed to two years of services for other Eligible Switches and
Eligible New Listings, because NASDAQ believes that these companies
receive comparable services from the NYSE, which they would forgo by
switching their listing. The total retail value of the services offered
to these companies is approximately $169,000 per year. In addition,
one-time development fees of approximately $4,000 to establish the
products in the first year will be waived.
Governance Services
    Board Tools: Companies will receive an additional five licenses for
Directors Desk, with a retail value of approximately $10,000 per year.
Communications Services
    Press Releases: Companies will receive an additional $5,000 worth
of distribution services.
Intelligence Services
    Market Surveillance Tools: Companies will receive a stock
surveillance package, under which an analyst will, on a daily basis,
utilize a mosaic of public, subscription and issuer-based data sources
to monitor the daily movement and settlement activity of the company's
stock, provide alerts on significant increases in trading volume and
block trading activity, and offer color to any unusual change in stock
price. This product has an approximate retail value of $60,000 per
year. To fully utilize this service, companies will have to subscribe
to, and separately pay for, certain third party information, which is
not included.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, companies would have to purchase position
reports from the Depositary Trust Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All NASDAQ-listed companies, including companies on the Capital
Market and newly listing companies that do not satisfy the requirements
described above, also benefit from other services provided by the
NASDAQ Exchange. For example, these companies receive access to the
NASDAQ Market Intelligence Desk and NASDAQ Online. The Market
Intelligence Desk consists of a team of market professionals that
serves as a single source of up-to-the-minute market intelligence,
trading analysis, and real-time information to all listed companies.
NASDAQ Online provides similar information that allows all listed
companies to follow their stock's trading, competitors, and market
activity through an online interface.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NASDAQ first described NASDAQ Online and the Market
Intelligence Desk in connection with 1997 and 2001 fee changes,
respectively. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39613
(February 2, 1998), 63 FR 6789 (February 10, 1998) (SR-NASD-97-83)
and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 45206 (December 28, 2001),
67 FR 621 (January 4, 2002) (SR-NASD-2001-76).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NASDAQ Exchange believes that offering governance,
communications and intelligence services to newly public companies will
help them fulfill their responsibilities as public companies. However,
no company is required to use these services as a condition of listing.
In addition, the NASDAQ Exchange believes that it is appropriate to
offer companies switching from the NYSE a package of services because
the NYSE offers comparable services, which these companies would forgo
by switching their listing.\8\ At the end of the package term,
companies may choose to renew these services or discontinue them. If a
company chooses to discontinue the services, there would be no affect
on the company's continued listing on the NASDAQ Exchange. The NASDAQ
Exchange represents that the existence of this program will not
adversely affect the funding available for the NASDAQ Exchange's
regulatory responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65127 (August 12, 2011),
76 FR 51449 (August 18, 2011) (SR-NYSE-2011-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\9\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ 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 NASDAQ operates or controls and is designed to
prevent unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) [sic].

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

    All companies receive some services from NASDAQ, such as NASDAQ
Online and the Market Intelligence Desk. NASDAQ believes that offering
additional services only to companies listing on the Global and Global
Select Markets, and not to companies listing on the Capital Market,
reflects the higher demand for these services by the larger companies
typically listed on the Global and Global Select markets. NASDAQ also
believes that offering different services based on a company's market
capitalization is appropriate given that larger companies generally
will need more and different governance, communication and intelligence
services. The distinction based on market capitalization is clear and
transparent. Further, NASDAQ believes that offering services to
Eligible New Listings, and not to companies already listed on NASDAQ,
is appropriate given that the services offered will help ease the
transition of becoming a public company and will help the Eligible New
Listings fulfill their new responsibilities as public companies. Based
on the above, NASDAQ believes that these distinctions help assure that
the services are equitably allocated among issuers as required by
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act and do not unfairly discriminate among
issuers as required by Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
    NASDAQ proposes to offer services only to companies switching from
the NYSE, and not from other exchanges or unlisted markets, or to
companies already listed on NASDAQ, because these companies receive
comparable services from the NYSE, which they would forgo by switching
their listing to NASDAQ. NASDAQ also proposes to offer Eligible
Switches with a market capitalization of $500 million or more four
years of services, as opposed to two years of services for other
Eligible Switches, because the NYSE generally offers these companies
more services. As such, NASDAQ believes that these distinctions are not
unfairly discriminatory as between issuers.

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

    The NASDAQ Exchange 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. All
similarly situated companies are eligible for the same package of
services. However, no company is required to use the services as a
condition of listing. Moreover, the number of companies eligible for
these free services (i.e., companies newly listing on NASDAQ) will be
very small in comparison to the total number of companies that comprise
the target market for the services (i.e., all public companies or, in
the case of press release services, all public, private and non-profit
companies), so that there can be no competitively meaningful
foreclosure of similar services offered by third parties if the
proposed rule is approved.
    Specifically, there are approximately 23,000 public companies in
the United States, including 5,800 companies that are listed on a U.S.
exchange. By contrast, only 34 companies in 2009, 77 companies in 2010,
and 62 companies through June 30, 2011 would have qualified for free
services as Eligible New Listings by virtue of listing in connection
with an IPO or a spin-off or a carve out from another company had the
proposed rule been in effect.\11\ Likewise, only 10 companies in 2009,
three companies in 2010, and no companies through June 30, 2011 would
have qualified for free services as Eligible Switches had the proposed
rule been in effect in those years. So even assuming significant growth
in Eligible New Listings and Eligible Switches in future years, the
historical experience suggests that no more than approximately 3% of
listed companies and well less than 1% of public companies generally
would be eligible for complimentary services under the proposed rule in
any year. Even if all eligible companies accepted the services and did
not purchase comparable services from third party vendors--which NASDAQ
believes is unlikely--these levels are far below what would be required
for any competitive concern to arise.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NASDAQ has not historically tracked the number of companies
listing upon emerging from bankruptcy but believes that number to be
fewer than five companies since 2009.
    \12\ See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Insignares, 1985-2 Trade Cas. (CCH)
] 66,701 (N.D. Ga. 1985) (summary judgment for defendant when 40% of
the market was foreclosed); Kuck v. Bensen, 647 F. Supp. 743 (D. Me.
1986) (dismissal of complaint when 37% of market volume was
foreclosed); Bepco, Inc. v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 814
(M.D.N.C. 2000) (summary judgment for defendant, in part because
foreclosure rates of 18.5% and 21.5% are ``far short'' of
substantial).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, since multiple third party vendors of these services
exist, making for a highly competitive market, and since companies can
freely move among these vendors, NASDAQ OMX Corporate Solutions would
have no ability to lock-in these customers, much less charge them
supra-competitively high prices, after the free period has ended. As
such, the marketplace will continue to be serviced by multiple vendors
and remain highly competitive.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed 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-NASDAQ-2011-122 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-NASDAQ-2011-122. 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-NASDAQ-2011-122 and should be
submitted on or before October 7, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-23793 Filed 9-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 41429]
[DOCID:fr17au09-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2210-169 Virginia]

Appalachian Power Company; Notice of Availability of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Smith Mountain Pumped Storage
Project

August 7, 2009.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for the
Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 2210), located on the
headwaters of the Roanoke River in Bedford, Campbell, Franklin, and
Pittsylvania counties in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Commission staff
has prepared a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
project.
    The final EIS contains staff's evaluation of the applicant's
proposal and the alternatives for relicensing the Smith Mountain
Project. The final EIS documents the views of governmental agencies,
non-governmental organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the
license applicant, and Commission staff.
    A copy of the final EIS is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Branch, Room 2A, located at 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The draft EIS also may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, under the eLibrary link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-
3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    For further information, contact Allan Creamer at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or via e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19613 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 27, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65435-65436]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25801]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87596; File No. SR-CTA/CQ-2019-03]

Consolidated Tape Association; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of the Thirty-Second Substantive Amendment to the Second
Restatement of the CTA Plan and Twenty-Third Substantive Amendment to
the Restated CQ Plan

November 22, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 24, 2019,\3\ the Participants \4\ in the Second Restatement
of the Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'') Plan and the Restated
Consolidated Quotation (``CQ'') Plan (``CTA/CQ Plans'' or ``Plans'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a
proposal to amend the Plans. The amendments represent the Thirty-Second
Substantive Amendment to the CTA Plan and Twenty-Third Substantive
Amendment to the CQ Plan (``Amendments''). Under the Amendments, the
Participants propose to add Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc. (``LTSE'')
as a Participant to the Plans and effectuate changes that certain
Participants have made to their names and addresses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C 78k-1(a)(3).
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ See Letter from Robert Books, Chairman, Operating Committee,
CTA/CQ Plans, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated
October 23, 2018 [sic].
    \4\ The Participants are: Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX
Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.,
Cboe Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.,
The Investors' Exchange LLC, Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc., Nasdaq
BX, Inc., Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq PHLX, Inc., The Nasdaq Stock
Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE
Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc., and NYSE National, Inc.
(collectively, the ``Participants'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Amendments have been filed by the Participants
pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(ii) under Regulation NMS \5\ as concerned
solely with the administration of the Plans and as ``Ministerial
Amendments'' under both Section IV(b) of the CTA Plan and Section IV(c)
of the CQ Plan. As a result, the Amendments become effective upon
filing and can be submitted by the Chair of the Plan's Operating
Committee. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the Amendment from interested persons. Set forth in Sections I and
II is the statement of the purpose and summary of the Amendments, along
with the information required by Rules 608(a) and 601(a) under the Act,
prepared and submitted by the Participants to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Rule 608(a)

A. Purpose of the Amendment

    The above-captioned Amendments add LTSE as a Participant to the
Plans and effectuate changes that certain Participants have made to
their names and addresses, as set forth in Sections I(q), III(a), and
VIII(a) of the CTA Plan and Section III(a) of the CQ Plan.

B. Governing or Constituent Documents

    Not applicable.

C. Implementation of Amendment

    Because the Amendments constitute ``Ministerial Amendments'' under
both Section IV(b) of the CTA Plan and Section IV(c) under the CQ Plan,
the Chairman of the Plan's Operating Committee may submit the
Amendments to the Commission on behalf of the Participants in the
Plans. Because the Participants designate the Amendments as concerned
solely with the administration of the Plans, the Amendments become
effective upon filing with the Commission.

D. Development and Implementation Phases

    Not applicable.

E. Analysis of Impact on Competition

    The Amendments do not impose any burden on competition because they
simply add LTSE as a Participant to the Plans and effectuate a change
in the names and addresses of certain Participants. LTSE has completed
the required steps to be added to the Plans, and the Amendments
represent the final step to officially add LTSE as a Participant. For
the same reasons, the Participants do not believe that the Amendments
introduce terms that are unreasonably discriminatory for purposes of
Section 1lA(c)(l)(D) of the Act.

F. Written Understanding or Agreement Relating to Interpretation of, or
Participating in Plan

    Not applicable.

G. Approval by Sponsors in Accordance With Plan

    See Item I.C. above.

H. Description of Operation of Facility Contemplated by the Proposed
Amendment

    Not applicable.

I. Terms and Conditions of Access

    Not applicable.

J. Method of Determination and Imposition and Amount of, Fees and
Charges

    Not applicable.

K. Method and Frequency of Processor Evaluation

    Not applicable.

L. Dispute Resolution

    Not applicable.

II. Regulation NMS Rule 601(a)

A. Equity Securities for Which Transaction Reports Shall Be Required by
the Plan

    Not applicable.

B. Reporting Requirements

    Not applicable.

C. Manner of Collecting, Processing, Sequencing, Making Available and
Disseminating Last Sale Information

    Not applicable.

D. Manner of Consolidation

    Not applicable.

E. Standards and Methods Ensuring Promptness, Accuracy and Completeness
of Transaction Reports

    Not applicable.

F. Rules and Procedures Addressed to Fraudulent or Manipulative
Dissemination

    Not applicable.

G. Terms of Access to Transaction Reports

    Not applicable.

H. Identification of Marketplace of Execution

    Not applicable.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission seeks comments on the Amendments. Interested persons
are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the
foregoing, including whether the proposed Amendments are 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CTA/CQ-2019-03 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-CTA/CQ-2019-03. 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 website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies
of the submission, all written statements with respect to the proposed
Amendments that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed Amendments 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
the filing also will be available for website viewing and printing at
the principal office of the Plan. 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-CTA/
CQ-2019-03 and should be submitted on or before December 12, 2019.

    By the Commission.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-25801 Filed 11-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


"richardastrust.com"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>10/28/2007 09:50 PM	To 	Margaret Sheppard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Thundiyil/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Dave  Godwin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Julius Banks/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, george  <EMAIL_ADDRESS>	cc 	 	bcc 	 	Subject 	hcr188c guidelines 	 		 	For Follow Up:	 		  		 		Urgent Priority

Margaret:   George completed the guidelines and we are forwarding to you for HCR188C.   If you have any comments or questions please feel free to contact me.   Richard

Richard Maruya phone<PHONE_NUMBER>   fax<PHONE_NUMBER> cell<PHONE_NUMBER> e mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>web site HCR188C    www.hcr188c.com       CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged  information, if you are not the intended recipient, or the person  responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, then  please notify us by return e-mail immediately. Should you have received  this e-mail in error then you should not copy this for any purpose nor  disclose its contents to any other person.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 233 (Monday, December 5, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 87499-87501]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28668]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9433; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-159-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model MD-90-30 airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by a report of cracking in a horizontal stabilizer rear spar
cap. This proposed AD would require repetitive open hole eddy current
high frequency (ETHF) or surface eddy current low frequency (ETLF)
inspections for any crack in the left and right side horizontal
stabilizer rear spar upper caps, and repair or replacement if
necessary. We are proposing this AD to prevent the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 19,
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone
562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9433.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9433; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Haytham Alaidy, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:
562-627-5224; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-9433;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-159-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed 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 proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received a report of cracking in an MD-90 horizontal
stabilizer rear spar cap at station XE = +/-5.931. The affected
airplane had accumulated 36,588 total flight hours and 24,975 total
landing cycles. Without routine inspections, such cracks could grow to
critical length before being detected. This condition, if not
corrected, could result in fatigue cracking of the horizontal
stabilizer rear spar upper cap, which could adversely affect the
structural integrity of the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-55A018, dated June
29, 2016. The service information describes procedures for repetitive
open hole ETHF or surface ETLF inspections for any crack in the left
and right side horizontal stabilizer rear spar upper caps common to the
elevator hinge fitting at station XE = +/-5.931, and repair or
replacement. This service information is reasonably available because
the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously. For information on the
procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9433.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 105 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                     Labor cost          Parts cost     Cost per  product       operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.....................  8 work-hours x $85 per               $0  $680 per            $71,400 per
                                  hour = $680 per                          inspection cycle.   inspection cycle.
                                  inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs or
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these actions:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper cap splice repair or replacement       368 work-hours x $85 per hour =             $64,306        $95,586.
 (each side).                                 $31,280.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed
regulation:
    (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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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 airworthiness
directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-9433; Directorate Identifier
2016-NM-159-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 19, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model MD-90-30
airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of cracking in a horizontal
stabilizer rear spar cap at station XE = +/-5.931. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the horizontal
stabilizer rear spar upper cap, which could adversely affect the
structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Repetitive Open Hole Eddy Current High Frequency or Surface Eddy
Current Low Frequency Inspections

    Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, at the
applicable times specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-55A018, dated
June 29, 2016: Do either an open hole eddy current high frequency
(ETHF) or a surface eddy current low frequency (ETLF) inspection for
any crack in the left and right side horizontal stabilizer rear spar
upper caps common to the elevator hinge fitting at station XE = +/-
5.931, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin MD90-55A018, dated June 29, 2016, except as
required by paragraph (i) of this AD. Repeat the inspection
thereafter at the time specified in tables 1 through 4, as
applicable, of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin MD90-55A018, dated June 29, 2016.

(h) Horizontal Rear Spar Upper Cap Splice Repair or Replacement

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, repair or replace before further flight in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin MD90-55A018, dated June 29, 2016.

(i) Service Information Exceptions

    Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-55A018, dated June 29,
2016, specifies a compliance time ``after the original issue date of
this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the
specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance
with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector

or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If
sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to
the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this
AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. To be approved,
the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation
must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs
(j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or sub-step is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then
the RC requirement is removed from that step or sub-step. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Haytham Alaidy,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 17, 2016.
Phil Forde,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-28668 Filed 12-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P