[Federal Register: March 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 50)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12438-12439]
[DOCID:fr16mr10-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1090; Directorate Identifier 2009-SW-31-AD;
Amendment 39-16227; AD 2010-06-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Model AS355E, AS355F,
AS355F1, AS355F2, and AS355N Helicopters

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2,
and AS355N helicopters. This AD results from a mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) AD issued by the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member
States of the European Community. The MCAI AD states that a
metallurgical non-conformity was discovered on a flange of the forward
shaft section of the tail rotor drive shaft (drive shaft). The MCAI AD
also states that stress analysis has shown that this non-conformity can
significantly reduce the strength of the drive shaft and thereby its
service life. The AD actions are intended to remove non-conforming
drive shafts from service and prevent failure of the drive shaft and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on April 20, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations office, U.S.
Department of Transportation, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may get the service information identified in this AD from
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75053-4005, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at http://
www.eurocopter.com.

EXAMINING THE AD DOCKET: The AD docket contains the Notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), the economic evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address and operating hours for the
Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) are in the
ADDRESSES section of this AD. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after they are received.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Uday Garadi, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (817)
222-5961.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued an NPRM on November 23, 2009 to amend 14 CFR part 39 to
include an AD that would apply to the Eurocopter Model AS355E, AS355F,
AS355F1, AS355F2, and AS355N helicopters. That NPRM was published in
the Federal Register on December 10, 2009 (74 FR 65492). That NPRM
proposed to remove non-conforming drive shafts from service to prevent
failure of the drive shaft and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI AD
and any related service information in the AD docket.

Comments

    By publishing the NPRM, we gave the public an opportunity to
participate in developing this AD. However, we received no comment on
the NPRM or on our determination of the cost to the public. Therefore,
based on our review and evaluation of the available data, we have
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD as proposed.

Relevant Service Information

    Eurocopter has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. 01.00.51, Revision
1, dated February 9, 2006. The actions described in the MCAI AD are
intended to correct the same unsafe condition as that identified in the
service information.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI AD

    This AD differs from the MCAI AD as follows:
     We refer to the compliance time as ``hours time-in-
service'' rather than ``flying hours'' and
     We do not require returning spares to the manufacturer.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 96 helicopters of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per
helicopter to complete the compliance actions. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $8,335 per
helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate that the cost of this
AD on U.S. operators is $816,480, or $8,505 per helicopter assuming
that the drive shaft is replaced on each helicopter.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on product(s) identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2010-06-03 EUROCOPTER FRANCE: Amendment 39-16227; Docket No. FAA-
2009-1090; Directorate Identifier 2009-SW-31-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective on April
20, 2010.

Other Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2,
and AS355N helicopters with tail rotor drive shaft forward shaft
section, part number 355A 34-1090-00, serial number 858 through 873
(inclusive) with a prefix ``M,'' certificated in any category. This
AD does not apply to helicopters manufactured after January 1, 2005.

Reason

    (d) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) AD
states that a metallurgical non-conformity was discovered on a
flange of the forward shaft section of the tail rotor drive shaft
(drive shaft). The MCAI AD also states that stress analysis has
shown that this non-conformity can significantly reduce the strength
of the drive shaft and thereby its service life. This AD is intended
to remove non-conforming drive shafts from service and prevent
failure of the drive shaft and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already accomplished, do the following:
    (1) For any drive shaft that has less than 2,400 hours time-in-
service (TIS), on or before reaching 2,500 hours TIS, remove the
drive shaft and replace it with an airworthy drive shaft that is not
included in the applicability of this AD.
    (2) For any drive shaft with 2,400 or more hours TIS, within the
next 100 hours TIS, remove the drive shaft and replace it with an
airworthy drive shaft that is not included in the applicability of
this AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI AD

    (f) This AD differs from the MCAI AD as follows:
    (1) We refer to the compliance time as ``hours time-in-service''
rather than ``flying hours'' and
    (2) We do not require returning spares to the manufacturer.

Other Information

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Safety Management Group, FAA, ATTN: Uday Garadi, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817) 222-
5123, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (h) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2006-0100,
dated April 24, 2006, and Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No.
01.00.51, Revision 1, dated February 9, 2006, contain related
information.

Joint Aircraft System/Component (JASC) Code

    (i) The JASC Code is 6510: Tail rotor drive shaft.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 22, 2010.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-5328 Filed 3-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 46 (Friday, March 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13369-13370]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04725]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80161; File No. SR-BX-2017-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to Billing
Ports and Other Services

March 6, 2017.
    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 February 21, 2017, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX'' 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 clarify that BX Options Market port fees
and other services in Chapter VX, Section 3 of BX Rules are not
prorated.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to include language
within Chapter XV, Section 3 to clarify that the port fees and other
services noted in this section are not subject to proration.
    Chapter XV, Section 3, entitled ``BX Options Market--Ports and
other Services'' includes pricing for TradeInfo BX,\3\ various port
fees and an Extranet Access Fee.\4\ The port fees include Order Entry
Ports,\5\ CTI Ports,\6\ BX Depth Ports,\7\ BX TOP Ports,\8\ Order Entry
DROP Ports \9\ and SQF Ports.\10\

Today, the Exchange does not prorate any of these per month fees. The
Exchange proposes to add a clarifying sentence to make clear that fees
are assessed in full month increments and are not prorated, to avoid
any confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ TradeInfo allows a BX Options Participant to scan for all
orders it submitted to BX Options in a particular security or all
orders of a particular type, regardless of their status (open,
canceled, executed, etc.) [sic] Also, it permits a participant to
cancel open orders at the port or firm mnemonic level. TradeInfo
allows a BX Options Participant to manage its order flow and
mitigate risk by giving users the ability to view its orders and
executions, as well as the ability to perform cancels at the port or
firm mnemonic level. Finally, TradeInfo BX has the ability download
records of orders and executions for recordkeeping purposes.
    \4\ The Extranet Access Fee is a monthly access fee per
recipient Customer Premises Equipment (``CPE'') Configuration. A
``Customer Premises Equipment Configuration'' means any line,
circuit, router package, or other technical configuration used by an
extranet provider to provide a direct access connection to the
Exchange market data feeds to a recipient's site.
    \5\ The Order Entry Port Fee is a connectivity fee in connection
with routing orders to the Exchange via an external order entry
port. BX Options Market Participants access the Exchange's network
through order entry ports. A BX Options Market Participant may have
more than one order entry port.
    \6\ CTI offers real-time clearing trade updates. A real-time
clearing trade update is a message that is sent to a member after an
execution has occurred and contains trade details. The message
containing the trade details is also simultaneously sent to The
Options Clearing Corporation. The trade messages are routed to a
member's connection containing certain information. The
administrative and market event messages include, but are not
limited to: System event messages to communicate operational-related
events; options directory messages to relay basic option symbol and
contract information for options traded on the Exchange; complex
strategy messages to relay information for those strategies traded
on the Exchange; trading action messages to inform market
participants when a specific option or strategy is halted or
released for trading on the Exchange; and an indicator which
distinguishes electronic and non-electronically delivered orders.
    \7\ A BX Depth Port provides access to BX Depth, which is a data
feed that provides quotation information for individual orders on
the BX book, last sale information for trades executed on BX, and
Order Imbalance Information as set forth in BX Options Rules Chapter
VI, Section 8. BX Depth is the options equivalent of the BX
TotalView/ITCH data feed that BX offers under BX Rule 7023 with
respect to equities traded on BX. As with TotalView, members use BX
Depth to ``build'' their view of the BX book by adding individual
orders that appear on the feed, and subtracting individual orders
that are executed. See Chapter VI, Section 1(a)(3)(A).
    \8\ BX TOP Port is a data feed that provides the BX Best Bid and
Offer (``BBO'') and last sale information for trades executed on BX.
The BBO and last sale information are identical to the information
that BX sends to the Options Price Regulatory Authority (``OPRA'')
and which OPRA disseminates via the consolidated data feed for
options. BX TOP Port is the options equivalent of the BX Basic data
feed offered for equities under BX Rule 7047. See Chapter VI,
Section 1(a)(3)(B).
    \9\ The DROP interface provides real time information regarding
orders sent to the BX Options Market and executions that occurred on
the BX Options Market. The DROP interface is not a trading interface
and does not accept order messages.
    \10\ SQF is an interface that allows BX Market Makers to connect
and send quotes and sweeps into the System. Data includes the
following: (1) Options Auction Notifications (e.g., opening
imbalance, market exhaust, PRISM Auction information, or other
information); (2) Options Symbol Directory Messages; (3) System
Event Messages (e.g., start of messages, start of system hours,
start of quoting, start of opening); (4) Option Trading Action
Messages (e.g., halts, resumes); and (5) Quote Messages (quote/sweep
messages, risk protection triggers or purge notifications). An
Active Purge Port may be configured as a ``Purge-only'' port of
purging option interest from the Exchange's system and allowing
entry of underlying-level purges for a specified range of options
and delivery of Purge Notification messages identifying the
identification of who submitted the purge and the underlying symbol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ 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, by clearly specifying in Chapter XV, Section 3 that the
Exchange's pricing regarding ports and other services is not prorated.
The Exchange believes that its decision to not prorate is consistent
with the Act because prorating billing results in complexity and
increased costs associated with the billing process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange will uniformly
assess the fees in Chapter XV, Section 3 to all Options Participants in
a uniform manner.

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 Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \17\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\18\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed
rule change may become operative immediately. The Exchange requests
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay contained in Rule
19b-4(f)(6)(iii) so that the Exchange may implement the change upon
filing specifying that the fees in Chapter XV, Section 3 of the
Exchange's Options Pricing rule will not be prorated. The Commission
believes that adding the sentence to Chapter XV, Section 3 of the
Exchange's Options Pricing rule to state that fees are assessed in
full-month increments, i.e., they are not prorated, will avoid
confusion and thus serve to protect investors and the public interest.
For this reason, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative
delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \19\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change 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-BX-2017-015 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2017-015. 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-BX-2017-015 and
should be submitted on or before March 31, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-04725 Filed 3-9-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 210 (Wednesday, November 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60730-60732]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23920]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93444; File No. SR-BOX-2021-25]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Make Juneteenth
National Independence Day a Holiday of the Exchange

October 28, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 15, 2021, BOX Exchange LLC (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II, below, which Items have been
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 BOX Rule 7020(e) (Days and Hours of
Business) to make Juneteenth National Independence Day a holiday of the
Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the
principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference
Room and also on the Exchange's internet website at http://boxoptions.com.

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
    The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 7020(e) (Days and Hours of
Business) to make Juneteenth National Independence Day a holiday of the
Exchange. This is a filing that is based on a proposal recently
submitted by the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93183 (September 30,
2021), 86 FR 55068 (October 5, 2021) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness SR-NYSE-2021-56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 17, 2021, Juneteenth National Independence Day was
designated a legal public holiday.\4\ Consistent with broad industry
sentiment \5\ and the approach recommended by the Securities Industry
and Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''),\6\ the Exchange proposes
to add ``Juneteenth National Independence Day'' to the existing list of
holidays in BOX Rule 7020(e). As a result, the Exchange will not be
open for business on Juneteenth National Independence Day, which falls
on June 19 of each year. In accordance with BOX Rule 7020(e), when the
holiday falls on a Saturday, the Exchange will not be open for business
on the preceding Friday, and when it falls on a Sunday, the Exchange
will not be open for business on the succeeding Monday.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Public Law 117-17.
    \5\ See, e.g., https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-18/bofa-makes-juneteenth-a-holiday-joining-jpmorgan-wells-fargo?sref=Hhue1scO.
    \6\ SIFMA recommends a full market close in observance of
Juneteenth National Independence Day. See https://www.sifma.org/resources/general/holidayschedule/. See also https://www.sifma.org/resources/news/sifma-revises-2022-fixed-income-market-close-recommendations-in-the-u-s-to-include-full-close-forjuneteenth-national-independence-day/.
    \7\ See BOX Rule 7020(e). There is an exception to the practice
if unusual business conditions exist at the time. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\8\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in
particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, 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. In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect
investors and the public interest because the proposed amended rule
would clearly state that the Exchange will not be open for business on
Juneteenth National Independence Day, which is a federal holiday, and
would address what day would be taken off if June 19 fell on a Saturday
or Sunday. The change would thereby promote clarity and transparency in
the Exchange rules by updating the list of holidays of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard and as indicated
above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed in
response to a filing recently submitted by NYSE.\10\ The proposed
change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather to
amend the Exchange rule regarding holidays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra, note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\ thereunder.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not (i) significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has requested the Commission waive the standard five-
day pre-filing requirement. The Commission grants the waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule changed filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6),\16\ the Commission may designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the
Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may
become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that
waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest. The proposal raises no new or
novel issues. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative
delay and designates the proposed rule change operative upon
filing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2021-25 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2021-25. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2021-25 and should be submitted on
or before November 24, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-23920 Filed 11-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


ENERGY STAR® Partnership Agreement

For ENERGY STAR HVAC Quality Installation (QI) Program Partners

Mail this form to:

ENERGY STAR HVAC QI Program Manager

US EPA (Mail Code 6202J)

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington, DC  20460

Or	Fax this form to:

202-343-2200

Organization
Name:___________________________________________________________________
_________________

Address:________________________________________________City/State/Zip:_
________________________________

Telephone:_________________________ Fax:__________________________ Web
Site: ___________________________

Major Area(s) Served:
________________________________________________________________________
_________

Authorized Company/Organization Representative (printed name):
_____________________________________

Title: __________________________________________  E-mail:
________________________________________________

Signature:  ________________________________________________________
Date:  ____________________________

To be completed by U.S. EPA:

Kathleen Hogan; Director, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, US
Environmental Protection Agency

 Signature:  ________________________________________________________
Date:  __________________________

ENERGY STAR HVAC QI Program Goals

ENERGY STAR helps consumers, businesses, and public organizations
protect the environment through superior energy efficiency.

The ENERGY STAR HVAC QI program seeks to improve HVAC installation
practices to deliver greater energy efficiency and comfort to consumers
and to provide energy efficiency program strategies to utilities.

Note:

The ENERGY STAR HVAC QI Program is applicable to installations of
central air conditioning (CAC) systems and air-source heat pump (HP)
systems, with a rated capacity up to 65,000 BTU/H.

Program requirements may be used for replacement systems in existing
homes and for new construction.  Installation requirements for new
construction are more stringent than for replacement systems.

If the home has multiple zones that require multiple HVAC systems, each
system must be verified as a separate unit.

Although the ENERGY STAR HVAC QI Program does not require contractors to
install ENERGY STAR qualified equipment we strongly encourage program
partners to promote ENERGY STAR qualified equipment in tandem with
quality installation.

ENERGY STAR Commitments to Partners

Increase awareness of the ENERGY STAR HVAC Quality Installation Program
by distributing key messages on the benefits of proper installation
practices and verification.

Provide current ENERGY STAR news, information, and reference documents
(via the ENERGY STAR Web site, Hotline, e-mail or other means).

Provide ENERGY STAR partners with public recognition for their
involvement in ENERGY STAR.

Respond swiftly to any partner request for information or clarification
on ENERGY STAR policies.

For the purpose of this agreement the following terms are defined as
follows:

ANSI

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) facilitates the
development of American National Standards by accrediting the procedures
of standards developing organizations.  Accreditation by ANSI signifies
that the procedures used by the standards body in connection with the
development of American National Standards meet the Institute’s
essential requirements for openness, balance, consensus and due process.

ENERGY STAR HVAC QI Guidelines

Requirements for installations under the program must meet the ACCA HVAC
Quality Installation Specification standard or equivalent standard
approved by EPA.

Level 1 Verification

Level 1verification is a data review of Manual J calculations and
commissioning report, and does not include in-field verification.  The
data review will include confirming that all required installation
elements were performed using an approved method and check for data
inconsistencies

Level 2 Verification

Level 2 verification is an in-field verification of the installation
that follows established protocols.

Terms of the Agreement:

The following are the terms of the ENERGY STAR Partnership Agreement as
it pertains to ENERGY STAR HVAC Quality Installation (QI) Program
Partners.  The ENERGY STAR Partner under HVAC QI is defined as a program
sponsor who agrees to the following commitments, and is legally
independent from contractors performing installations and third-party
verifiers verifying installations under this program.

The ENERGY STAR Partner may issue an ENERGY STAR Quality Installation
Certificate for a central air conditioning (CAC) system or an air-source
heat pump (HP) system, with a rated capacity up to 65,000 BTU/H, if the
following criteria are met:

The participating contractor has signed a participation agreement with
the ENERGY STAR Partner implementing the program.

The participation agreement between the contractor and the ENERGY STAR
partner must include at a minimum:

Entry and training requirements

Installation requirements

Documentation requirements

Sampling and verification requirements

A conflict resolution process

A process for dismissal from the program if the terms of the
participation agreement are not adhered to

The CAC or HP system is installed by a technician working as or for a
state licensed contractor, where a license is required.

The CAC or HP system is verified to meet the ENERGY STAR HVAC QI
Guidelines by an eligible and qualified third party verifier.

The criteria for meeting the ENERGY STAR HVAC QI Guidelines are
established by:

The Air Conditioning Contractors of America’s (ACCA) HVAC Quality
Installation Specification or comparable ANSI-recognized, HVAC
specification related to the proper installation of residential and
commercial heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

To be considered eligible under the program the third party verifier
must:

Be an autonomous organization/individual with no financial or ownership
connections to the contractors participating in the program

Demonstrate knowledge and ability to verify each element of the ENERGY
STAR HVAC QI Guidelines

Terms of the Agreement (Continued):

Sampling Rates and Verification Protocols.

The program requires that all partners meet, at a minimum, the following
sampling rates on verifications, or offer an alternate verification
schedule for EPA approval.  All sites must receive a Level 1
verification:

Phase 1 - Level 2 verification protocols will be conducted on 3 of the
first 5 installations submitted by a new contractor participant.

Phase 2 – Level 2 verification protocols will be conducted on 20% of
the next 25 installation submittals.

Phase 3 – After successful completion of Phase 1 and 2 the partner may
use Level 2 verification protocols at a rate of 5%.

A contractor is not eligible to move to the next phase, or lower
sampling rate, until they can demonstrate to the Program Partner that
they are consistently meeting all program requirement and technical
standards.

If a contractor fails a Level 2 verification they will be required to
move to a phase with a higher verification sampling rate.

All of the installations submitted to the Partner under the program must
be verified using the sampling rates above.

All Installation must be verified using the verification protocols
outlined in the ENERGY STAR HVAC QI Program Plan document

The Partner has submitted a detailed implementation plan to EPA
describing how they will implement sections 1 through 4 of this
agreement.  The Partner may not proceed with the program until this plan
has been approved by EPA.

Other Partner requirements under this agreement:

Provide EPA, on a quarterly basis, market indicators to assist in
determining the effects of the program in promoting quality HVAC
installations.  EPA will only use the data for program evaluation
purposes.  The following data should be submitted in electronic format:

Number of participating contractors

Number of installations performed

Number of installations inspected

Number of installations failing verification

Number of certificates issued

Reasons for installation failures and the action that was taken to
resolve the problem

Adhere to the ENERGY STAR Identity Guidelines (available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.energystar.gov/marks"  www.energystar.gov/marks ) and ensure
that authorized representatives, such as advertising agencies also
comply.

Prior to use, submit all marketing materials developed for Partner’s
ENERGY STAR promotions to ENERGY STAR for review to ensure accuracy of
ENERGY STAR logo use and consistency of the ENERGY STAR message.
Partner will allow a minimum of five full working days for ENERGY STAR
to review and approve ENERGY STAR aspects of the marketing materials.

Notify EPA of a change in the designated responsible party or contacts
within 30 days.

General Terms and Disclaimers

The partner will not construe, claim or imply that its participation in
ENERGY STAR constitutes federal government approval, acceptance, or
endorsement of anything other than the partner’s commitment to ENERGY
STAR.  Partnership does not constitute federal government endorsement of
the partner or its services.

The partner understands that the activities it undertakes in connection
with ENERGY STAR are voluntary and not intended to provide services to
the federal government.  As such, the partner will not submit a claim
for compensation to any federal agency.

The partner and ENERGY STAR will assume good faith as a general
principle for resolving conflict and will seek to resolve all matters
informally, so as to preserve maximum public confidence in ENERGY STAR.

This agreement is voluntary and can be terminated by either party at any
time or any reason, with no penalty.

Failure to comply with any of the terms of this partnership agreement
can result in its termination and cessation of access to the benefits of
ENERGY STAR, including use of the marks.

ENERGY STAR will actively pursue resolution of noncompliance related to
the use of the ENERGY STAR marks.

           HVAC QI			    06/05/2008

OMB Control No. xxxx-xxxx

EPA Form 5900-183

The government estimates the average time needed to fill out this form
is 1.50 hours and welcomes suggestions for reducing this effort. Send
comments (referencing OMB Control Number) to the Director, Collection
Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
Washington, D.C. 20460.


I 1 APPENDIX I. UNUSED DATA Based on the requirements set forth in the guidelines ( Stephan et al. 1985), the following studies are not acceptable for the following reasons and are classified as unused data.

Studies Were Conducted with Species That Are Not Resident in North America Abalde et al. ( 1995)

Abel ( 1980) Ahsanullah and Ying ( 1995)

Ahsanullah et al. ( 1981)

Aoyama and Okamura ( 1984)

Austen and McEvoy ( 1997) Bougis ( 1965)

Cid et al. ( 1995, 1996a, b)

Collvin ( 1984)

Cosson and Martin ( 1981) Daly et al. ( 1990a, b, 1992)

Denton and Burdon Jones ( 1986)

Drbal et al. ( 1985)

Giudici and Migliore ( 1988) Giudici et al. ( 1987, 1988)

Gopal and Devi ( 1991)

Gustavson and Wangberg ( 1995)

Hameed and Raj ( 1989) Heslinga ( 1976)

Hori et al. ( 1996)

Huebner and Pynnonen ( 1992)

Ismail et al. ( 1990) Jana and Bandyopadhyaya ( 1987)

Jindal and Verma ( 1989)

Jones ( 1997) Kadioglu and Ozbay ( 1995)

Karbe ( 1972) Knauer et al. ( 1997)

Kulkarni ( 1983)

Kumar et al. ( 1985)

Lan and Chen ( 1991) Lee and Xu ( 1984)

Luderitz and Nicklisch ( 1989)

Majori and Petronio ( 1973)

Masuda and Boyd ( 1993) Mathew and Fernandez ( 1992)

Maund et al. ( 1992)

Migliore and Giudici ( 1988)

Mishra and Srivastava ( 1980) Negilski et al. ( 1981)

Nell and Chvojka ( 1992)

Neuhoff ( 1983)

Nias et al. ( 1993) Nonnotte et al. ( 1993)

Pant et al. ( 1980)

Paulij et al. ( 1990)

Peterson et al. ( 1996) Pistocchi et al. ( 1997)

Pynnonen ( 1995) Raj and Hameed ( 1991)

Rajkumar and Das ( 1991) Reeve et al. ( 1977)

Ruiz et al. ( 1994, 1996)

Saward et al. ( 1975)

Schafer et al. ( 1993) Smith et al. ( 1993)

Solbe and Cooper ( 1976)

Steeman Nielsen and Bruun Laursen ( 1976) Stephenson ( 1983)

Takamura et al. ( 1989)

Taylor et al. ( 1991, 1994)

Timmermans ( 1992) Timmermans et al. ( 1992)

Vardia et al. ( 1988)

Verriopoulos and Moraitou

Apostolopoulou ( 1982) Visviki and Rachlin ( 1991)

Weeks and Rainbow ( 1991)

White and Rainbow ( 1982)

Wong and Chang ( 1991) Wong et al. ( 1993)

Copper Was a Component of a Drilling Mud, Effluent, Mixture, Sediment, or Sludge Buckler et al. ( 1987)

Buckley ( 1994)

Clements et al. ( 1988)

de March ( 1988) Hollis et al. ( 1996)

Horne and Dunson ( 1995)

Hutchinson and Sprague ( 1987) Kraak et al. ( 1993 and 1994a, b)

Lowe ( 1988)

McNaught ( 1989)

Munkittrick and Dixon ( 1987) Pellegrini et al. ( 1993)

Roch and McCarter ( 1984a, b) Roch et al. ( 1986)

Sayer et al. ( 1991b)

Weis and Weis ( 1993)

Widdows and Johnson ( 1988) Wong et al. ( 1982) I 2 These Reviews Only Contain Data That Have Been Published Elsewhere Ankley et al. ( 1993)

Borgmann and Ralph ( 1984) Chapman et al. ( 1968)

Chen et al. ( 1997)

Christensen et al. ( 1983)

Dierickx and Brendael Rozen ( 1996) DiToro et al. ( 1991)

Eisler ( 1981)

Eisler et al. ( 1979)

Enserink et al. ( 1991) Felts and Heath ( 1984)

Gledhill et al. ( 1997) Handy ( 1996)

Hickey et al. ( 1991)

Janssen et al. ( 1994)

LeBlanc ( 1984) Lilius et al. ( 1994)

Meyer et al. ( 1987)

Ozoh ( 1992c) Peterson et al. ( 1996)

Phillips and Russo ( 1978) Phipps et al. ( 1995)

Spear and Pierce ( 1979b)

Starodub et al. ( 1987b)

Taylor et al. ( 1996) Thompson et al. ( 1972)

Toussaint et al. ( 1995)

No Interpretable Concentration, Time, Response Data, or Examined Only a Single Concentration Asztalos et al. ( 1990) Beaumont et al. ( 1995a, b)

Beckman and Zaugg ( 1988)

Bjerselius et al. ( 1993)

Carballo et al. ( 1995) Daoust et al. ( 1984)

De Boeck et al. ( 1995b, 1997)

Dick and Dixon ( 1985)

Felts and Heath ( 1984) Ferreira ( 1978)

Ferreira et al. ( 1979)

Hansen et al. ( 1993, 1996)

Heath ( 1987, 1991) Hughes and Nemcsok ( 1988)

Julliard et al. ( 1996) Koltes ( 1985) Kosalwat and Knight ( 1987)

Kuwabara ( 1986)

Lauren and McDonald ( 1985)

Leland ( 1983) Lett et al. ( 1976)

Miller and McKay ( 1982)

Mis and Bigaj ( 1997)

Nalewajko et al. ( 1997) Nemcsok et al. ( 1991)

Ozoh ( 1990)

Ozoh and Jacobson ( 1979)

Parrott and Sprague ( 1993) Pyatt and Dodd ( 1986)

Riches et al. ( 1996) Sayer ( 1991) Sayer et al. ( 1991a, b)

Schleuter et al. ( 1995, 1997)

Starcevic and Zielinski ( 1997)

Steele ( 1989) Taylor and Wilson ( 1994)

Viale and Calamari ( 1984)

Visviki and Rachlin ( 1994b)

Waiwood ( 1980) Webster and Gadd ( 1996)

Wilson and Taylor ( 1993a, b)

Winberg et al. ( 1992)

Wundram et al. ( 1996) Wurts and Perschbacher ( 1994)

No Useable Data on Copper Toxicity or Bioconcentration Cowgill et al. ( 1986)

de March ( 1979) Lehman and Mills ( 1994)

Lustigman ( 1986) Lustigman et al. ( 1985)

MacFarlane et al. ( 1986) van Hoof et al. ( 1994)

Weeks and Rainbow ( 1992) Wong et al. ( 1977)

Wren and McCarroll ( 1990) Zamuda et al. ( 1985)

Results Not Interpretable as Total or Dissolved Copper Brand et al. ( 1986)

MacFie et al. ( 1994) Riedel ( 1983)

Sanders and Jenkins ( 1984) Sanders and Martin ( 1994)

Sanders et al. ( 1995) Stearns and Sharp ( 1994)

Stoecker et al. ( 1986) Sunda et al. ( 1987)

Winberg et al. ( 1992) I 3 Some of these studies would be valuable if copper criteria were developed on the basis of cupric ion activity.

Organisms Were Selected, Adapted or Acclimated for Increased Resistance to Copper Fisher ( 1981)

Fisher and Fabris ( 1982)

Hall ( 1980)

Hall et al. ( 1989) Harrison and Lam ( 1983)

Harrison et al. ( 1983)

Lumoa et al. ( 1983)

Lumsden and Florence ( 1983) Munkittrick and Dixon ( 1989)

Myint and Tyler ( 1982)

Neuhoff ( 1983)

Parker ( 1984) Phelps et al. ( 1983)

Ray et al. ( 1981)

Sander ( 1982)

Scarfe et al. ( 1982) Schmidt ( 1978a, b)

Sheffrin et al. ( 1984)

Steele ( 1983b)

Takamura et al. ( 1989) Viarengo et al. ( 1981a, b)

Wood ( 1983)

Either the Materials, Methods, Measurements or Results Were Insufficiently Described Abbe ( 1982)

Alam and Maughan ( 1995)

Balasubrahmanyam et al. ( 1987)

Baudouin and Scoppa ( 1974) Belanager et al. ( 1991)

Benedeczky et al. ( 1991)

Benedetti et al. ( 1989)

Benhra et al. ( 1997) Bouquegneau and Martoja ( 1982)

Burton and Stemmer ( 1990)

Burton et al. ( 1992)

Cabejszek and Stasiak ( 1960) Cain and Luoma ( 1990)

Chapman ( 1975, 1982)

Cochrane et al. ( 1991)

Devi et al. ( 1991) Dirilgen and Inel ( 1994)

Dodge and Theis ( 1979)

Doucet and Maly ( 1990)

Dunbar et al. ( 1993) Durkina and Evtushenko ( 1991)

Enesco et al. ( 1989)

Erickson et al. ( 1997)

Evans ( 1980) Ferrando and Andreu ( 1993)

Finlayson and Ashuckian ( 1979)

Furmanska ( 1979) Gibbs et al. ( 1981)

Gordon et al. ( 1980)

Gould et al. ( 1986)

Govindarajan et al. ( 1993) Hayes et al. ( 1996)

Howard and Brown ( 1983)

Janssen et al. ( 1993)

Janssen and Persoone ( 1993) Kean et al. ( 1985)

Kentouri et al. ( 1993)

Kessler ( 1986)

Khangarot et al. ( 1987) Kobayashi ( 1996)

Kulkarni ( 1983)

Labat et al. ( 1977)

Lakatos et al. ( 1993) LeBlanc ( 1985)

Leland et al. ( 1988)

Mackey ( 1983)

Magni ( 1994) Martin et al. ( 1984)

Martincic et al. ( 1984)

McIntosh and Kevern ( 1974)

McKnight ( 1980) Moore and Winner ( 1989)

Muramoto ( 1980, 1982)

Nyholm and Damgaard ( 1990) Peterson et al. ( 1996)

Pophan and D'Auria ( 1981)

Reed Judkins et al. ( 1997)

Rehwoldt et al. ( 1973) Riches et al. ( 1996)

Sakaguchi et al. ( 1977)

Sanders et al. ( 1995)

Sayer ( 1991) Schultheis et al. ( 1997)

See et al. ( 1974)

Shcherban ( 1977)

Smith et al. ( 1981) Sorvari and Sillanpaa ( 1996)

Stearns and Sharp ( 1994)

Strong and Luoma ( 1981)

Sullivan and Ritacco ( 1988) Taylor ( 1978)

Taylor et al. ( 1994)

Thompson ( 1997)

Trucco et al. ( 1991) Verma et al. ( 1980)

Visviki and Rachlin ( 1994a)

Watling ( 1983)

Winner et al. ( 1990) Young and Harvey ( 1988, 1989)

Zhokhov ( 1986) I 4 Questionable Effect Levels Due to Graphical Presentation of Results Alliot and Frenet Piron ( 1990)

Andrew ( 1976)

Arsenault et al. ( 1993) Balasubrahmanyam et al. ( 1987)

Bjerselius et al. ( 1993)

Bodar et al. ( 1989)

Chen ( 1994) Cowgill and Milazzo ( 1991b)

Cvetkovic et al. ( 1991)

Dodoo et al. ( 1992)

Francisco et al. ( 1996) Gupta et al. ( 1985)

Hansen et al. ( 1996)

Hoare and Davenport ( 1994) Lauren and McDonald ( 1985)

Llanten and Greppin ( 1993)

Metaxas and Lewis ( 1991)

Michnowicz and Weeks ( 1984) Miersch et al. ( 1997)

Nasu et al. ( 1988)

Pearlmutter and Lembi ( 1986) Pekkala and Koopman ( 1987)

Peterson et al. ( 1984)

Romanenko and Yevtushenko ( 1985) Sanders et al. ( 1994)

Smith and Heath ( 1979)

Stokes and Hutchinson ( 1976)

Winner and Gauss ( 1986) Wong ( 1989)

Young and Lisk ( 1972)

Studies of Copper Complexation With No Useable Toxicology Data for Surface Waters Borgmann ( 1981)

Filbin and Hough ( 1979)

Frey et al. ( 1978)

Gillespie and Vaccaro ( 1978) Guy and Kean ( 1980) Jennett et al. ( 1982)

Maloney and Palmer ( 1956)

Nakajima et al. ( 1979)

Stauber and Florence ( 1987) Sunda and Lewis ( 1978) Swallow et al. ( 1978)

van den Berg et al. ( 1979)

Wagemann and Barica ( 1979)

Questionable Treatment of Test Organisms or Inappropriate Test Conditions or Methodology Arambasic et al. ( 1995)

Benhra et al. ( 1997)

Billard and Roubaud ( 1985) Bitton et al. ( 1995)

Brand et al. ( 1986)

Bringmann and Kuhn ( 1982)

Brkovic Popovic and Popovic ( 1977a, b)

Dirilgen and Inel ( 1994)

Folsom et al. ( 1986)

Foster et al. ( 1994) Gavis et al. ( 1981)

Guanzon et al. ( 1994)

Hawkins and Griffith ( 1982)

Ho and Zubkoff ( 1982) Hockett and Mount ( 1996)

Huebert et al. ( 1993)

Huilsom ( 1983) Jezierska and Slominska ( 1997)

Kapu and Schaeffer ( 1991)

Kessler ( 1986)

Khangarot and Ray ( 1987a) Khangarot et al. ( 1987)

Lee and Xu ( 1984)

Marek et al. ( 1991)

McLeese ( 1974) Mis et al. ( 1995)

Moore and Winner ( 1989)

Nasu et al. ( 1988) Ozoh and Jones ( 1990b)

Reed and Moffat ( 1983)

Rueter et al. ( 1981) Sayer et al. ( 1989)

Schenck ( 1984)

Shaner and Knight ( 1985)

Sullivan et al. ( 1983) Tomasik et al. ( 1995)

Watling ( 1981, 1982, 1983)

Wikfors and Ukeles ( 1982)

Wilson ( 1972) Wong and Chang ( 1991)

Wong ( 1992)

High control mortalities occurred in all except one test reported by Sauter et al. ( 1976). Control mortality exceeded 10% in one test by Mount and Norberg ( 1984). Pilgaard et al. ( 1994) studied interactions of copper and hypoxia, but failed to run a hypoxic control. Beaumont et al. ( 1995a, b) studied interactions of temperature, acid pH and copper, but never separated pH and copper effects. The 96 hour values reported by Buikema et al. ( 1974a, b) were subject to error because of possible reproductive interactions ( Buikema et al. 1977). I 5 Bioconcentration Studies Not Conducted Long Enough, Not Steady State, Not Flow through, or Water Concentrations Not Adequately Characterized or Measured Anderson and Spear ( 1980a) Felton et al. ( 1994)

Griffin et al. ( 1997)

Harrison et al. ( 1988)

Krantzberg ( 1989) Martincic et al. ( 1992) McConnell and Harrel ( 1995)

Miller et al. ( 1992)

Ozoh ( 1994)

Wright and Zamuda ( 1987) Xiaorong et al. ( 1997) Yan et al. ( 1989)

Young and Harvey ( 1988, 1989)

Zia and Alikhan ( 1989)

Anderson ( 1994), Anderson et al. ( 1994), Viarengo et al. ( 1993), and Zaroogian et al. ( 1992)

reported on in vitro exposure effects. Benedeczky et al. ( 1991) studied only effects of injected copper.

Ferrando et al. ( 1993b) studied population effects of copper and cladoceran predator on the rotifer prey,

but the data are difficult to interpret. A similar problem complicated use of the cladoceran competition study of LeBlanc ( 1985).