[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 232 (Friday, December 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 87106-87109]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28931]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79408; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-159]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Commentary .14 to Rule 4770 (Compliance With Regulation NMS Plan
To Implement a Tick Size Pilot)

November 28, 2016.
    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 November 14, 2016, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .14 to Rule 4770
(Compliance with Regulation NMS Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot) to
provide the SEC with notice of its efforts to re-program its systems to
eliminate a re-pricing functionality for certain orders in Test Group
Three securities in connection with the Regulation NMS Plan to
Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program (``Plan'' or ``Pilot'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74892 (May 6, 2015),
80 FR 27513 (May 13, 2015) (``Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed
new language is italicized; deleted text is in brackets.
* * * * *

The NASDAQ Stock Market Rules

* * * * *

4770. Compliance With Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size
Pilot

    (a) through (d) No Change.
    Commentary: .01-.13 No change.
    .14 Until [November 14, 2016]December 12, 2016, the treatment of
Price to Comply Orders, Price to Display Orders, Non-Displayed Orders,
and Post-Only Orders that are entered through the OUCH or FLITE
protocols in Test Group Three securities shall be as follows:
    Following entry, and if market conditions allow, a Price to Comply
Order in a Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted repeatedly
in accordance with changes to the NBBO until such time as the Price to
Comply Order is able to be ranked and displayed at its original entered
limit price.
    Following entry, and if market conditions allow, a Price to Display
Order in a Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted repeatedly
in accordance with changes to the NBBO until such time as the Price to
Display Order is able to be ranked and displayed at its original
entered limit price.
    Following entry, and if market conditions allow, a Non-Displayed
Order in a Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted repeatedly
in

accordance with changes to the NBBO up (down) to the Order's limit
price.
    Following entry, and if market conditions allow, the Post-Only
Order in a Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted repeatedly
in accordance with changes to the NBBO or the best price on the Nasdaq
Book, as applicable until such time as the Post-Only Order is able to
be ranked and displayed at its original entered limit price.
* * * * *

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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    On September 7, 2016, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') a proposed rule change (``Proposal'') to
adopt paragraph (d) and Commentary .12 to Exchange Rule 4770 to
describe changes to system functionality necessary to implement the
Plan. The Exchange also proposed amendments to Rule 4770(a) and (c) to
clarify how the Trade-at exception may be satisfied. The SEC published
the Proposal in the Federal Register for notice and comment on
September 20, 2016.\4\ Nasdaq subsequently filed three Partial
Amendments to clarify aspects of the Proposal. The Commission approved
the Proposal, as amended, on October 7, 2016.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78837 (September 14,
2016), 81 FR 64544 (September 20, 2016) (SR-NASDAQ-2016-126).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79075 (October 7,
2016) (SR-NASDAQ-2016-126).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In SR-NASDAQ-2016-126, Nasdaq had initially proposed a re-pricing
functionality for Price to Comply Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and
Post-Only Orders entered through the OUCH and FLITE protocols in Group
Three securities.\6\ Nasdaq subsequently determined that it would not
offer this re-pricing functionality for Price to Comply Orders, Non-
Displayed Orders, and Post-Only Orders entered through the OUCH and
FLITE protocols in Group Three securities. As part of Partial Amendment
No. 2 to SR-NASDAQ-2016-126, Nasdaq proposed to delete the relevant
language from Rule 4770 related to this re-pricing functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As originally proposed, Rule 4770(d)(2) stated that Price to
Comply Orders in a Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted
repeatedly in accordance with changes to the NBBO until such time as
the Price to Comply Order is able to be ranked and displayed at its
original entered limit price. Rule 4770(d)(3) stated that, if market
conditions allow, a Non-Displayed Order in a Test Group Three Pilot
Security will be adjusted repeatedly in accordance with changes to
the NBBO up (down) to the Order's limit price. Rule 4770(d)(4)
stated that, if market conditions allow, the Post-Only Order in a
Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted repeatedly in
accordance with changes to the NBBO or the best price on the Nasdaq
Book, as applicable until such time as the Post-Only Order is able
to be ranked and displayed at its original entered limit price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In that amendment, Nasdaq noted that this change would only impact
the treatment of Price to Comply Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and
Post-Only orders that are submitted through the OUCH and FLITE
protocols in Test Group Three Pilot Securities, as these types of
Orders that are currently submitted to Nasdaq through the RASH, QIX or
FIX protocols are already subject to this re-pricing functionality and
will remain subject to this functionality under the Pilot.
    In the Amendment, Nasdaq further noted that its systems are
currently programmed so that Price to Comply Orders, Non-Displayed
Orders and Post-Only Orders entered through the OUCH and FLITE
protocols in Test Group Three Securities may be adjusted repeatedly to
reflect changes to the NBBO and/or the best price on the Nasdaq book.
Nasdaq stated that it is re-programming its systems to remove this
functionality for Price to Comply Orders, Non-Displayed Orders and
Post-Only Orders entered through the OUCH and FLITE protocols in Test
Group Three Securities. In the Amendment, Nasdaq stated that it
anticipated that this re-programming shall be completed no later than
November 30, 2016. If it appeared that this functionality would remain
operational by October 17, 2016, Nasdaq indicated that it would file a
proposed rule change with the SEC and will provide notice to market
participants sufficiently in advance of that date to provide effective
notice. The rule change and the notice to market participants would
describe the current operation of the Nasdaq systems in this regard,
and the timing related to the re-programming.
    On October 17, 2016, Nasdaq filed a proposal to extend the date by
which it would complete the re-programing of its systems to eliminate
the re-pricing functionality in Test Group Three securities for Price
to Comply Orders, Price to Display Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and
Post-Only Orders that are entered through the OUCH or FLITE
protocols.\7\ In that proposal, Nasdaq stated that it anticipated that
this re-programming shall be complete on or before October 31, 2016.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79155 (October 25,
2016) (SR-NASDAQ-2016-143).
     Subsequent to the approval of SR-NASDAQ-2016-126, Nasdaq become
aware that this re-pricing functionality also applies to Price to
Display Orders that are entered through the OUCH and FLITE protocols
in Test Group Three Securities, and included those Orders as part of
SR-NASDAQ-2016-143 accordingly. Price to Display Orders will be
treated in the same manner as Price to Comply Orders under the re-
pricing functionality.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 31, 2016, Nasdaq submitted a proposed rule change to
extend the date by which it would eliminate the re-pricing
functionality to November 14, 2016.\9\ In that proposal, Nasdaq stated
that it was still determining how to modify its systems to eliminate
the current re-pricing functionality in Test Group Three securities for
Price to Comply Orders, Price to Display Orders, Non-Displayed Orders,
and Post-Only Orders that are entered through the OUCH or FLITE
protocols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 79263 (November 8, 2016)
(SR-NASDAQ-2016-151).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, Nasdaq is in the process of re-programming its
systems to eliminate the re-pricing functionality in Test Group Three
securities for Price to Comply Orders, Price to Display Orders, Non-
Displayed Orders, and Post-Only Orders that are entered through the
OUCH or FLITE protocols. Nasdaq anticipates that this re-programming
shall be complete on or before December 12, 2016.
    Therefore, the current treatment of Price to Comply Orders, Price
to Display Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and Post-Only Orders that are
entered through the OUCH or FLITE protocols in Test Group Three
securities shall be as follows:
    Following entry, and if market conditions allow, a Price to Comply
Order in a Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted repeatedly
in accordance with changes to the NBBO until such time as the Price to
Comply Order is able to be ranked and displayed at its original entered
limit price.

    Following entry, and if market conditions allow, a Price to Display
Order in a Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted repeatedly
in accordance with changes to the NBBO until such time as the Price to
Display Order is able to be ranked and displayed at its original
entered limit price.
    Following entry, and if market conditions allow, a Non-Displayed
Order in a Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted repeatedly
in accordance with changes to the NBBO up (down) to the Order's limit
price.
    Following entry, and if market conditions allow, a Post-Only Order
in a Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted repeatedly in
accordance with changes to the NBBO or the best price on the Nasdaq
Book, as applicable until such time as the Post-Only Order is able to
be ranked and displayed at its original entered limit price.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest. The purpose of this filing is to inform the SEC and market
participants of the status of Nasdaq's attempts to re-program its
systems to remove the re-pricing functionality in Test Group Three
securities for Price to Comply Orders, Price to Display Orders, Non-
Displayed Orders, and Post-Only Orders that are entered through the
OUCH or FLITE protocols, and the current treatment of such orders
pending the removal of this functionality. This proposal is consistent
with the Act because it provides the SEC and market participants with
notice of Nasdaq's efforts in this regard, and is being submitted in
connection with the statements made by Nasdaq in SR-NASDAQ-2016-126,
SR-NASDAQ-2016-143 and SR-NASDAQ-2016-151 in proposing the removal of
this functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq also believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act
because the re-pricing functionality will not significantly impact the
data gathered pursuant to the Pilot. Nasdaq notes that this re-pricing
functionality only affects Price to Comply Orders, Price to Display
Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and Post-Only Orders that are entered
through the OUCH or FLITE protocols for Test Group Three securities
until the re-pricing functionality is eliminated, and only becomes
relevant when an Order in a Test Group Three security would cross a
Protected Quotation of another market center. Nasdaq has analyzed data
relating to the frequency with which Orders in Test Group Three
securities are entered with a limit price that would cross a Protected
Quotation of another market center, and believes that the re-pricing
functionality will be triggered infrequently.\12\ The Exchange also
notes that it is diligently working to eliminate the current re-pricing
functionality in Test Group Three securities for Price to Comply
Orders, Price to Display Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and Post-Only
Orders that are entered through the OUCH or FLITE protocols, and that
it anticipates this re-programming to be complete on or before December
12, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For example, for the time period between October 17 and
November 11, 2016, 0.08% of orders that were entered on Nasdaq in
Test Group Three securities were entered at a price that crossed the
NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The purpose of this proposal is
to provide the SEC and market participants with notice of Nasdaq's
efforts to remove its re-pricing functionality in Test Group Three
securities for Price to Comply Orders, Price to Display Orders, Non-
Displayed Orders, and Post-Only Orders that are entered through the
OUCH or FLITE protocols, consistent with its statements in SR-NASDAQ-
2016-126, SR-NASDAQ-2016-143, and SR-NASDAQ-2016-151.

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 change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) \13\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\ thereunder,
in that it effects a change that: (i) Does not significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms, does not
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-159 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-159. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet 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 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-159 and should be submitted on or before
December 23, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-28931 Filed 12-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 243)]
[Notices]
[Page 67871]
[DOCID:fr21de09-36]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9094-2; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0791]

Draft Toxicological Review of Trichloroethylene: In Support of
the Summary Information in the Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Listening Session; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency published a document in
the Federal Register on December 11, 2009, concerning a listening
session to be held during a public comment period for the external
review draft document entitled ``Toxicological Review of
Trichloroethylene: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS).''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Ross, IRIS Staff, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, (8601P), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: 703-347-
8592; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Correction

    In the Federal Register of December 11, 2009, in FR Doc. -9091-1,
on page 65775, in the first, second, and third columns correct the
dates to read:
SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a listening session to be held on January
26, 2010, during the public comment period for the external review
draft document entitled, ``Toxicological Review of Trichloroethylene:
In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS)'' (EPA/635/R-09/011A).

DATES: The listening session on the draft IRIS health assessment for
trichloroethylene will be held on January 26, 2010, beginning at 9 a.m.
and ending at 4 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. If you want to make a
presentation at the listening session, you should register by January
19, 2010, indicate that you wish to make oral comments at the session,
and indicate the length of your presentation. If no speakers have
registered by January 19, 2010, the listening session will be cancelled
and EPA will notify those registered of the cancellation.

ADDRESSES: To attend the listening session, register by Tuesday,
January 19, 2010, via the Internet at https://www2.ergweb.com/projects/
conferences/peerreview/register-tce.htm.

    Dated: December 14, 2009.
Rebecca Clark,
Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. E9-30257 Filed 12-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 20662-20663]
[DOCID:fr16ap08-57]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1078; FRL-8359-5]

Prometon; Reregistration Eligibility Decision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED) for the pesticide prometon. The Agency's
risk assessments and other related documents also are available in the
prometon docket. Prometon is an herbicide used in industrial sites and
under paved surfaces. EPA has reviewed prometon through the public
participation process that the Agency uses to involve the public in
developing pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment
decisions. Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides
meet current health and safety standards.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosanna Louie, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1078. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal
Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    Under section 4 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is reevaluating existing pesticides to
ensure that they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. EPA
has completed a RED for the pesticide, prometon, under section
4(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA. Prometon is a non-selective herbicide intended to
leave the treatment site bare and devoid of any vegetation. Products
containing prometon can be used under block or solid paving, and at
various industrial sites including pipelines, along fencerows, around
building perimeters, cross connects, fire plugs, storage areas, fences,
pumps, machinery, fuel tanks, recreational areas, guard rails,
airports, military installations, highway medians, railroads,
lumberyards, and rights-of-way. EPA has determined that the database to
support reregistration is substantially complete and that products
containing prometon are eligible for reregistration depending on their
specific uses, provided the risks are mitigated either in the manner
described in the RED or by another means that achieves equivalent risk
reduction. Upon submission of any required product specific data under
section 4(g)(2)(B) of FIFRA and any necessary changes to the
registration and labeling (either to address concerns identified in the
RED or as a result of product specific data), EPA will make a final
reregistration decision under section 4(g)(2)(C) of FIFRA for products
containing prometon.
    EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all
pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The
Agency's ``Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public
Participation Process,'' published in the Federal Register on May 14,
2004, (69 FR 26819) (FRL-7357-9) explains that in conducting these
programs, EPA is tailoring its public participation process to be
commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of
issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide.
Due to its uses, minimal risks, and other factors, prometon was
reviewed through the modified 4-Phase public participation process.
Through this process, EPA worked extensively with stakeholders and the
public to reach the regulatory decisions for prometon.
    The reregistration program is being conducted under congressionally
mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both to make timely
decisions and to involve the public. An additional comment period is
not needed at this time, because few comments were received during the
earlier comment period for this pesticide, and issues related to this
pesticide were resolved through consultations with stakeholders. The
Agency, therefore, is issuing the prometon RED without an additional
comment period.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA, as amended, directs that, after
submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, ``the
Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active
ingredient are eligible for reregistration,'' before calling in product
specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering
products or taking other ``appropriate regulatory action.''

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: April 3, 2008.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E8-8001 Filed 4-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 173 (Tuesday, September 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 53790]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22509]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1196-004.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: OATT Revisions Attachment P
Schedule 9 and Definitions to be effective 11/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 9/1/15.
    Accession Number: 20150901-5204.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/22/15.
    Docket Numbers: ER15-2304-001.
    Applicants: Oildale Energy LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Initial Market-Based
Rate Tariff Application to be effective 7/31/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20150828-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2588-000.
    Applicants: Eastside Power Authority.
    Description: Petition of Eastside Power Authority for Limited
Waiver of the California Independent System Operator Corporation's
Tariff Provisions.
    Filed Date: 9/1/15.
    Accession Number: 20150901-5168.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2589-000.
    Applicants: CPV Shore, LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Reactive Power Service Rate
Schedule to be effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/1/15.
    Accession Number: 20150901-5187.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2590-000.
    Applicants: Triolith Energy Fund L.P.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Triolith Energy Fund LP
Tariff to be effective 9/4/2015.
    Filed Date: 9/1/15.
    Accession Number: 20150901-5202.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2591-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: OATT Revised Sections (EIM
Available Balancing Capacity) to be effective 11/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 9/1/15.
    Accession Number: 20150901-5203.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/22/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 1, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-22509 Filed 9-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 15 (Thursday, January 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3933-3934]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01062]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-P-1525]

Determination That CARDENE (Nicardipine Hydrochloride) Injection,
25 Milligrams/10 Milliliters, Was Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons
of Safety or Effectiveness

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has
determined that CARDENE (nicardipine hydrochloride) injection, 25
milligrams (mg)/10 milliliters (mL), was not withdrawn from sale for
reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA
to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for nicardipine
hydrochloride injection, 25 mg/10 mL, if all other legal and regulatory
requirements are met.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Gottlieb, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6210, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-6650<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417)
(the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate
versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants
must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are
seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same
strength and dosage form as the ``listed drug,'' which is a version of
the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to
repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain
approval of a new drug application (NDA).
    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which
requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes
this list as part of the ``Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic
Equivalence Evaluations,'' which is known generally as the ``Orange
Book.'' Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the
Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for
reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed
drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21
CFR 314.162).
    A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may
determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn
from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination
may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale but
must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug
(Sec.  314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does
not refer to a listed drug.
    CARDENE (nicardipine hydrochloride) injection, 25 mg/10 mL, is the
subject of NDA 019734, held by Chiesi USA, Inc., and initially approved
on January 30, 1992. CARDENE is indicated for short-term treatment of
hypertension when oral therapy is not feasible or not desirable.
    In a letter dated February 13, 2018, Chiesi USA, Inc. notified FDA
that CARDENE (nicardipine hydrochloride) injection, 25 mg/10 mL, was
being discontinued, and FDA moved the drug product to the
``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section of the Orange Book.
    Baxter Healthcare Corporation submitted a citizen petition on May
6, 2019 (Docket No. FDA-2019-P-1525), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting
that the Agency determine whether CARDENE (nicardipine hydrochloride)
injection, 25 mg/10 mL, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety
or effectiveness.
    After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records
and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined
under Sec.  314.161 that CARDENE (nicardipine hydrochloride) injection,
25 mg/10 mL, was not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting
that this drug product was withdrawn for reasons of safety or
effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records
concerning the withdrawal of CARDENE (nicardipine hydrochloride)
injection, 25 mg/10 mL, from sale. We have also independently evaluated
relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events.
We have found no information that would

indicate that this drug product was withdrawn from sale for reasons of
safety or effectiveness.
    Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list CARDENE (nicardipine
hydrochloride) injection, 25 mg/10 mL, in the ``Discontinued Drug
Product List'' section of the Orange Book. The ``Discontinued Drug
Product List'' delineates, among other items, drug products that have
been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or
effectiveness. FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of
approved ANDAs that refer to this drug product. Additional ANDAs for
this drug product may also be approved by the Agency as long as they
meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of
ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be
revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA
applicants to submit such labeling.

    Dated: January 16, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-01062 Filed 1-22-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: November 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 211)]
[Notices]
[Page 66375]
[DOCID:fr02no05-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP05-503-002]

Equitrans, L.P.; Notice of Compliance Filing

October 21, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 18, 2005, Equitrans, L.P. (Equitrans)
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No.
1, the following revised tariff sheets, proposed to become effective on
September 1, 2005:

Second Substitute Sixth Revised Sheet No. 308
Second Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 309

    Equitrans states the filing is being made in compliance with the
Commission's unpublished Letter Order issued October 4, 2005, at Docket
No. RP05-503-001.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6039 Filed 11-1-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 158 (Friday, August 14, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49609-49610]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17762]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0734; Airspace Docket No. 20-AGL-29]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Revocation of Class E Airspace; Delavan, WI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to revoke the Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Lake Lawn Airport, Delavan,
WI, due to the cancellation of the instrument procedures at that
airport and the airspace no longer being required.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 28, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2020-0734/Airspace Docket No. 20-AGL-29, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would revoke the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Lake Lawn Airport, Delavan, WI, due to the
cancellation of the instrument procedures at this airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2020-0734/
Airspace Docket No. 20-AGL-29.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

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

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective
September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by revoking the Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface Lake Lawn

Airport, Delavan, WI, as this airspace no longer being required.
    This action is the result of the cancellation of instrument
procedures at this airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL WI E5 Delavan, WI [Remove]

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 10, 2020.

Steven T. Phillips,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2020-17762 Filed 8-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16003-16006]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05742]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69067; File No. SR-EDGX-2013-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the EDGX Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule

March 7, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 1, 2013, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 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 its fees and rebates applicable to
Members \3\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rule 15.1(a) and (c). All
of the changes described herein are applicable to EDGX Members. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's principal
office, and at the Public Reference Room of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange currently offers Members a rebate of $0.0005 per share
for Members' orders that route to Nasdaq OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'') and
remove liquidity, yielding Flag C, in securities priced at or above
$1.00. The Exchange proposes to decrease the rebate from $0.0005 per
share to $0.0004 per share in response to BX's fee filing that was
effective February 1, 2013.\4\ Direct Edge ECN LLC (d/b/a DE Route)
(``DE Route''), the Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer, does
not qualify for any of BX's volume tiered rebates.\5\ DE Route passes
through BX's default rebate to the Exchange and the Exchange, in turn,
passes through the

rebate to its Members. The Exchange notes that its proposal does not
modify the current rate of 0.10% of the dollar value of the transaction
that it charges Members for Flag C in securities priced below $1.00
that route to BX and remove liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68909 (February 12,
2013), 78 FR 11935 (February 20, 2013) (SR-BX-2013-011).
    \5\ The Exchange notes that to the extent DE Route does achieve
any volume tiered rebates on BX, its rates for Flag C will not
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In SR-EDGX-2012-47,\6\ the Exchange introduced new Flags ZA and ZR
for Members that utilize Retail Orders. Flag ZA is yielded for those
Members that use Retail Orders that add liquidity to EDGX and is
assigned a rebate of $0.0032 per share. Flag ZR is yielded for those
Members that use Retail Orders that remove liquidity from EDGX and is
assigned a charge of $0.0030 per share. Footnote 4 on the Exchange's
current fee schedule defines a ``Retail Order'' as an (i) agency order
that originates from a natural person; (ii) is submitted to EDGX by a
Member, provided that no change is made to the terms of the order; and
(iii) the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or any
other computerized methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68310 (November 28,
2012), 77 FR 71860 (December 4, 2012) (SR-EDGX-2012-47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this filing, the Exchange proposes to introduce a new ``Retail
Order Tier'' that would provide that Members that add an average daily
volume (``ADV'') of Retail Orders (Flag ZA) that is 0.25% or more of
the Total Consolidated Volume (``TCV'') on a daily basis, measured
monthly would receive a rebate on Flag ZA that is $0.0034 per share
instead of the rate of $0.0032 per share currently assigned to Flag ZA.
The Exchange notes that the rebate for Flag ZA in securities priced
below $1.00 is not impacted by this proposal.
    The Exchange also currently specifies, in part, in Footnote 4 that
to the extent Members qualify for a rebate higher than $0.0032 per
share through other volume tiers, such as the Mega Tier ($0.0035 per
share) or Market Depth Tier ($0.0033 per share), Members will earn the
higher rebate on Flag ZA instead of its assigned rate. The Exchange
proposes to make a conforming amendment to this language to include the
$0.0034 per share rebate. Therefore, the amended language would now
read: ``The Exchange notes that to the extent Members qualify for a
rebate higher than $0.0032 per share (for Flag ZA executions that do
not qualify for the above tier) or $0.0034 per share (for Flag ZA
executions qualifying for the above tier) through other volume tiers,
such as the Mega Tier or Market Depth Tier, they will earn the higher
rebate on Flag ZA instead of its assigned rate.''
    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its fee
schedule on March 1, 2013.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\8\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would encourage
Members to send additional Retail Orders that add liquidity to the
Exchange for execution in order to qualify for an incrementally higher
rebate for such executions that add liquidity on the Exchange if
Members satisfy the conditions of the Retail Order Tier. In this
regard, the Exchange believes that maintaining or increasing the
proportion of Retail Orders in exchange-listed securities that are
executed on a registered national securities exchange (rather than
relying on certain available off-exchange execution methods) would
contribute to investors' confidence in the fairness of their
transactions and would benefit all investors by deepening the
Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of price discovery,
promoting market transparency and improving investor protection.
    The potential for increased volume from Retail Orders increases
potential revenue to the Exchange, and allows the Exchange to spread
its administrative and infrastructure costs over a greater number of
shares, leading to lower per share costs. These lower per share costs
in turn would allow the Exchange to pass on the savings to Members in
the form of lower fees. The increased liquidity benefits all investors
by deepening EDGX's liquidity pool, offering additional flexibility for
all investors to enjoy cost savings, supporting the quality of price
discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor
protection. Volume-based rebates such as the one proposed herein have
been widely adopted in the cash equities markets, and are equitable
because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide
discounts that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's
market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such
as higher levels of liquidity provision and introduction of higher
volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery processes.
    The Exchange believes the $0.0034 rebate proposed for the Retail
Order Tier is reasonable because it is directly related to a Member's
level of Retail Order executions during the month. The Exchange also
believes the proposed rebate of $0.0034 per share is reasonable because
it is consistent with certain other rebates, such as the those found in
tiers in Footnote 1 of its fee schedule (i.e., Market Depth Tier, Mega
Tier rebate of $0.0032 per share, Ultra Tier), that is available to
Members that satisfy certain criteria that is related to the Member's
level of trading activity on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that requiring a Member to submit an ADV of
Retail Orders during a month of 0.25% or more of TCV is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because this percentage is
within a range that the Exchange believes would incentivize Members to
submit Retail Orders to the Exchange in order to qualify for the
applicable rebate of $0.0034 per share. The Exchange notes that certain
other existing pricing tiers within its fee schedule make rebates
available to Members that are also based on the Member's level of
activity as a percentage of TCV. These existing percentage thresholds,
depending on other related factors and the level of the corresponding
rebates, are both higher and lower than the 0.25% proposed herein.\9\
Moreover, like existing pricing on the Exchange that is tied to
Member's volume levels as a percentage of TCV, the proposed Retail
Order is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is
available to all Members on an equal and non-discriminatory basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See for example, the Market Depth Tier Rebate ($0.0033 per
share rebate), Mega Tier rebate ($0.0032 per share), Ultra Tier
rebate ($0.0031 per share rebate), and Super Tier rebate ($0.0031
per share rebate) that are all tied to a percentage of TCV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that a significant percentage of the orders of
individual investors are executed over-the-counter.\10\ The Exchange
believes that it is thus appropriate to create a financial incentive to
bring more retail order flow

to a public market, such as the Exchange over off-exchange venues. The
Exchange believes that investor protection and transparency is promoted
by rewarding displayed liquidity on exchanges over off-exchange
executions. By offering a proposed rebate of $0.0034 per share for the
Retail Order Tier, the Exchange believes it will encourage use of
Retail Orders, while maintaining consistency with the Exchange's
overall pricing philosophy of encouraging displayed liquidity. The
Exchange places a higher value on displayed liquidity because the
Exchange believes that displayed liquidity is a public good that
benefits investors and traders generally by providing greater price
transparency and enhancing public price discovery, which ultimately
lead to substantial reductions in transaction costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (January 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594
(January 21, 2010) (noting that dark pools and internalizing broker-
dealers executed approximately 25.4% of share volume in September
2009). See also Mary L. Schapiro, Strengthening Our Equity Market
Structure (Speech at the Economic Club of New York, Sept. 7, 2010)
(available on the Commission's Web site). In her speech, Chairman
Schapiro noted that nearly 30 percent of volume in U.S.-listed
equities was executed in venues that do not display their liquidity
or make it generally available to the public and the percentage was
increasing nearly every month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that the Retail Order Tier is reasonable in
that NYSE Arca offers a comparable Retail Order Tier (with an analogous
Retail Order definition) that provides a rebate of $0.0032 per share
for the NYSE Arca's ETP Holders that execute an average daily volume of
Retail Orders that is 0.40% or more of the TCV.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67540 (July 30,
2012), 77 FR 46539 (August 3, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-77). See also,
https://usequities.nyx.com/sites/usequities.nyx.com/files/nyse_arca_marketplace_fees_2_26_13.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to pass through BX's rebate
of $0.0004 per share for orders that route to BX and remove liquidity
(Flag C) represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees
and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities because the Exchange does not levy additional fees or offer
additional rebates for orders that it routes to BX through DE Route.
Currently, BX offers a rebate to DE Route for orders that route to BX
and remove liquidity, and DE Route passes through that rebate to the
Exchange and the Exchange passes through that rebate to its Members.
Effective February 1, 2012, BX rebates DE Route $0.0004 per share for
orders that route to BX and remove liquidity. The Exchange's proposal
will enable DE Route to pass through the $0.0004 per share rebate to
the Exchange and the Exchange, in turn, to pass it through to its
Members. The Exchange believes its proposal is equitable and reasonable
because it allows the Exchange to continue to pass through BX's rebate
to its Members. The Exchange notes that routing through DE Route is
voluntary. Lastly, the Exchange also believes that this proposed
amendment is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all
Members.
    The Exchange also notes that it operates in a highly-competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. The proposed rule change reflects a competitive pricing
structure designed to incent market participants to direct their order
flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rates are
equitable and non-discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to all
Members. The Exchange believes the fees and credits remain competitive
with those charged by other venues and therefore continue to be
reasonable and equitably allocated to Members.

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

    These proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The Exchange does not believe these changes represent a
significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or
pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members
may opt to disfavor EDGX's pricing if they believe that alternatives
offer them better value. Accordingly, EDGX does not believe that the
proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing venues
to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
    Regarding the Retail Order Tier, the Exchange believes that its
proposal to offer a rebate of $0.0034 per share provided the Member
satisfies the Retail Order Tier's conditions will increase competition
for Retail Orders because it is comparable to the rates charged by NYSE
Arca for its retail order tier. The Exchange believes its proposal will
not burden intramarket competition given that the Exchange's rates
apply uniformly to all Members that place orders.
    Regarding Flag C's proposed reduction in rebate, the Exchange
believes that its proposal to pass through BX's lower rebate of $0.0004
per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 that route to BX and
remove liquidity will increase competition because it is comparable to
the rates charged by BX for removing liquidity. The Exchange believes
its proposal will not burden intramarket competition given that the
Exchange's rates apply uniformly to all Members that place orders. The
Exchange believes that its proposal will increase competition for
routing services because the market for order execution is competitive
and the Exchange's proposal provides customers with another alternative
to route their orders. The Exchange notes that routing through DE Route
is voluntary.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \13\ thereunder. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2013-11 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-EDGX-2013-11. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet 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 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2013-11 and should be
submitted on or before April 3, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-05742 Filed 3-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 133 (Thursday, July 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32372-32373]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14682]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0544]

Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee teleconference meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee working group
will meet via teleconference to work on Task Statement 25, review of
the draft Merchant Mariner Medical Manual, to complete the discussions
from its April 4-5, and May 8, 2017 meetings. The teleconference will
be open to the public.

DATES: The Merchant Marine Mariner Medical Advisory Committee working
group is scheduled to meet via teleconference on Thursday, August 17,
2017, from 2 p.m. until 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Please note that
this

teleconference may adjourn early if the working group has completed its
business.

ADDRESSES: To join the teleconference, contact the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to obtain the needed
information no later than 5 p.m. on August 10, 2017. The number of
teleconference lines is limited and will be available on a first-come,
first served basis. To physically join those participating from U.S.
Coast Guard Headquarters, it will be held in Room 5J16-15, 2703 Martin
Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509 (http://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Director-of-Operational-Logistics-DOL/Bases/Base-National-Capital-Region/Visitor/).
    Pre-registration Information: Foreign nationals participating
physically at the U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters will be required to
pre-register no later than 4 p.m. on August 1, 2017. U.S. citizens
participating physically at the U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters will be
required to pre-register no later than 4 p.m. on August 10, 2017, to be
admitted to the meeting. To pre-register, contact Lieutenant Junior
Grade James Fortin at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with
MEDMAC in the subject line and provide your name, company, and
telephone number; if a foreign national, also provide your country of
citizenship, and passport number and expiration date. All attendees
will be required to provide a government-issued picture identification
card in order to gain admittance to the building.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
the Alternate Designated Federal Officer as soon as possible using the
contact information provided in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this notice.
    Instructions: You are free to submit comments at any time,
including orally at the teleconference, but if you want working group
committee members to review your comment before the meeting, please
submit your comments no later than August 10, 2017. We are particularly
interested in comments on the issues in the ``Agenda'' section below.
You must include ``Department of Homeland Security'' and the docket
number USCG-2017-0544. Written comments may also be submitted using
Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If you
encounter technical difficulties with comments submission, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document. Comments received will be posted without alteration at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. You may review the Privacy Act Notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Docket Search: For access to the docket to read documents or
comments related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type
USCG-2017-0544 in the ``Search'' box, press Enter, and then click on
the item you wish to view.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Junior Grade James Fortin,
Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Merchant Marine Personnel
Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Stop 7509,
Washington, DC 20593-7509, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory
Committee Meeting is authorized by section 210 of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-281, codified at 46 United
States Code 7115). The committee advises the Secretary on matters
related to (a) medical certification determinations for issuance of
licenses, certificates of registry, and merchant mariners' documents;
(b) medical standards and guidelines for the physical qualifications of
operators of commercial vessels; (c) medical examiner education; and
(d) medical research.

Agenda

    The agenda for the August 17, 2017, working group teleconference is
as follows:
    (1) The working group will meet briefly to discuss Task Statement
25 (All task statements can be found at https://homeport.uscg.mil/medmac);
    (2) Reports of working sub-groups. The working sub-groups will
report to the full working group on what was accomplished in their
meetings. The full working group will not take action on these reports
at this time. Any action taken as a result of this working group
meeting will be taken after the public comment period.
    (3) Public comment period.
    (4) Preparation of the meeting report to the full Committee.
    (5) Adjournment of meeting.
A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at https://homeport.uscg.mil/medmac. Alternatively, you may contact Lieutenant
Junior Grade James Fortin as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section above. A public comment period will be held at the end
of the day during the working group teleconference concerning matters
being discussed. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3
minutes. Please note that the public comment period will end following
the last call for comments. Please contact Lieutenant Junior Grade
James Fortin, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, to
register as a speaker.
    Please note that the teleconference may adjourn early if the work
is completed.

    Dated: June 26, 2017.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2017-14682 Filed 7-12-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


In 1999, EPA obtained Hg mass emissions estimates for the 1,120 utility units affected by the SNPR, as the result of an information collection request ( ICR) that appeared in the Federal Register on April 9, 1998. These data show that if a low Hg mass emission threshold of 9 lb/ yr were selected, 228 units, representing 1 percent of the total annual Hg emissions from coal fired electric utility units in the U. S., could potentially qualify to use the low emitter option. However, EPA's analysis also indicated that by raising the cutoff point to 29 lb/ yr, almost twice the number of units ( 435), representing just 5 percent of the total annual Hg emissions, could potentially qualify as low emitters. Therefore, EPA has decided to adopt the 29 lb/ yr as the qualifying low mass emission threshold for Hg.

Although the 5 percent threshold represents a departure from the traditional de minimis value of 1 percent, the Agency believes that allowing units with Hg emissions of 29 lbs/ yr or less 6 48 to use the low mass emitter option is a better choice, for both economic and environmental reasons. For continuous monitoring methodologies, the annualized cost per unit will be about $ 89,500 for testing, maintenance, and operation. For sorbent trap methodologies, the annualized cost per unit will be about $ 113,000 for testing, maintenance, and operation. For a unit that emits between 9 lb/ yr and 29 lb/ yr of Hg, if the owner or operator elects to use the low emitter option, today's rule would require two stack tests per year ( at $ 5,500 each), and an estimated $ 1,500 annual cost for technical calculation, labor, and other associated costs, for a total annual expenditure per unit of around $ 12,500. Therefore, for the approximately 207 units with Hg mass emissions between 9 and 29 lb/ yr, the potential savings associated with the implementation of the low emitter option could be as high as: $ 89,500  $ 12,500 = $ 77,000 * 207 units = $ 15,939,000 per year if LME is used instead of Hg CEMS. Alternatively, if LME is used instead of sorbent traps, the potential savings could be even higher: $ 113,000  $ 12,500 = $ 100,500 * 207 units = $ 20,803,500 per year. This is achieved without losing the environmental integrity of the program or compromising the cap, because the default Hg concentration values used for reporting are conservatively high, and for units with flue gas desulfurization ( FGD) systems or add on Hg emission controls, the rule requires the maximum potential concentration ( MPC) to be reported when the controls are not operating properly.

As a further justification of the 5 percent low emitter threshold for Hg, EPA notes that there are two important differences between the Hg low mass emission provisions in section 75.81 and the LME provisions in section 75.19 for SO2 and NOx ( which are based on a 1 percent threshold). First, under section 75.19, default emission rates are used exclusively, and there is no real time continuous monitoring of the SO2 or NOx emissions. However, under section 75.81, the stack gas volumetric flow rate, which is used in the hourly Hg mass emission calculations, is continuously monitored. Second, the LME provisions in section 75.19 allow you to either use generic default NOx emission rates without performing any emission testing, or, if you test for NOx, you are only required to determine a new default emission rate once every 5 years. Under section 75.81, emission testing is required initially to qualify as a low emitter, and retesting is required either semiannually or annually thereafter, depending on the annual emission level.

6.8 RECORDKEEPING/ REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Comment:

One commenter ( OAR 2002 0056 3455) stated that, in reference to Appendix A to the Preamble Proposed Changes to Parts 72 and 75, ( Proposed Rules March 16, 2004); page 12420 ( Calculation of Mercury Mass Emissions) all of the calculations for both CEMS and sorbent methods contain a significant error. Rounding procedures for equation F 28 ( hourly emissions) require rounding of hourly emissions, in ounces, to one decimal place. This would result in all but the largest sources registering as 0.0 oz/ hr. Final rounding for reporting purposes may be to two or three significant figures. Intermediate results that are used in subsequent calculations should not be rounded to minimize propagation of numerical errors. For example, if hourly emissions for a particular unit were constant and calculated as 0.35 oz/ hr, rounding to 0.40 6 49 oz/ hr would result in excess emissions of 438 oz/ year. Introducing artificial arithmetic artefacts into the emission calculations of a high value pollutant such as Hg is unwise and unnecessary.

Response:

EPA agrees with the commenter and has required in the final rule that equation F 28 results and the recordkeeping/ reporting of hourly Hg mass emissions be rounded to the nearest thousandth of an ounce. EPA's 40 CFR part 75 policy is that intermediate results that are not reported, but are used in subsequent hourly calculations should not be rounded to minimize propagation of numerical errors.

Comment:

One commenter ( OAR 2002 0056 3455) stated that, in reference to Appendix F to the Preamble Proposed Changes to Parts 75, ( Proposed Rules March 16, 2004); page 12472, the calculation procedure in Appendix F to Part 75   Conversion Procedures contains serious errors. In particular, equation F 28 is erroneous and does not yield correct results. The commenter noted that the Hg concentrations used for mass determination are not referenced to any specific CO2 or O2 levels. This provides further support for the position that reporting on this basis is superfluous.

Response:

EPA has corrected equation F 28 in the final rule. The final rule does not reference Hg concentrations to any specific CO2 or O2 levels.

Comment:

One commenter ( OAR 2002 0056 3455) noted that, in reference to Appendix F to the Preamble Proposed Changes to Parts 75, ( Proposed Rules March 16, 2004); page 12472, Equation F 28 contradicts Equation 3 ( FR page 4724) by requiring hourly averaging of the Hg concentrations and hourly totals of the stack flow before performing a calculation. Significant flow and concentrations can take place over the course of an hour, resulting in an erroneous calculation. This form of calculation may be appropriate for the sorbent method. However, for CEMS, a more accurate and unbiased calculation is available by multiplying concentration and volumetric readings together at the data rate of the CEMS and then summing to produce hourly emissions.

Response:

EPA understands the concern of the commenter. However, because one hour periods are the basic Hg emissions reporting increment, EPA requires sources to calculate their quarterly and annual Hg mass emissions using hourly quantities. This allows EPA to recalculate 6 50 quarterly and annual Hg mass emissions using the same reported hourly numbers that sources use. If sources used sub hourly increments to calculate mass emissions, EPA's recalculated mass emissions based on reported hourly values would not agree with the reported numbers.

Comment:

One commenter ( OAR 2002 0056 2889), although not supporting Hg trading, did support using the electronic reporting, under the acid rain program emission reporting system, set up for SO2 and NOx for Hg emissions reporting. This would consolidate the emission reporting requirements under the NSPS and Acid Rain Program, which regulate the same facilities. The addition of Hg to those pollutants already reported to the Clean Air Markets Division would benefit EPA, States, public, the industry.

Response:

The final rule requires the same type of electronic reporting that is used under the Acid Rain and NOx Budget Programs.

6.9 OTHER Comment:

One commenter ( OAR 2002 0056 3200) supports EPA's rolling 12 month averaging calculation for compliance determinations. Mercury is not an acute health hazard and concerns arise from long term chronic exposure. Thus, Hg control lends itself well to a compliance program with long term averaging.

Response:

The Agency has decided to use a cap and trade approach to control Hg emissions. However, note that the proposed NSPS for Hg has been finalized under 40 CFR 60, subpart Da, and compliance with the Hg emission limit in 40 CFR 60.45a is determined on a 12 month rolling average basis.

Comment:

Two commenters ( OAR 2002 0056 2068,  2422) stated that EPA's proposed methods for measuring Hg emissions from coal fueled power plants must address the detection limits of those methods and how those detection limits will impact compliance demonstrations with the new source MACT limits. The EPA must take into account the ability of existing technology to detect Hg emissions at such minute levels, and must also discuss the range of test results which may be allowable over time. Without such clarification, units will be unable to reliably determine if their test results are within an acceptable range of compliance, or if they violate the limits. One 6 51 commenter ( OAR 2002 0056 2422) adds that regardless of the monitoring alternatives specified by EPA, the final rule must address the detection limits of that testing methods). As the allowable Hg emission levels grow smaller, it becomes scientifically more difficult to assess whether the emission limits are being met.

Response:

In field tests of Hg monitoring methodologies, EPA has observed that low concentrations of Hg can be detected and accurately measured with the currently available monitoring systems. Mercury compliance will be determined under a cap and trade program, rather than MACT.

Comment:

One commenter ( OAR 2002 0056 3439) stated that the proposed supplemental rule ( dated March 16, 2004) defines the minimum acceptable test run duration for the reference test method ( Ontario Hydro) as 2 hours. Given the very low concentration of Hg in the gas stream, the commenter recommended a test run of longer duration or sufficient analysis of available test data be conducted to provide adequate confidence in the 2 hour minimum test run duration.

Response:

EPA has data to indicate that 2 hours is sufficient for application to controlled sources. However, in the final rule, the 2 hour minimum RATA run length provision has been withdrawn. For the RATA of a Hg CEMS using the Ontario Hydro method, or for the RATA of a sorbent trap system ( irrespective of the reference method used), the final rule simply specifies that the minimum time per run must be long enough to collect a sufficient mass of Hg to analyze.

Comment:

One commenter ( OAR 2002 0056 2063) recommended with regard to QA/ QC requirements that annual RATA tests using a Reference Method, either wet chemistry based or Method 324 ( paired trains) are appropriate for either a CEM or Method 324.

Response:

EPA agrees with the commenter with the exception that we do not consider that sorbent trap monitoring procedure has the quality to serve as a reference method. We are, however, confident of its performance as a monitoring method as long as a yearly RATA is performed and passed and the performance criteria in Appendix K are met.

Comment:

One commenter ( OAR 2002 0056 2883) believed that the EPA should hold workshops to 6 52 assist both purchasers, States, and vendors on various monitoring systems.

Response:

EPA agrees with the commenter and will provide workshops to assist both purchasers, States, and vendors on any issues related to the final rule.

Comment:

One commenter ( OAR 2002 0056 2889) stated that the proposed PS 12A only accounts for vapor phase Hg emissions. This allows facilities to ignore particulate bound Hg emissions when using a CEMS. The State of Massachusetts provided test data to showed that particulatebound Hg can constitute as much as 40 percent of total Hg. The commenter urged EPA to require total Hg emissions as the basis of compliance demonstrations per their state rules.

Response:

Nationwide, 97 percent of Hg emissions from the outlets of coal fired utilities are vapor phase. Currently there is no established technology, other than the Ontario Hydro Method to measure particulate bound Hg. Therefore, today's final rule only regulates vapor phase Hg emissions.

Comment:

One commenter ( OAR 2002 0056 2867) stated that for applications where Hg CEMS are used and for Hg monitoring and audits to be advanced, the commenter submits a real time instrumental reference method for RA audits is needed. The commenter stated that EPA must develop such an instrumental reference method for Hg.

Response:

EPA agrees with the commenter. Based on field testing, EPA intends to develop an instrumental reference method for Hg. Initial evaluations of such a method have already begun.

Comment:

One commenter ( OAR 2002 0056 1842) stated that monitoring Hg to the degree of accuracy required for trading ($ 35,000/ lb) is a daunting task. Add to this the fact that EPA has not addressed particulate Hg and suggested just ignoring this quantity. The rationale is that particulate Hg is only three percent of the total. At $ 35,000/ lb the ignored quantity translates into $ 105,000 for a 300 MW boiler, $ 1,050,000/ yr for a 3,000 MW plant and $ 105,000,000 for the whole industry. Mercury measurement is money measurement. This number may even be larger. Fine particulate emissions from power plants are not measured. The commenter believed 6 53 emissions are much larger than EPA estimates. Therefore particulate Hg emissions from plants with old inefficient precipitators are likely to be much higher than emissions from the average plant. Also some Hg control technologies create particulate Hg. The RJM concept is to condense acid mist on fine particulate in order to create acid deposition sites. Under the EPA scheme all the Hg could then be discharged and not counted. Also there is a 10 times differential between fine particulate emissions from old precipitators and new ones. This means it will be necessary to measure particulate Hg. Periodic Method 5 sampling will result in filter catches which can then be analyzed for particulate Hg. The accuracy will be a function of the sampling interval and the variations from sample to sample. A few stack tests per year may establish particulate Hg plus or minus 50 percent. A stack test each week would reduce the inaccuracy to some smaller range e. g., 10 percent. However continuous method 5 sampling would improve accuracy even more. Annual Hg quantities then will be the integration of the results from sorbent traps, Hg CEMS, method 5 tests for particulate Hg and material balances involving the amounts in the coal, ash, fly ash, and wastewater.

Response:

Nationwide, 97 percent of Hg emissions from the outlets of coal fired utilities are vapor phase. Currently there is no established technology, other than the Ontario Hydro Method to measure particulate bound Hg. Therefore, the final rule only regulates vapor phase Hg emissions. EPA will collect the particulate Hg concentrations from any source using a reference method capable of providing particulate Hg concentrations and may initiate a future rulemaking to require that these emissions be monitored and reported.

Comment:

Several commenters ( OAR 2002 0056 2634,  2718,  2861,  2922,  3565) noted that proposed 40 CFR 75 subpart Da section 60.50a( j) would require Hg CEMS and sorbent trap systems to perform some QA/ QC requirements " in accordance with" Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F. This presents some issues for sorbent trap systems because Procedure 1 does not include all of the information necessary to perform those tests. In addition, with the use of 40 CFR part 60 QA/ QC requirements in subpart Da, new units that are subject to both the NSPS and the cap and trade program would be subject to both the specified 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F, and the 40 CFR part 75, Appendix B, QA/ QC requirements. EPA should avoid imposing these duplicative and inconsistent requirements by explicitly stating in the subpart Da revision that Hg CEMS and sorbent trap systems meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 75 do not have to comply with 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F, procedures set out in 40 CFR 60.50a( j). EPA should use the subpart Da NOx revision in 40 CFR 60.47( c)( 2) as a model.

One commenter ( OAR 2002 0056 3469) stated that to minimize duplication and additional costs, the EPA should adopt monitoring and reporting standards that are consistent with those for other air quality programs. 6 54 Response:

In the final rule for Hg ( 40 CFR 60, subpart Da), EPA has made it clear that the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F do not apply to sorbent trap monitoring systems. Rather, sorbent trap monitoring systems must meet the applicable QA requirements in Appendices B and K of 40 CFR part 75. An annual RATA of each sorbent trap system is required, in addition to a number of system specific QA tests and procedures. For the qualityassurance of data from Hg CEMS, the NSPS clearly states that sources subject to both 40 CFR 60, subpart Da and 40 CFR part 75, subpart I may implement the QA procedures in 40 CFR part 75, Appendix B in lieu of the procedures in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F.


 ? Need to return call by / at/ between and . Signature: Project No.: 0<IP_ADDRESS> DISTRIBUTION Page __ 1_ of _ 1_

Project Name: 304( m) OCPSF Detailed Study TELEPHONE CALL RECORD Outgoing Call Date: 1/ 5/ 04 Time: 11 a. m.

Company Name: EPA OPPT Phone No.: 202 566 1977 Contact Name: Ellie Ku Codding Phone No.: 703 633 1673 Name: Dwain Winters Eastern Research Group, Inc.

GENERAL SUBJECT : Dioxins at OCPSF Sites TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN I called Mr. Dwain Winters, who works in OPPT's National Program Chemical Division. He is expecting data from the chlorine chemical industry in the next few weeks. The contractors doing the work for the chemical industry are Amendola Engineering and Patrick Dyke ( out of the UK). He will e mail me when the data are available. The data include actual monitoring of dioxin congeners for the chlorine chemical industry.

We spoke at length regarding generation of dioxin and the National Program Chemicals Division ( NPCD). I asked about the NPCD, which develops and manages multi media regulatory and non regulatory control programs and other private or public sector initiatives to reduce and manage risks from designated National Program Chemicals ( NPCs) or other priority risk management chemicals within OPPT. The chemicals include dioxin, PCBs, and other chemicals. Then NPCD can move for initiatives or programs that would decrease the amount of the target NPC under TSCA authority.

I asked Dwain how his inventory fits in. Dwain said that he does the dioxins inventory: he collects available dioxin data for the National Dioxins Inventory. OPPT did the first dioxins inventory in 1987, another in 1995, and they will complete and publish the 2000 dioxins inventory in Spring 2004. ( For previous inventories, see http:// cfpub. epa. gov/ ncea/ cfm/ recordisplay. cfm? deid= 55405). The primary goal is to come up with an accurate inventory of dioxin. The dioxin inventory is part of the OPPT chemical reassessment effort, which came from the Stockholm Persistent Organic Pollutants ( POPs) treaty. Congress has not ratified it yet. After they do, in another 2 years there would be a National Implementation Plan. The treaty requires countries to identify and enumerate sources of certain chemicals, determining if they are " Significant" or " Insignificant" sources. The focus is on exposure, and water discharges are important means for exposure, in terms of entry into the food chain.

Right now he is still receiving data from almost all the manufacturers in the Chlorine Chemical Industry. He starts with TRI data, which are mostly theoretically estimated, not actual measurements. To get representative and actual testing, the chlorine chemical companies themselves hired independent contractors to test the air, solids, and water streams: Gary Amendola and Patrick Dyke ( out of the UK). Dwain expects to receive their ? Need to return call by / at/ between and . Signature: data in the next few weeks.

I asked him what he had seen as points of generation for dioxin. He said one new addition of processes that generate dioxin ( new in the last few years) is titanium dioxide manufacture. I asked him if he had any ideas about ways of minimizing the generation and discharge of dioxin, particularly in wastewater, from any of the chemical processes, including petroleum refining.

He said that what they are really seeing is materials in the wastewater treatment system, including sludge disposal. Titanium dioxide is a large area of waste generation.

I asked him about wood preservers and PCP manufacturers. He said there are 2 PCP manufacturers ( Vulcan is the main one, with Wichita being the biggest plant). The wood preservers pressurize the wood while coated with the PCP mixed with oil. The PCP is forced into the wood, then they vacuum express the oil and then dry the wood. The residual trace dioxin in the PCP that is vacuumed out and disposed is the dioxin source. The said for PCP, almost all the dioxin is octadibenzo( p) furan or dioxin, which both have the same TEF of 110,000. He said that they might also have some heptas, too.

Integrated chemical facilities probably have a discrete component ( chlor alkali, EDC, VCM, and/ or PVC), but the wastestreams are not necessarily segregated. More particulate removal upstream and potential carbon treatment would help. I asked if he knew anyone who was doing the particulate removal, and he didn't know off hand.

He said that petroleum refiners did a study to see what caused formation of dioxins, determining that he old batch process was the biggest problem. The semicontinuous and continuous don't have nearly as much of a problem. He said that the Tosco refinery in San Francisco Bay has particulate removal prior to biological treatment, and that most facilities had moved towards that within the last 6 years. Dioxins were discovered 8 years ago in refineries.

He said that this inventory is the first cut at the chlorinated aliphatics in addition to EDC/ VCM: chlorobenzenes, PCP, and phenolic herbicides.

Other categories include titanium dioxide and POTWs. POTWs find d's and f's in their sludge, so there must be some in the wastewater.

Another operation that they want to include next time is the primary and secondary metals industry. For example, iron and steel cokemaking and sintering have the potential to for dioxins ( chlorine gas in the air reacts during cooling of sintering materials).

He said it is most often the trace chemistry that determines the dioxin generation, not the manufacturing chemistry. Another new avenue to examine is the formation of dioxin from hexachlorobenzene at high temperatures.

I asked him if he would be moving for a dioxins initiative, and he explained that he does the inventory part of the equation. The control/ reduction part would be done under POPs.