1 Summary of Meeting with the American Petroleum Institute Representatives Regarding the Combustion Turbine New Source Performance Standards April 7, 2005 Attendees Jaime Pagán, EPA ESD Combustion Group Sims Roy, EPA ESD Combustion Group Christian Fellner, EPA ESD Combustion Group Bob Wayland, EPA ESD Combustion Group Terry Harrison, EPA EMC Dick Karp, API Terry Twyman, API Randy Poteet, ConocoPhillips Jim Pfeiffer, BP Exploration John Klein, Rotor Therm Bob Morehouse, ExxonMobil Jennifer Snyder, AGTI by telephone: Clay Freeberg, ChevronTexaco John Cain, ChevronTexaco Bill Priebe, Exxon Mobil Erik Milito, API Stuart Sessions, Environomics Purpose of Meeting The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the key issues identified by the American Petroleum Institute ( API) regarding the proposed Combustion Turbine New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS). This list of key issues was provided in the agenda, and includes the following: applicability to various sized units, modification and reconstruction, NOx emission limit, SO 2 emission limit, NOx monitoring, SO 2 monitoring, and definitions.

Issues Discussed Applicability to Various Sized Units The API is concerned that turbines in the 1 to 3 megawatt ( MW) size range may not be able to comply with the proposed emission limitations. Dry low NOx ( DLN) technology may not be achievable for turbines in this size range. The API suggested moving the applicability threshold to 3 MW, because of the ability to apply DLN. They noted that not much information on these very small turbines is in the docket. They gave examples of the Solar Saturn, at 1.2 MW, with no DLN capability, and the Centaur 40, at 3.5 MW, as being the smallest turbine they know of with DLN capability. Jaime asked for specific emissions data from small turbines, to back up their position. Jim Pfeiffer stated that his group tested a Saturn last fall, used for gas compression, at one load point ( 70 or 80%), and he would look into providing that test report to the EPA.

Jaime asked if other manufacturers made turbines in this size range which would not be able to meet the limit. John Klein said he knew of no other manufacturer in this size range which would make turbines applicable to the gas transmission/ compression industry. In addition, the EPA brought up that Solar said that no new Saturns were sold in the US at this time. John said 2 that they had the ability to buy new Saturns.

Bob Wayland stated that the EPA by no means was trying to exclude any turbine manufacturers from the marketplace, but it was apparent that Solar had made no strides in reducing its emissions from these turbines over the last 10 years or so. He noted that the goal of the NSPS is to force improvement of emissions.

Sims pointed out that Capstone, a microturbine manufacturer, has a 0.5 MW turbine with a 9 ppm guarantee on their NOx emissions. John Klein stated that these turbines are for generators, and are not suitable for mechanical drive units due to their compression ratio.

John Klein stated that manufacturers' guarantees are often depended on when writing permit limits. Manufacturers base their guarantees on fuel type and location. Sims stated that when comparing actual data to manufacturer guarantees, the guarantees are higher than the actual emissions. He gave an example that GE used to have a guarantee of 30 ppm on CO emissions, with actual emissions under 1 ppm. When pressured, they lowered their guarantee to 10 ppm. Sims said that permit information would be good to examine in conjunction with actual emissions data. John stated that the main concern was the margin of compliance.

Bob Wayland went over the tentative schedule: late July or early August, 2005 for finalizing the rule, and May or June, 2005 for accepting data.

Modification and Reconstruction The API asked whether it was possible to not cover modified or reconstructed turbines in the NSPS. The EPA's response was that the provisions that cover the aspects of modification and reconstruction are in the General Provisions, and it is an aspect that must be covered by each NSPS. The API's concern is that some turbines which currently comply with subpart GG may trigger subpart KKKK through modification, and that they would have to go through extensive and expensive measures in order to comply. One example they gave was space limitations on offshore platforms; additional controls such as selective catalytic reduction ( SCR) or even the conversion to DLN ( which may incorporate larger control panels or the addition of fuel analyzers) may exceed the space limitations on these platforms. Arctic locations would have the same issues.

Even despite costs, the API stated that the achievability was an issue in itself. Old turbines with minor modifications which still trigger subpart KKKK may be able to meet the old subpart GG limits, but may never be able to get as low as a brand new turbine.

One question the API brought up was that a modification may be applicable to the sulfur part of the rule ( i. e., sulfur dioxide emissions increase), but not to the NOx portion. Would they then be subject to the entire subpart KKKK? The EPA acknowledged that this is an issue of concern that needs to be clarified in the rule. 3 NOx Emissions The primary concern of the API regarding NOx emissions is part load operations. In particular, they brought up the example of a mechanical drive application at a remote site in the oil and gas industry, that takes several years to come to full production. During the startup time, there is continuous drilling and thus the need for power; however, the turbines have been sized for full production, and during the first years of operation, electrical generators at these sites are often only partially loaded because the site has not yet geared up to full production. Ideally, these turbines are properly sized for full production, and the hope is that they will eventually run at full loads; however, sometimes, this is not the case, and the generators continue operation at substantially lower loads. Notwithstanding, even if the turbine is properly sized, when the production starts to decline, the turbines will run at lower loads than ideal. This leads to decreased efficiency, and thus a higher output based emission. When running at low loads, it is hard to keep SOLONOx running. Some applications have added load banks to increase the load artificially, so that SOLONOx would kick in; however, this does not make sense on a mass emissions basis.

Ambient temperature was another issue raised. Lean premix ( LPM) technology has difficulties in cold weather, and emissions for several manufacturers are not guaranteed below 0 degrees F. Winter temperatures on the North Slope in Alaska can average  18 degrees F, and can go down to  50 degrees F.

The API pointed out a North Slope turbine in the docket, a Solar Centaur 50, where they had graphed efficiency, load, and ppm. The EPA stated that they had also done some similar graphs, and acknowledged that efficiency at lower loads is an issue. The API suggested defining a load range where the limit is applicable. The EPA suggested more use of load banks. The API said this wouldn't be feasible with mechanical drive units. They added that this isn't an issue for GG units, since it requires testing at the maximum achievable load.

Bob Wayland asked for their suggestions. They gave the following alternatives: 1. A limitation on compliance ( only need to comply at or near full load). 2. Defer the performance test until LPM can be demonstrated. 3. Change the standard to a concentration basis, which would remove efficiency from the equation.

Regarding the second suggestion, the EPA asked the API to expand on their typical schedule from startup of the field drilling to the maximum achievable load. They gave an example of a 25 MW turbine, operating 10 MW in the first year, 15 MW in the second year, and 22 MW in the third year. Jaime said that one concern is that waiting 3 to 5 years before demonstrating compliance is not really feasible on the EPA's schedule. The API stated that the State of Alaska, when requiring the demonstration of BACT, would ask them to " project" emissions at full load, 4 using emission curves generated by the manufacturer, specific to the turbine model.

SO 2 Emission Limit The API stated that they have an issue with the proposed sulfur limit in subpart KKKK that is largely specific to Alaska. At this point, there are no restrictions on the sulfur levels on their existing fuels. To their knowledge, there are no 500 ppm sulfur fuels available, and there won't be until 2008. Alaska falls under an exemption from the OTAQ Federal requirements for low sulfur diesel fuel. In the next few years ( 2007), it is projected that a few plants will be producing 15 ppmw ( those that were exempted from the 500 ppmw rule are expected to catch up when the rest of the country meets their 15 ppm requirements.) Currently, however, the sulfur levels range between 1000 and 2500 ppm. The API requested that the EPA delay the SO 2 emission limitation for Alaska until January of 2008.

NOx Monitoring The API believes that the EPA's cost estimates of $ 4,000 to $ 7,000 for annual source testing ( one and two fuels, respectively) is an underestimate. In their experience, $ 15 20,000 is more accurate, and this number only reflects the test itself. They believe there should be an additional cost considered that of administrative expenses, downtime, and production impacts. John Klein added that somewhere in the docket or preamble he believes there's a mistake; that instead of using the $ 4,000 or $ 7,000 multiplier, the EPA used $ 1,000 inadvertently. By his estimates, the total for performance costs would be more on the order of $ 8 million. He stated that these numbers would be more detailed in the formal written comments, to be submitted during the comment period for the proposed rule.

The EPA suggested that the API come up with some alternatives that would be suitable to them to reduce costs. One option would be to reduce the frequency of compliance demonstration if compliance is shown consistently year to year.

Another issue raised was the requirement for 4 parameters to monitor when setting up parametric monitoring with a diffusion flame turbine. The API felt that there may not always be 4 parameters that are valid to monitor in order to determine proper operation, and that when writing a monitoring plan, the operator should be allowed to explain what is needed to demonstrate compliance, and should be able to determine his own number of parameters to monitor in order to achieve this. They suggested that the EPA specify a relative accuracy to meet, rather than a specific number of parameters.

SO 2 Monitoring The API requested that some additional test methods for sulfur and sulfur dioxide monitoring be included in subpart KKKK. Terry Harrison of the Emission Measurement Center of EPA suggested that copies of the methods be sent, so that the EPA could review and 5 potentially approve these methods. In addition, they felt that the cutoff for allowing no daily testing of 300 ppm was unreasonable. They asked why, for example, a 350 ppm S fuel might not be exempt as well, as long as there were a sufficient confidence interval ( i. e. 99%). The EPA pointed out that alternative monitoring schedules are included in the rule. They also pointed out that most of their tariff sheets specify 20 grains per 100 scf, which is the equivalent of 680 ppm. It was also noted that other tariff sheets offer 5, 10 and 15 grains per 100 scf.

Definitions According to the API, the definitions given in the proposed subpart KKKK for base load and peak load are confusing, and do not agree with standard industry definitions. Gas Turbine World cites " base load" when specifying the ratings of simple cycle turbines, which is essentially the same as " continuous load," according to the API. For peaking turbines, which do not have to hold a load consistently, and thus can handle more stressed intense conditions for a short amount of time, the specified " peak load" allows the turbine to operate at a higher power level than the base load rating. The API suggested that the EPA change these definitions in order to be consistent with those used in standard industry practice.

The definition of " excess emissions" also was a point of contention. The API believes that this term is confusing, since other rules refer to these as " excursions," to avoid the implication that any " excess emission" is a period of non compliance. They would like to see the term " excess emission" refer to only a point in time where emissions are greater than those allowed by emission limitations, rather than including periods when monitored parameters are outside their range. The EPA pointed out that an " excess emission" is not necessarily a violation or a period of non compliance, and that it is merely terminology. The API stated that in other rules, such as the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing ( MON) MACT, the term " excess emissions" was restricted to only " emissions greater than those allowed by the emission limit."


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21772-21773]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8728]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9658-4]

Notice of Proposed Administrative Cashout Agreement Pursuant to
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act; RE: Hassan Barrel Company

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative
settlement, subject to review and comment by the public pursuant to
this Notice, under CERCLA concerning the Hassan Barrel Superfund Site
(``Site'') in Fort Wayne,

Allen County, Indiana. The settlement resolves a United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claim under Sections 106, 107(a),
and 122 of CERCLA, against two parties who have executed binding
certifications of their consent to the settlement, as listed below in
the Supplemental Information Section.
    The settlement requires the settling party to pay a total of
$25,000 to the EPA Hazardous Substances Superfund. The settlement
includes a covenant not to sue the settling party pursuant to Section
107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a). For thirty (30) days following the
date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written
comments relating to the settlement. The Agency will consider all
comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the
settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which
indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for
public inspection at the EPA, Region 5, 7th Floor File Room, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 11, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection
at the EPA, Region 5, 7th Floor File Room, 77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois. In addition, a copy of the proposed settlement also
may be obtained from Nola M. Hicks, Associate Regional Counsel (C-14J),
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590, or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments should reference the Hassan Barrel
Site, Wayne County, Indiana and EPA Docket No. V=W=11-C-991 and should
be addressed to Nola M. Hicks, Associate Regional Counsel (C-14J),
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The party listed below has executed a
binding certification of his consent to participate in the settlement.

Alan D. Hersh
Hassan Barrel Company.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nola M. Hicks, Associate Regional
Counsel (C-14J), Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois,
60604, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Authority: The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act, of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  9604,
9606(a), 9607, and 9622, as amended.

     Dated: March 22, 2012.
 Richard C. Karl,
Director, Superfund Division, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2012-8728 Filed 4-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 65 (Thursday, April 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 13339]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06520]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85461; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2019-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the Bitwise
Bitcoin ETF Trust Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E

March 29, 2019.
    On January 28, 2019, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade
shares of the Bitwise Bitcoin ETF Trust under NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on February 15, 2019.\3\ As of March 28, 2019, the Commission
has received 21 comment letters on the proposed rule change.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85093 (Feb. 11,
2019), 84 FR 4589 (Feb. 15, 2019).
    \4\ Comments on the proposed rule change can be found at:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2019-01/srnysearca201901.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is April 1, 2019. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\6\ designates May
16, 2019 as the date by which the Commission shall either approve or
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSEArca-2019-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-06520 Filed 4-3-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water EPA 823 B94 005a ( 4305) August 1994 Water Quality Standards Handbook:

Second Edition Contains Update # 1 August 1994 " . . . to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters."

Section 101( a) of the Clean Water Act WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK SECOND EDITION Water Quality Standards Branch Office of Science and Technology U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 September 1993 Contains update # 1 August 1994 READER RESPONSE CARD The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is trying hard to be responsive to the needs of our customers. We would appreciate knowing if this document has been helpful to you. Please take a minute to complete and return thrs postage paid evaluatron . form to us so that we can better serve you.

1. HOW helpful was the informntioo contained in this publication? Circle one number: l........ 2 . 3 ._...... 4.

Somewhat Qlutr 2. Does the publication discuss tbe subject to your satisfaction? ( ) Ya ( INo 3. Is the level of detail appropriate for your use? ( ) Yes ( ) No 4. How clearly is the publication written or the material presented? Crrclc one number: l........ 2 . . . . . . . . 3... . . . 4.

Unclear About nght 5. How effectrve are the graphics and illustrations? Circle one number: 1 . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . 5 Ineffective Qurte Very . . . 5 "( 3,

5 Very 6. What is your affiliation? Check one:

( ) Local government representative ( ) Attorney or legal reprrxentative ( ) Academa: Cmle one: Studenl * InsfruUctkx ( ) State government representative ( ) Environmental group L. evel: Elementary School ( ) Federal government representative ( ) Private citizen Juruor Hugh or Muklle School ( ) Consultant ( ) Trade or industnal association High School ( ) Other: University 7. Do you have soy suggestions for improving this publication?

8. UPDATES, If you would like to be added to the mailing list to receive updates of this puhlicatlon. please ihtxk here _ I and tell us who you are by completing box Xl0 below.

9. CATALOG OF DOCUMJZNTS. The Oftice of Science and Technology. Office of Water, IS rrsponsrhle for rlevcl0pmy standards, criteria, and advisonls that relate to water quality and public drinkrng water supplies, anj for devzlopmg effluent guidelines, limitations and standards for industries discharging directly to surface water or indrrectly to puhl~ cly OunlJ wastewater treatment plants. If you WOUIJ lrke to receive a copy of the Catalog of OST Publications which lists all dmumrnts related to 1he. w topics and mcludes information on how you may obtain copies of th, em. please check here j _ I and ~ mplztr h> x # IO helow.

10. Your Name:

Address:

Plese fold and either shple or tape this form so that the address is visible on the back and mail 11 to us. Thanks for your acs~ stance.

THIS RESPONSE CARD FOR EPA DOCUMENT NUMBER: EPA 823 B 94 005 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Resource Center ( RC 4100) 401 M Street, SW. Washington, DC 20460 Table of Contents FOREWORD Dear Colleague:

The following document entitled Water Quality Standards Handbook  Second Edition provides guidance issued in support of the Water Quality Standards Regulation ( 40 CFR 131, as amended). This Handbook includes the operative provisions of the first volume of the Handbook issued in 1983 and incorporates subsequent guidance issued since 1983. The 1993 Handbook contains only final guidance previously issued by EPA  it contains no new guidance.

Since the 1983 Handbook has not been updated in ten years, we hope that this edition will prove valuable by pulling together current program guidance and providing a coherent document as a foundation for State and Tribal water quality standards programs. The Handbook also presents some of the evolving program concepts designed to reduce human and ecological risks, such as endangered species protection; criteria to protect wildlife. wetlands. and sediment quality; biological criteria to better define desired biological communities in aquatic ecosystems; and nutrient criteria.

This Handbook is intended to serve as a " living document," subject to future revisions as the water quality standards program moves forward, and to reflect the needs and experiences of EPA and the States. To this end, the Handbook is published in a loose leaf format designed to be placed in three ring binders. This copy of the Handbook includes updated material for 1994 ( see Appendix X), and EPA anticipates publishing additional changes periodically and providing them to Handbook recipients. To ensure that you will receive these updates, please copy the reader response card in Appendix W and mail it to the address on the reverse.

The handbook also contains a listing, by title and date, of the guidance issued since the Handbook was first published in 1983 that is incorporated in the Second Edition. Copies of these documents are available upon request.

The Water Quality Standards Handbook  Second Edition provides guidance on the national water quality standards program. EPA regional offices and States may have additional guidance that provides more detail on selected topics of regional interest. For information on regional or State guidance, contact the appropriate regional water quality standards coordinator listed in Appendix U.

EPA invites participation from interested parties in the water quality standards program, and appreciates questions on this guidance as well as suggestions and comments for improvement. Questions or comments may be directed to the EPA regional water quality standards coordinators or to:

David Sabock, Chief U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality Standards Branch ( 4305) 401 M Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20460 Telephone ( 202) 475 7315 Betsy Southerland, Acting Director Standards and Applied Science Division ( 8/ 15/ 94) III Water Quality Standards Handbook  Second Edition Note to the Reader The Water Quality Standards Handbook, first issued in 1983, is a compilation of EPA's guidance on the water quality standards program and provides direction for States in reviewing, revising and implementing water quality standards. The Water Quality Standards Handbook  Second Edition retains all the guidance in the 1983 Handbook unless such guidance was specifically revised in subsequent years. An annotated list of the major guidance and policy documents on the water quality standards program issued since 1983 is included in the Introduction and material added to the Second Edition by periodic updates since 1993 is summarized in Appendix X. Material in the Handbook contains only guidance previously issued by EPA; it contains no new guidance.

The guidance contained in each of the documents listed in the Introduction is either:

1) incorporated in its entirety, or summarized, in the text of the appropriate section of this Handbook, or 2) attached as an appendix ( see Table of Contents). If there is uncertainty or perceived inconsistency on any of the guidance incorporated into this Handbook, the reader is directed to review the original guidance documents or call the Water Quality Standards Branch at ( 202) 260 1315. Copies of all original guidance documents not attached as appendices may be obtained from the source listed for each document in the Reference section of this Handbook.

Limited free copies of this Handbook may be obtained from:

Office of Water Resource Center, RC 4100 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S. W. Washington, DC 20460 Telephone: ( 202) 260 7786 ( voice mail publication request line)

Copies may also be obtained from:

Education Resource Information Center/ Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education ( ERIC) 1929 Kenny Road Columbus, OH 43210 1080 ( Telephone: 614 292 6717) ( VISA, Mastercard and purchase order numbers from schools and businesses accepted)

U. S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service ( NTIS) 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 ( Telephone: 1 800 553 6847) ( American Express, VISA and Mastercard accepted)

Robert S. Shippen Editor iv ( 8115194) Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Note to the Reader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GLOSS 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INT 1 History of the Water Quality Standards Program ....................... INT 1 Handbook Changes Since 1983 ................................. INT 5 Overview of the Water Quality Standards Program ..................... INT 8 The Role of WQS in the Water Quality Management Program .............. INT 13 Future Program Directions ................................... INT 14 Chapter 1  General Provisions ( 40 CFR 131  Subpart A)

1.1 Scope 40 CFR 131.1 .................................... 1 1 1.2 Purpose  40 CFR 131.2 ................................... 1 1 1.3 Definitions  40 CFR 131.3 ................................. 1 1 1.4 State Authority  40 CFR 131.4 .............................. 1 2 1.5 EPA Authority  40 CFR 131.5. .............................. 1 3 1.6 Requirements for Water Quality Standards Submission  40 CFR 131.6 ...... 1 4 1.7 Dispute ResoIution Mechanism  40 CFR 131.7 ..................... 1 4 1.8 Requirements for Indian Tribes To Qualify for the WQS Program  40 CFR 131.8 . . ........................................... 1 9 1.9 Adoption of Standards for Indian Reservation Waters ................ 1 18 Endnotes ................................................ 1 21 Chapter 2  Designation of Uses ( 40 CFR 131.10)

2.1 Use Classification  40 CFR 131.10( a) .......................... 2 1 2.2 Consider Downstream Uses  40 CFR 131.10( b) .................... 2 4 2.3 Use Subcategories  40 CFR 131.10( c) .......................... 2 5 2.4 Attainability of Uses . 40 CFR 131.10( d) ......................... 2 5 2.5 Public Hearing for Changing Uses  40 CFR 131.10( e) ................ 2 6 2.6 Seasonal Uses  40 CFR 131.10( f) ............................. 2 6 2.7 Removal of Designated Uses  40 CFR 131.10( g) and ( h) .............. 2 6 2.8 Revising Uses to Reflect Actual Attainment  40 CFR 131.10( i) ........... 2 8 2.9 Use Attainability Analyses  40 CFR 131.10( j) and ( k) ................ 2 9 ( 8/ 15/ 94) v Chapter 3  Water Quality Criteria ( 40 CFR 131.11)

3.1 EPA Section 304( a) Guidance ..................... 32 Relationship of Section 304( a) Criteria to State Designated Uses .........

3.3 State Criteria Requirements ...................... 3.4 Criteria for Toxicants ..........................

3.5 Forms of Criteria ............................

3.6 Policy on Aquatic Life Metals Criteria ...............

3.7 Site Specific Aquatic Life Criteria .................. Endnotes ......................................

Chapter 4  Antidegradation ( 40 CFR 131.12) 3 1 3 10 3 12 3 13 3 23 3 34 3 38 3 45 4.7 4.8 History of Antidegradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 Summary of the Antidegradation Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 State Antidegradation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 Protection of Existing Uses  40 CFR 131.12( a)( 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 Protection of Water Quality in High Quality Waters  40 CFR 131.12( a)( 2) . . . . 4 6 Applicability of Water Quality Standards to Nonpoint Sources Versus Enforceability of Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9 Outstanding National Resource: Waters ( ONRW)  40 CFR 131.12( a)( 3) . . . . 4 10 Antidegradation Application and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 10 Chapter 5  General Policies ( 40 CFR 131.13)

5.1 Mixing Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Critical Low Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.3 Variances From Water Quality Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 6  Procedures for Review and Revision of Water Quality Standards ( 40 CFR 131 Subpart C)

6.1 State Review and Revision ............................ 6.2 EPA Review and Approval ........................... 6.3 EPA Promulgation ...............................

Chapter 7  The Water Quality based Approach to Pollution Control 7.1 Determine Protection Level ........................ 7.2 Conduct Water Quality Assessment ................... 7.3 Establish Priorities ............................. 7.4 Evaluate Water Quality Standards for Targeted Waters .............

7.5 Define and Allocate Control Responsibilities ..............

7.6 Establish Source Controls ........................ 7.7 Monitor and Enforce Compliance ................... 7.8 Measure Progress ................................ 5 1 5 9 5 11 6 1 6 8 6 13 7 2 7 3 7 5 7 6 7 7 7 8 7 12 7 13 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REF 1 vi ( 8/ 15/ 94) Table of Contents Appendices:

A Water Quality Standards Regulation  40 CFR 131.

B Chronological Summary of Federal Water Quality Standards Promulgation Actions.

C Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters, April 1990.

D National Guidance: Water Quality Standards for Wetlands, July 1990.

E An Approach for Evaluating Numeric Water Quality Criteria for Wetlands Protection, July 1991.

F Coordination Between the Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service Regarding Development of Water Quality Criteria and Water Quality Standards Under the Clean Water Act, July 1992.

G  Questions and Answers on: Antidegradation, August 1985.

H Derivation of the 1985 Aquatic Life Criteria.

I List of EPA Water Quality Criteria Documents.

J Attachments to Office of Water Policy and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria, October 1993.

K Procedures for the Initiation of Narrative, Biological Criteria, October 1992.

L Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water Effect Ratios for Metals, February 1994.

M Reserved.

N IRIS [ Integrated Risk Information System/ Background Paper.

O Reserved.

P List of 126 Section 307( a) Priority Toxic Pollutants.

Q Wetlands and 401 Certification: Opportunities and Guidelines for States and Eligible Indian Tribes  April 1989.

R Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and Criteria in the Water Quality Program, May 1991.

S Reserved.

T Use Attainability Analysis Case Studies.

( 8/ 15/ 94) vii Water Quality Standards Handbook  Second Edition U List of EPA Regional Water Quality Standards Coordinators.

V Water Quality Standards Program Document Request Forms.

W Update Request Form for Wafer Quality Standards Handbook  Second Edition.

X Summary of Updates viii ( 8/ 15/ 94) GLOSSARY WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK SECOND EDITION Glossary GLOSSARY The " Act" refers to the Clean Water Act ( Public Law 92 500, as amended ( 33 USC 1251, et. seq. ) ( 40 CFR 131.3.)

" Acute" refers to a stimulus severe enough to rapidly induce an effect; in aquatic toxicity tests, an effect observed in 96 hours or less is typically considered acute. When referring to aquatic toxicology or human health, an acute affect is not always measured in terms of lethality ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Acute chronic ratio" ( ACR) is the ratio of the acute toxicity of an effluent or a toxic ant to its chronic toxicity. It is used as a factor for estimating chronic toxicity on the basis of acute toxicity data, or for estimating acute toxicity on the basis of chronic toxicity data ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Acutely toxic conditions" are those acutely toxic to aquatic organisms following their short term exposure within an affected area ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Additivity" is the characteristic property of a mixture of toxicants that exhibits a total toxic effect equal to the arithmetic sum of the effects of the individual toxicants ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Ambient toxicity" is measured by a toxicity test on a sample collected from a water body ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Antagonism" is the characteristic property of a mixture of toxicants that exhibits a less than additive total toxic effect ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Aquatic community" is an association of interacting populations of aquatic organisms in a given water body or habitat ( USEPA, 1990; USEPA, 1991a.)

" Averaging period" is the period of time over which the receiving water concentration is averaged for comparison with criteria concentrations. This specification limits the duration of concentrations above the criteria ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Bioaccumulation" is the process by which a compound is taken up by an aquatic organism, both from water and through food ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Bioaccumulation factor" ( BAF) is the ratio of a substance's concentration in tissue versus its concentration in ambient water, in situations where the organism and the food chain are exposed ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Bioassay" is a test used to evaluate the relative potency of a chemical or a mixture of chemicals by comparing its effect on a living organism with the effect of a standard preparation on the same type of organism. Bioassays are frequently used in the pharmaceutical industry to evaluate the potency of vitamins and drugs ( USEPA, 1991a.)

( 9/ 15/ 93) GLOSS 1 Water Quality Standards Handbook  Second Edition " Bioavailability" is a measure of the physicochemical access that a toxicant has to the biological processes of an organism. The less the bioavailability of a toxicant, the less its toxic effect on an organism ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Bioconcentration" is the process by which a compound is absorbed from water through gills or epithelial tissues and is concentrated in the body ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Bioconcentration factor" ( BCF) is the ratio of a substance's concentration in tissue versus its concentration in water, in situations where the food chain is not exposed or contaminated. For non metabolized substances, it represents equilibrium partitioning between water and organisms ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Biological criteria" are narrative expressions or numeric values of the biological characteristics of aquatic communities based on appropriate reference conditions. As such, biological criteria Serve as an index of aquatic community health. It is also known as biocriteria ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Biological integrity" is the condition of the aquatic community inhabiting unimpaired water bodies of a specified habitat as measured by community structure and function ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Biological monitoring" describes the use of living organisms in water quality surveillance to indicate compliance with water quality standards or effluent limits and to document water quality trends. Methods of biological monitoring may include, but are not limited to, toxicity testing ( such as ambient toxicity testing or whole effluent toxicity testing) and biological surveys. It is also known as biomonitoring ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Biological survey or biosurvey" is collecting, processing, and analyzing a representative portion of the resident aquatic community to determine its structural and/ or functional characteristics ( USEPA. 1991a.)

" Biomagnification" is the process by which the concentration of a compound increases in species occupying successive trophic levels ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Cancer potency slope factor" ( q1*) is an indication of a chemical's human cancer causing potential derived using animal studies or epidemiological data on human exposure; based on extrapolation of high dose levels over short periods of time to low dose levels and a lifetime exposure period through the use of a linear model ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Chronic" defines a stimulus that lingers or continues for a relatively long period of time, often one tenth of the life span or more. Chronic should be considered a relative term depending on the life span of an organism. The measurement of a chronic effect can be reduced growth, reduced reproduction, etc., in addition to lethality ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Community component" is a general term that may pertain to the biotic guild ( fish, invertebrates,

algae), the taxonomic category ( order, family, genus, species), the feeding strategy ( herbivore, omnivore, predator), or the organizational level ( individual, population, assemblage) of a biological entity within the aquatic community ( USEPA, 1991a.)

GLOSS 2 ( 9/ 15/ 93) Glossan " Completely mixed condition" is defined as no measurable difference in the concentration of a pollutant exists across a transect of the water body ( e. g., does not vary by 5%) ( LJSITA. 1991a.)

" Criteria" are elements of State water quality standards, expressed as constituent concentrations, levels, or narrative statements, representing a quality of water that supports a particular use. When criteria are met, water quality will generally protect the designated use ( 40 CFR 131.3.)

" Criteria continuous concentration" ( CCC) is the EPA national water quality criteria recommendation for the highest instream concentration of a toxicant or an effluent to which organisms can be exposed indefinitely without causing unacceptable effect ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Criteria maximum concentration" ( CMC) is the EPA national water quality criteria recommendation for the highest instream concentration of a toxicant or an effluent to which organisms can be exposed for a brief period of time without causing an acute effect ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Critical life stage" is the period of time in an organism's lifespan in which it is the most susceptible to adverse effects caused by exposure to toxicants, usually during early development ( egg, embryo, larvae). Chronic toxicity tests are often run on critical life stages to replace long duration, life cycle tests since the most toxic effect usually occurs during the critical life stage ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Critical species" is a species that is commercially or recreationally important at the site, a species that exists at the site and is listed as threatened or endangered under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act, or a species for which there is evidence that the loss of the species from the site is likely to cause an unacceptable impact on a commercially or recreationally important species, a threatened or endangered species, the abundances of a variety of other species, or the structure or function of the community ( USEPA, 1994a.)

" Design flow" is the flow used for steady state waste load allocation modeling ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Designated uses" are those uses specified in water quality standards for each water body or segment whether or not they are being attained ( 40 CFR 13 1.3.)

" Discharge length scale" is the square root of the cross sectional area of any discharge outlet ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Diversity" is the number and abundance of biological taxa in a specified location ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Effective concentration" ( EC) is a point estimate of the toxicant concentration that would cause an observable adverse effect ( such as death, immobilization, or serious incapacitation) in a given percentage of the test organisms ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Existing uses" are those uses actually attained in the water body on or after November 28, 1975, whether or not they are included in the water quality standards ( 40 CFR 13 1.3.)

( 8/ 15/ 94) GLOSS 3 Water Quality Standards Handbook  Second Edition " Federal Indian Reservation, " " Indian Reservation," or " Reservation" is defined as all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including rights of way running through the reservation ( 40 CFR 131.3.)

" Final acute value" ( FAV) is an estimate of the concentration of the toxicant corresponding to a cumulative probability of 0.05 in the acute toxicity values for all genera for which acceptable acute tests have been conducted on the toxicant ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Frequency" is how often criteria can be exceeded without unacceptably affecting the community ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Harmonic mean flow" is the number of daily flow measurements divided by the sum of the reciprocals of the flows. That is, it is the reciprocal of the mean of reciprocals ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Indian Tribe" or " Tribe" describes any Indian Tribe, band, group, or community recognized by the Secretary of the Interior and exercising governmental authority over a Federal Indian reservation ( 40 CFR 131.3.)

" Inhibition concentration" ( IC) is a point estimate of the toxicant concentration that would cause a given percent reduction ( e. g., IC25) in a non lethal biological measurement of the test organisms, such as reproduction or growth ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Lethal concentration" is the point estimate of the toxicant concentration that would be lethal to a given percentage of the test organisms during a specified period ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Lipophilic" is a high affinity for lipids ( fats) ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Load allocations" ( LA) the portion of a receiving water TMDL that is attributed either lo one of its existing or future nonpoint sources of pollution or to natural background sources ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Lowest observed adverse effect level" ( LOAEL) is the lowest concentration of an effluent or toxicant that results in statistically significant adverse health effects as observed in chronic or subchronic human epidemiology studies or animal exposure ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Magnitude" is how much of a pollutant ( or pollutant parameter such as toxicity), expressed as a concentration or toxic unit is allowable ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Minimum level" ( ML) refers to the level at which the entire analytical system gives recognizable mass spectra and acceptable calibration points when analyzing for pollutants of concern. This level corresponds to the lowest point at which the calibration curve is determined ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Mixing zone" is an area where an effluent discharge undergoes initial dilution and is extended to cover the secondary mixing in the ambient water body. A mixing zone is an allocated impact zone where water quality criteria can be exceeded as long as acutely toxic conditions are prevented ( USEPA, 1991a.)

GLOSS 4 ( 8/ 15/ 94) Glossary " Navigable waters" refer to the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas ( 33 USC 1362.)

" No observed adverse effect level" ( TVOAEL) is a tested dose of an effluent or a toxicant below which no adverse biological effects are observed, as identified from chronic or subchronic human epidemiology studies or animal exposure studies ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" No observed effect concentration" ( NOEC) is the highest tested concentration of an effluent or a toxicant at which no adverse effects are observed on the aquatic test organisms at a specific time of observation. Determined using hypothesis testing ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Nonthreshotd effects" are associated with exposure to chemicals that have no safe exposure levels. ( i. e., cancer) ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Persistent pollutant" is not subject to decay, degradation, transformation, volatilization, hydrolysis, or photolysis ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Pollution" is defined as the man made or man induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological and radiological integrity of water ( 33 USC 1362.)

" Priority po1Mant. s" are those pollutants listed by the Administrator under section 307( a) of the Act ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Reference ambient concentration" ( RAC) is the concentration of a chemical in water which will not cause adverse impacts to human health; RAC is expressed in units of mg/ l ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Reference conditions" describe the characteristics of water body segments least impaired by human activities. As such, reference conditions can be used to describe attainable biological or habitat conditions for water body segments with common watershed/ catchment characteristics within defined geographical regions.

" Reference tissue concentration" ( RTC) is the concentration of a chemical in edible fish or shellfish tissue which will not cause adverse impacts to human health when ingested. RTC is expressed in units of mg/ kg ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Reference dose" ( Rfl)) is an estimate of the daily exposure to human population that is likely to be without appreciable risk of deleterious effect during a lifetime; derived from NOAEL or LOAEL ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Section 304( a) criteria" are developed by EPA under authority of section 304( a) of the Act based on the latest scientific information on the relationship that the effect of a constituent concentration has on particular aquatic species and/ or human health. This information is issued periodically to the States as guidance for use in developing criteria ( 40 CFR 131.3.)

" Site specific aquatic life criterion" is a water quality criterion for aquatic life that has been derived to be specifically appropriate to the water quality characteristics and/ or species composition at a particular location ( USEPA, 1994a.)

( 8/ 15/ 94) GLOSS S ater Quality Standards Handbook  Second Edition " States" include: the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Indian Tribes that EPA determines qualify for treatment as States for the purposes of water quality standards ( 40 CFR 13 1.3.)

" Steady state model" is a fate and transport model that uses constant values of input variables to predict constant values of receiving water quality concentrations ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" STORET" is EPA's computerized water quality database that includes physical, chemical, and biological data measured in water bodies throughout the United States ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Sublethal" refers to a stimulus below the level that causes death ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Synergism" is the characteristic property of a mixture of toxicants that exhibits a greater than additive total toxic effect ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Threshold effects" result from chemicals that have a safe level ( i. e.. acute, subacute, or chronic human health effects) ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Total maximum daily load" ( TMDL) is the sum of the individual waste load allocations ( WLAs) and load allocations ( LAS); a margin of safety is included with the two types of allocations so that any additional loading, regardless of source, would not produce a violation of water quality standards ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Toxicity test" is a procedure to determine the toxicity of a chemical or an effluent using living organisms. A toxicity test measures the degree of effect on exposed test organisms of a specific chemical or effluent ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Toxic pollutant" refers to those pollutants, or combination of pollutants, including disease causing agents, which after discharge and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation into any organism. either directly from the environment or indirectly by ingestion through food chains, will. or on the basis of information available to the administrator, cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological malfunctions ( including malfunctions in reproduction) or physical deformations, in such organisms or their offspring ( 33 llSC section 1362.)

" Toxic units" ( TUs) are a measure of toxicity in an effluent as determined by the acute toxicity units ( T1' a) or chronic toxicity units ( TUc) measured ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Toxic unit acute" ( TUa) is the reciprocal of the effluent concentration that causes 50 percent of the organisms to die by the end of the acute exposure period ( i. e., lOO/ LC& ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Toxic unit chronic" ( TUc) is the reciprocal of the effluent concentration that causes no observable effect on the test organisms by the end of the chronic exposure period ( i. e., lOO/ NOEC) ( ITSEPA. 1991a.)

GLOSS 6 ( 8/ 15/ 94) Glossay " Use attainability analysis" ( UAA) is a structured scientific assessment of the factors affecting the attainment of the use which may include physical, chemical, biological, and economic factors as described in section 131.10( g) ( 40 CFR 131.3.)

" Waste load allocation" ( WLA) is the portion of a receiving water's TMDL that is allocated to one of its existing or future point sources of pollution ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Waters of the United States" refer to:

( 1)

( 2)

( 3)

( 4)

( 5)

( 6)

( 7) all waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;

all interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;

all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams ( including intermittent streams). mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes. wet meadows, playa lakes. or natural ponds the use or degradation of which would affect or could affect interstate or foreign commerce, including any such waters:

( 9 which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes;

( ii) from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or ( iii) which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.

all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition;

tributaries of waters in paragraphs ( 1) through ( 4) of this definition;

the territorial sea; and wetlands adjacent to waters ( other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs ( 1) through ( 6) of this definition. " Wetlands" are defined as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generalI) include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.

Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of the Act ( other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423. I l( m) which also meet the criteria for this definition) are not waters of the United States. ( 40 CFR 232.2.)

( 8/ 15/ W) GI, OSS 7 Water Quality Standards Handbook  Second Edition " Water effect ratio" ( WER) is an appropriate measure of the toxicity of a material obtained in a site water divided by the same measure of the toxicity of the same material obtained simultaneously in a laboratory dilution water ( USEPA, 1994a.)

" Water quality assessment" is an evaluation of the condition of a water body using biological surveys, chemical specific analyses of pollutants in water bodies, and toxicity tests ( USEPA, 1991a.)

" Water quality limited segment" refers to any segment where it is known that water quality does not meet applicable water quality standards and/ or is not expected to meet applicable water quality standards even after application of technology based effluent limitations required by sections 301( b)( l)( A) and ( B) and 306 of the Act ( 40 CFR 131.3.)

" Water quality standards" ( WQS) are provisions of State or Federal law which consist of a designated use or uses for the waters of the United States, water quality criteria for such waters based upon such uses. Water quality standards are to protect public health or welfare, enhance the quality of the water and serve the purposes of the Act ( 40 CFR 13 1.3.)

" Whok efIluent toxicity" is the total toxic effect of an effluent measured directly with a toxicity test ( USEPA, 1991a.)

GLOSS 8 ( 8/ 15/! M)


[Federal Register: July 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 143)]
[Notices]
[Page 42374]
[DOCID:fr26jy06-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-437-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Petition for Declaratory
Order

July 19, 2006.
    Take notice that on July 17, 2006, Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern) tendered for filing a Petition of for a Declaratory Order
and Request for Expedited Action.
    Northern Natural Gas Company hereby petitions the Commission to
issue a declaratory order finding that Northern is authorized to charge
market-based rates for sales of Firm Deferred Delivery (FDD) service
that results from a planned expansion in 2008 of Northern's storage
field located in Redfield, Iowa.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions 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 or intervention 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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time July 28, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-11885 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Appendix B.  Table of Generic Data Requirements and Studies Used to Make the Reregistration Decision for Chloropicrin (PC 081501)

GUIDE TO APPENDIX B

	Appendix B contains a listing of data requirements which support the reregistration for the active ingredient chloropicrin covered by this RED.  It contains generic data requirements that apply to chloropicrin in all products, including data requirements for which a "typical formulation" is the test substance.

The data table is organized in the following formats:

   1. Data requirement (Column 1).  The data requirements are listed in the order in which they appear in 40 CFR 158.  The reference numbers accompanying each test refer to the test protocols set in the Pesticide Assessment Guidance, which is available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.<PHONE_NUMBER>.

   2. Use Pattern (Column 2).  This column indicates the use patterns for which the data requirements apply.  The following letter designations are used for the given use patterns.

         A.          Terrestrial food          B. Terrestrial feed          C. Terrestrial non-food          D.          Aquatic food          E. Aquatic non-food outdoor          F. Aquatic non-food industrial          G. Aquatic non-food residential          H. Greenhouse food          I. Greenhouse non-food          J. Forestry          K. Residential          L. Indoor food          M. Indoor non-food          N. Indoor medical          O. Indoor residential

3.  Bibliographic Citation (Column 3).  If the Agency has acceptable data in its files, this column lists the identifying number of each study.  This normally is the Master Record Identification (MRID) number, but may be a "GS" number is no MRID number has been assigned.  Refer to the Bibliography appendix for a complete citation of the study.

Data Requirement Use Patterns Citations New Guideline Number Old Guideline Number Description

PRODUCT CHEMISTRY 830.1550 61-1 Product Identity and Composition All 43090201, 43091301, 43091401   830.1600 61-2A Description of materials used to produce the product All 44230001, 43090201, 43091301, 43091401, 42400001, 42400002 830.1620 61-2B Description of production process All 43090201, 43091301, 43091401, 42400001, 42400002 830.1650 61-2B Description of formulation process All 44230001 830.1670 61-2B Formation of Impurities All 43090201, 43091301, 43091401, 42400000 830.1700 62-1 Preliminary Analysis All 43097901, 43137001, 43091402, 42400002 830.1750 62-2 Certification of Limits All 43090202 830.1800 62-3 Analytical Method All 43090202, 43137002, 43091402, 43137001 830.6302 63-2 Color All 43097902, 43137002, 43133101, 42427001 830.6303 63-3 Physical State All 43097902, 43137002, 43133101, 42427001 830.6304 63-4 Odor All 42427001 830.6313 63-13 Stability to normal and elevated temperatures, metals, and metal ions All 43097902, 43137002, 43133101, 42427001 830.6314 63-14 Oxidation/reduction: chemical incompatibility All 43434601  830.6315 63-15 Flammability All 00013198 830.6317 63-17 Storage stability All 00013198 830.6320 63-20 Corrosion characteristics All 00013198 830.7100 63-18 Viscosity All 43434601 830.7220 63-6 Boiling Point/boiling range All 43097902, 43137002, 4313301, 42427001 830.7300 63-7 Density All 43097902, 43137002, 43133101, 42427001 830.7505

Ultraviolet/visible Absorption All Study called in via the DCI, however EPA granted a waiver request in May 2011.  830.7550 63-11 Partition coefficient, shake flask method All 43022402, 43022402 830.7840 63-8 Solubility All 43097902, 43137002, 43133101, 42427001 830.7860 63-8 Water solubility, generator column method All 43097902, 43137002, 43133101, 42427001, 43613901 830.7950

63-9 Vapor Pressure All 43097902, 43137002, 43133101, 42427001 ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS 850.1010 72-2    Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates C, I  130704 (supplemental), data gap submitted 48442401 in response to DCI  850.1025 72-3B Estuarine/Marine Toxicity  -  Mollusk C, I Data gap  -  submitted 48442404 in response to DCI 850.1035 72-3C Estuarine/Marine Toxicity  -  Shrimp C, I  Data gap  -  submitted 48442403 in response to DCI 850.1075 72-1A Fish Toxicity Bluegill C, I 47102102 (supplemental) 850.1075 72-1 B Fish Toxicity Rainbow Trout C, I 47102102 (supplemental), 43066701(supplemental) 850.1075 72-3A Estuarine/Marine Toxicity  -  Fish C, I Data gap  -  submitted 48442402, 48442405, 48442406 in response to DCI 850.3020 141-1

Honey bee acute contact LD50 C, I Data gap  -  submitted 48442473 in response to DCI 850.4100 122-1 Seedling Emergence, Tier 1 C, I Data gap  -  submitted 48442802 in response to DCI 850.4150 122-1 Vegetative Vigor, Tier 1 C, I Data gap  -  submitted 48442802 in response to DCI 850.4400 123-2 Aquatic Plant Toxicity C, I Data gap  -  submitted 48442801 in response to DCI Non-Guideline Study Non-Guideline Study Avian Acute Inhalation  C, I  Data gap  -  submitted 48442803 in response to DCI TOXICOLOGY 870.1100 81-1 Acute Oral Toxicity - Rat C, I 05014376 870.1200 81-2 Acute Dermal Toxicity  -  Rabbit/Rat C, I 05014376 870.1300 81-3 Acute Inhalation Toxicity  -  Rat/Mouse C, I 45117901, 45117902 870.2500 81-5 Primary Skin Irritation C, I 05014376 870.3465 82-5 90- Day Inhalation Toxicity  C, I 43063201 870.3465 82-4 13-Week Inhalation  -  Mouse/Rat  C, I 43063201 870.3700A 83-3A Developmental Toxicity  -  Rat C, I 42740602 870.3700B 83-3B Developmental Toxicity  -  Rabbit C, I 42740601 870.3800 83-4 2-Generation Reproduction  -  Rat C, I 43391901, 46427801 870.4100A 83-1 Chronic Toxicity Rodents C, I 43744301 870.4100B 83-1B Chronic Feeding Toxicity Study - Non-rodent C, I 43196301 870.4200 83-2 Carcinogenicity - Rat C, I 43632201, 05014915 870.4300 83-5 Combined Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogenicity: Rats C, I 43755301 870.5100 84-2 Bacterial Reverse Mutation Test C, I 41960801 870.5300 84-2 Mutagenic  - Lymphoma Mutation  -  Mouse C, I 41960803 870.5375 84-2 Cytogenetis  -  CHO Chromosomal Aberrations C, I 41960802 870.5395 84-2 Unscheduled DNA Synthesis-Rat C, I 41960804 870.7800 85-7 Immunotoxicity C, I Study called in via the DCI, however EPA granted a waiver request in May 2011. Non-guideline study Non-guideline study Acute Inhalation (human study)  C, I 46443801 Non-guideline study Non-guideline study BMC concentration analysis C, I 46614801 Non-guideline study Non-guideline study Quantification of the chemosensations produced from chloropicrin vapors C, I 451178901 ENVIRONMENTAL FATE 835.1240 163-1 Leaching/Adsorption/Desorption C, I 44191301 835.1410 163-2

Laboratory Volatilization (from Soil) Study C, I 43798601 835.2120 161-1 Hydrolysis C, I 43022401  835.2240 161-2 Photodegradation - Water C, I 42900201 835.2370 161-4 Photolysis Air C, I 05007865 835.4100 162-1 Aerobic Soil Metabolism C, I 43613901 835.4400 162-3 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism C, I 43759301 835.6100 164-1 Terrestrial Field Dissipation C, I 43085101 835.8100 163-3 Field Volatility (from soil) Study C, I  44149201, 47576901, 47295202, 47295203, 47295204, 45112902, 46420201, 45112901, 47456001, 47679301, 48033801, 48011601, 47820001, 47813801, 48006001, 48107601, 47813901, 47456001, 48087401, 47576901 OCCUPATIONAL AND RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE 875.1300 232 Inhalation Exposure C 44149201, 45112901 (data gap for EFED)  875.2500 133-4 Inhalation (Passive Dosimetry) Exposure  C 44149201, 45112901 OTHER-No Category Special Study NA Fumigant Buffer Zone Posting Signs C, I Data gap satisfied May 2011 Special Study NA Community Outreach and Education Program C, I Data gap  Special Study NA Certified Applicator Training C, I Data gap  Special Study NA Safe Handler Information C, I Data gap satisfied 2010


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 130 (Tuesday, July 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40643-40644]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14515]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0470; FRL-10009-91]

Public Workshop; Laminated Products--Formaldehyde Emission
Standards for Composite Wood Products

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a public workshop to discuss the laminated
product provisions and the rulemaking petition for exemption from the
definition of hardwood plywood in the formaldehyde emission standards
for composite wood products final rule of 2016. The workshop will aid
with informing potential development of future guidance for petitioning
EPA for an exemption under the 2016 final rule. The primary audience
for this public workshop is Third Party Certifiers (TPCs), panel
producers, and fabricators or laminated product producers who contract
with TPCs to certify composite wood products under the 2016 final rule.
This workshop is also open to the general public.

DATES: The workshop will be held on September 8, 2020 from 9:30 a.m. to
5:30 p.m. (EST).
    To participate in the workshop, you must register online on or
before August 31, 2020.
    Written comments that participants would like to be considered
during the workshop should be submitted on or before August 24, 2020.
EPA will also accept written comments and materials submitted after the
conclusion of the workshop until November 4, 2020.
    To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT,
preferably at least 10 days prior to the workshop, to give EPA as much
time as possible to process your request.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held remotely via a teleconference
platform and does not have an in-person attendance option. To register
to participate in the workshop, go to https://tscatitlevi.eventbrite.com. See Unit III. for information on public
participation in the workshop.
    Submit your written comments, identified by Docket Identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0470, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal
at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Please note that due to the public health emergency the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room was closed to public visitors on March
31, 2020. Our EPA/DC staff will continue to provide customer service
via email, phone, and webform. For further information on EPA/DC
services, docket contact information and the current status of the EPA/
DC and Reading Room, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information about the
Technical Issues Workshop; Formaldehyde Emission Standards for
Composite Wood Products workshop contact: Todd Coleman, National
Programs Chemical Division (7404T), Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For workshop logistics or registration contact: Sarah Cox, National
Program Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This public workshop is primarily directed to the TPCs, panel
producers, and fabricators or laminated product producers who contract
with TPCs to certify composite wood products under the formaldehyde
emission standards for composite wood products final rule codified in
2016 at 40 CFR part 770. EPA is hosting the workshop to help inform
potential development of future guidance to assist those seeking to
petition the Agency through the provisions at 40 CFR 770.4(b), which
ask EPA to initiate a rulemaking for additional exemptions for
laminated products from the definition of hardwood plywood in the
formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood products final rule.
While the issue is of most relevance to laminated product producers, in
general, importers, distributors and retailers who are affected by the
formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood products final rule
may also be interested in this workshop. Since other stakeholders may
also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the
specific entities that may be interested in the issues to be discussed
at the public workshop.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2019-0470, is available at http://www.regulations.gov. For
assistance with the docket, and additional information about
commenting, please go to http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    The final rule, entitled ``Formaldehyde Emission Standards for
Composite Wood Products'' and codified at 40 CFR part 770, published in
the Federal Register of December 12, 2016 (81 FR 89674) (FRL-9949-90)
and became effective on May 22, 2017 (82 FR 14324, March 21, 2017)
(FRL-9960-28-OP). Since publication of the final rule, EPA received
feedback from regulated stakeholders requesting guidance on the process
at 40 CFR 770.4(b) for the laminated product rulemaking petition for
exemption from the definition of hardwood plywood. In the Federal
Register of May 24, 2018, EPA announced a public related to Technical
Issues--Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products (83
FR 24104) (FRL-9978-21), where the Agency stated its intent to address
the issue of working with stakeholders, through an additional workshop,
to inform potential development of future guidance on how one can
petition the Agency for this exemption. Thus, EPA will host this public
workshop to discuss what types of information a petitioner should
consider providing the Agency to support a determination on a petition
submitted under 40 CFR 770.4(b). The workshop will also discuss what a
typical submittal process may look like.
    The Agency's intent is for participants to actively engage in an
open dialogue with EPA and other participants on the agenda topics and
to provide supporting

documentation (in advance or after the workshop) as appropriate for
EPA's consideration. The Agency plans to record the workshop and will
post a written transcript in the docket for this workshop during the
comment period that follows the workshop.
    The Agency is allowing the comment period on this public workshop
to remain open until after the workshop to provide stakeholders and
interested parties ample time to develop additional comments, compile
data, studies, and/or reports that can aid EPA in considering the
development of guidance for submitting and supporting a laminated
product rulemaking petition under 40 CFR 770.4(b) for exemption from
the definition of hardwood plywood. Should the Agency develop guidance
related to the rulemaking petitions for exemption under 40 CFR
770.4(b), EPA will provide a draft for public comment and post such
guidance on the Agency's website.
    An agenda for the public workshop has been included in the docket
for this workshop.

III. How can I request to participate in this workshop?

A. Registration

    The workshop will only be accessible remotely (i.e., web
conferencing) for registered participants. Participants will be
provided information on how to connect to the workshop prior to its
start that is sent to the email address participants provided when they
registered for this workshop.
    To register to attend the workshop and receive remote access, you
must register online as described under ADDRESSES and by the date
specified under DATES.

B. Required Registration Information

    Attendees and participants will be offered the opportunity to speak
and provide feedback during the workshop. To register for the workshop
online, you must provide your full name, organization or affiliation,
and contact information.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2697.

    Dated: June 30, 2020.
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2020-14515 Filed 7-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 225 (Friday, November 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67555-67557]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25754]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93628; File No. SR-Phlx-2021-56]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Order Approving a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Options 4A, Section 12 Regarding the
Calculation of the Closing Volume Weighted Average Price for Options on
the Nasdaq-100[supreg] Volatility Index in Certain Circumstances

November 19, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On September 23, 2021, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Exchange'' or ``Phlx'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
amend the process used to calculate the final settlement price for
Nasdaq-100 Volatility Index (``Volatility Index'' or ``VOLQ'') options
in certain circumstances. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on October 7, 2021.\3\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposed rule change. This order approves
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93237 (October 1,
2021), 86 FR 55896 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Additional information regarding the proposal can be found
in the Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview

    The Commission previously approved the listing and trading of VOLQ
options.\5\ VOLQ is an index that measures changes in 30-day implied
volatility as expressed by options on the Nasdaq-100 Index
(``NDX'').\6\ The calculation of the final settlement price for VOLQ
options, the Closing Volume Weighted Average Price or ``Closing VWAP,''
is based on one-second time observations of the NDX component options
\7\ over a 300 second period of time (the ``Closing Settlement
Period'').\8\ The Closing Settlement period commences at 9:32:010 a.m.
on the expiration day, and continues each second for the next 300
seconds.\9\ Now, the Exchange proposes to amend the process used to
calculate the final settlement price for VOLQ options in the event any
of the underlying NDX component options do not have a trade or quote
during the Closing Settlement Period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91781 (May 5, 2021),
86 FR 25918 (May 11, 2021) (SR-Phlx-2020-41) (Notice of Filing of
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, To List
and Trade Options on a Nasdaq-100 Volatility Index) (``Approval
Order'').
    \6\ See Id. at 25919.
    \7\ The Closing VWAP is calculated using one-second time
observations of the prices and sizes of executed orders or quotes in
the underlying NDX component options. See Options 4A, Section
12(b)(6)(D)(II).
    \8\ See Options 4a93628A, Section 12(b)(6)(D)(II).
    \9\ See Options 4A, Section 12(b)(6)(D)(II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Closing VWAP Calculation in the Event One or More Component Option
Series Do Not Have a Trade or Quote During Any One Second of the
Observation Period

    First, the Exchange proposes if, during any one second of the
observation period, any of the thirty-two NDX option series used for
the Closing VWAP during that second \10\ does not have a trade or
quote, the index calculator would look back and use the most recent
published quote midpoint during that day for the One Second VWAP \11\
for the option component that does not have a trade or quote.\12\ If
there is no One Second VWAP to utilize for any of the thirty-two NDX
option series during the Closing Settlement Period, then the index
calculator will consider that Closing Settlement Period invalid and
will be unable to determine a Closing VWAP at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The thirty-two component Volatility Index option inputs may
change each second depending upon the movement of the Nasdaq-100
Index. See Notice, supra note 3, n.5 at 55897.
    \11\ At the end of individual one-second time observations
during the Closing Settlement Period, the number of contracts
resulting from orders and quotes executed on Phlx, Nasdaq ISE, LLC,
and Nasdaq GEMX, LLC at each price during the observation period is
multiplied by that price to yield a reference number (``Reference
Number''). See Options 4A, Section 12(b)(6)(D)(II). All Reference
Numbers are then summed, and that sum is then divided by the total
number of contracts traded during the observation period [Sum of
(contracts traded at a price x price) / total contracts traded)] to
calculate a Volume Weighted Average Price for that observation
period (a ``One Second VWAP'') for that component option. See id.
    \12\ The Exchange would utilize a quote from the Opening Process
only in the event an options series was able to open. See Notice,
supra note 3, at 55898. If the Opening Process did not complete for
an options series, there would be no value to obtain for a component
during a look back. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, in the event the Closing Settlement Period is invalid and a
Closing VWAP cannot be determined, the Exchange proposes that the index
calculator will then roll the Closing Settlement Period forward by one
second and determine if there is a One Second VWAP for each of the
thirty-two NDX option series for all 300 consecutive seconds of the new
Closing Settlement Period. If there is a One Second VWAP for all of the
thirty-two NDX option series for all 300 consecutive seconds, a Closing
VWAP will be calculated. If a One Second VWAP is not present for all of
the thirty-two NDX option series during the new observation period, the
index calculator will again roll the Closing Settlement Period forward
by one second. The index calculator would continue to roll the Closing
Settlement Period forward by one second until such time as it is able
to capture a One Second VWAP for each of the thirty-two NDX option
series for all 300 consecutive seconds. At that time, a Closing VWAP
will be calculated.
    The Exchange states that the proposal seeks to create an automated,
non-discretionary process by which the Exchange would determine the
Closing VWAP in the event any of the thirty-two underlying NDX
component options do not have a trade or quote during the Closing
Settlement Period.\13\ The Exchange further states that it does not
anticipate utilizing the alternative Closing VWAP calculation on a
regular basis.\14\ According to the Exchange, a review of 43 expiration
dates from January 2018 through July 2021 revealed invalid values for
only 2 expiration dates.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 55897.
    \14\ See id.
    \15\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 55897. The Exchange states
that it reviewed the 9,660 NBBO inputs for the VOLS computation from
9:32.01 for the five minute Closing Settlement Period for each
expiration date. See id. at 55897 n.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Closing VWAP Calculation in the Event of a Trading Halt

    The Exchange also proposes that, in the event of a trading halt in
one or more options, excluding a trading halt in all Nasdaq-100 index
options, prior to the completion of the Closing Settlement Period, the
Exchange would continue to look back for a One Second VWAP prior to
looking forward. In the event a trading halt caused market makers to
not submit a valid width quote in certain components during the Opening
Process, the alternative

methodology would look forward to obtain a value.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See id. at 55898.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to modify its existing rule text
relating to trading halts. Currently, Options 4A, Section
12(b)(6)(D)(II) provides, ``If the Exchange is unable to publish a
settlement value by 12:00 p.m. (New York time) due to a trading halt,
the Exchange will commence the calculation of the settlement window
beginning 2.00.001 minutes after the re-opening of trading and publish
that value on its website.'' \17\ The Exchange proposes to replace this
rule text with language that provides, ``In the event of a trading halt
in all Nasdaq-100 index options, the Exchange would commence the
calculation of the settlement window beginning 2:00:01 \18\ minutes
after the re-opening of trading and publish that value on its website.
In this scenario, the Exchange would not look back prior to the trading
halt.'' The Exchange's proposal amends the current sentence to
eliminate the reference to 12:00 p.m., as a re-opening could occur any
time during the trading day. Further, the Exchange states that
specifically indicating a trading halt of the Nasdaq-100 index options
in the rule text is more precise and the proposed rule text more
directly expands upon the manner in which the Closing VWAP will be
handled in the event of trading halt.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Phlx Options 4A, Section 12(b)(6)(D).
    \18\ The Exchange also proposes to correct the time when the
Exchange will commence the calculation of the settlement window from
2.00.001 minutes to 2:00:01 minutes. The calculation begins on the
second.
    \19\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 55898.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment to Definition of ``Executed Orders''

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend the term ``executed
orders'' at Options 4A, Section 12(b)(6)(D)(II) which currently
provides, ``Executed orders shall include simple orders and complex
orders however, individual leg executions of a complex order will only
be included if the executed price of the leg is at or within the
NBBO.'' The Exchange proposes to exclude out-of-sequence and late
trades. The Exchange states that excluding out-of-sequence and late
trades would avoid potential stale data in the Closing VWAP
calculation.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surveillance

    The Exchange also states that because the thirty-two component
Volatility Index option inputs are reviewed each second as the market
changes to determine the at-the-money strikes (meaning that Volatility
Index components could change 300 times during the Closing Settlement
Period), market participants could manipulate the Closing VWAP only if
they could replicate such value by guessing exact market moves over an
extended period of 300 million microseconds.\21\ Because the Exchange
believes that the likelihood of replication is extremely low, the
Exchange believes that it is unlikely the Closing VWAP could be
manipulated.\22\ Nonetheless, the Exchange states that, in its normal
course of surveillance, it will monitor for any potential manipulation
of the Volatility Index settlement value according to the Exchange's
current procedures.\23\ Additionally, the Exchange would monitor the
integrity of the Volatility Index by analyzing trades, quotations, and
orders that affect any of the 300 calculated reference prices for any
of the NDX option series used for the Closing VWAP for potential
manipulation on the Exchange.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See id. at 55899.
    \22\ See id.
    \23\ See id.
    \24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation of VOLQ Options

    The Exchange proposes to issue an Options Trader Alert announcing
the day it will launch options on the Volatility Index. At this time,
the Exchange proposes to launch VOLQ options on or before March 31,
2022.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change, the Commission
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\25\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\26\ which
requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of its proposal, the Exchange states that its proposed
alternate methodology may be utilized where there is no liquidity in
any of the thirty-two NDX option series used for the Closing VWAP,
which may be caused by, among other things, an Exchange system issue,
market maker issue, or a halt in an underlying, and would ensure a
Closing Settlement Period which has published liquidity for all of the
thirty-two NDX option series used for the Closing VWAP.\27\ The
Exchange further states that its proposal would create an automated,
non-discretionary process to ensure that the Closing VWAP is calculated
consistently in these circumstances, which the Exchange believes would
occur infrequently.\28\ Because market participants could not predict
which options components would be included in the Closing VWAP
calculation since that would entail predicting where the NDX price
level (a function of predicting the price of all one-hundred component
stocks) will be at the end of each of the 300 individual one-second
time periods, the Exchange believes that it is unlikely that the
Volatility Index Closing VWAP could be manipulated.\29\ The Exchange
further states that, in its normal course of surveillance, it will
monitor for any potential manipulation of the Volatility Index Closing
VWAP and will monitor the integrity of the Volatility Index by
analyzing trades, quotations, and orders that affect any of the 300
calculated reference prices for any of the NDX option series used for
the Closing VWAP for potential manipulation on the Exchange.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 55899.
    \28\ See id. See also, supra note 14.
    \29\ See id.
    \30\ See id. at 55899-900.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes the Exchange's proposal would ensure a
consistent and transparent process for calculating the Closing VWAP in
situations where there is no liquidity in one or more of the thirty-two
NDX option series used each second to calculate the Closing VWAP. This
may occur, for example, if there is an Exchange system issue, a market
maker issue, or a halt in an underlying. Further, the Exchange's
proposal more specifically details the process for calculating the
Closing VWAP in the event of a trading halt in all NDX options.
According to the Exchange, the need for the alternate methodology would
arise infrequently.\31\ However, in those limited circumstances where
there is no input for one or more component options during the primary
Closing Settlement Period, the proposed settlement methodology would
help to ensure there is sufficient liquidity in the

component options and provide a clear alternate process to allow the
Exchange to calculate a Closing VWAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange states it will monitor for any potential
manipulation of the Volatility Index settlement value in the normal
course of its surveillance and will monitor the integrity the
Volatility Index by analyzing trades, quotations, and orders that
affect any of the 300 calculated reference prices for any of the NDX
option series used for the Closing VWAP for potential manipulation on
the Exchange.\32\ Consistent with the original approval of the listing
and trading of VOLQ options,\33\ the Commission believes that the
Exchange's surveillance of options on the Volatility Index and the
component option series will allow it to adequately surveil for any
potential manipulation in the trading of VOLQ and will help to ensure
that the settlement value is not readily susceptible to manipulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Approval Order at supra note 5 for a more detailed
description of the Exchange's planned surveillances.
    \33\ See Approval Order, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \34\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\35\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2021-56) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-25754 Filed 11-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 240 (Friday, December 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 64351]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27152]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4407-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001]

California; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of California (FEMA-4407-DR), dated November 12, 2018,
and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued November 29, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this disaster is closed effective November 25, 2018.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-27152 Filed 12-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-11-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 69 (Thursday, April 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19939-19940]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07495]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-1491-000]

Wind Wall 1 LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Wind Wall 1 LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to

intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 23, 2020.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    Dated: April 3, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-07495 Filed 4-8-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P