[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 16113]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6664]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

 Asiamart, Inc., Order of Suspension of Trading

March 15, 2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Asiamart, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended March 31, 2009.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for
the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on March 15, 2012, through 11:59 p.m. EDT
on March 28, 2012.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6664 Filed 3-15-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 169 (Monday, August 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53885-53888]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19046]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89652; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2020-74]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the
Temporary Waiver of the Co-Location Hot Hands Fee

August 25, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on August 11, 2020, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the temporary waiver of the co-
location ``Hot Hands'' fee. The proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to extend of the temporary waiver of the co-
location \4\ ``Hot Hands'' fee through the reopening of the Mahwah, New
Jersey data center (``Data Center''). The waiver of the Hot Hands fee
is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2020.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange initially filed rule changes relating to its
co-location services with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') in 2010. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
63275 (November 8, 2010), 75 FR 70048 (November 16, 2010) (SR-
NYSEArca-2010-100).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89174 (June 29,
2020), 85 FR 40349 (July 6, 2020) (SR-NYSEArca-2020-58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is an indirect subsidiary of Intercontinental
Exchange, Inc. (``ICE''). Through its ICE Data Services (``IDS'')
business, ICE operates the Data Center, from which the Exchange
provides co-location services to Users.\6\ Among those services is a
``Hot Hands'' service, which allows Users to use on-site Data Center
personnel to maintain User equipment, support network troubleshooting,
rack and stack a server in a User's cabinet; power recycling; and
install and document the fitting of cable in a User's cabinet(s).\7\
The Hot Hands fee is $100 per half hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For purposes of the Exchange's co-location services, a
``User'' means any market participant that requests to receive co-
location services directly from the Exchange. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 76010 (September 29, 2015), 80 FR 60197
(October 5, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-82). As specified in the NYSE
Arca Options Fees and Charges and the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and
Charges (together, the ``Fee Schedules''), a User that incurs co-
location fees for a particular co-location service pursuant thereto
would not be subject to co-location fees for the same co-location
service charged by the Exchange's affiliates the New York Stock
Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Chicago, Inc., and NYSE
National, Inc. (together, the ``Affiliate SROs''). See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 70173 (August 13, 2013), 78 FR 50459
(August 19, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-80). Each Affiliate SRO has
submitted substantially the same proposed rule change to propose the
changes described herein. See SR-NYSE-2020-69, SR-NYSEAmer-2020-63,
SR-NYSECHX-2020-25, and SR-NYSENAT-2020-26.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72720 (July 30,
2014), 79 FR 45577 (August 5, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2014-81).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE previously announced to Users that the Data Center would be
closed to third parties starting on March 16, 2020, to help avoid the
spread of COVID-19, which could negatively impact Data Center
functions. Prior to the closure of the Data Center, the Chief Executive
Officer of the Exchange took the actions required under NYSE Arca Rules
7.1-E and 7.1-O to close the co-location facility of the Exchange to
third parties. The closure period was extended three times, through
August 31, 2020 (the ``Initial Closure'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 88398 (March 17,
2020), 85 FR 16398 (March 23, 2020) (SR-NYSEArca-2020-22); 88520
(March 31, 2020), 85 FR 19208 (April 6, 2020) (SR-NYSEArca-2020-26);
and 88961 (May 27, 2020), 85 FR 33755 (June 2, 2020) (SR-NYSEArca-
2020-47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE has announced to Users that, because the concerns that led to
the Initial Closure still apply, the closure of the Data Center will be
extended, with the date of the reopening announced through a customer
notice.
    If a User's equipment requires work while a Rules 7.1-E and 7.1-O
closure is in effect, the User has to use the Hot Hands service and,
absent a waiver, incurs Hot Hands fees for the work. Given that, the
Exchange waived all Hot Hands fees for the duration of the Initial
Closure.\9\ Because the period has been extended, the Exchange proposes
to extend the waiver of the Hot Hands Fee for the length of the period.
To that end, the Exchange proposes to revise the footnote to the Hot
Hands Fee in the Fee Schedules as follows (deletions bracketed,
additions underlined):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 85 FR 40349, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [dagger] Fees for Hot Hands Services will be waived beginning on
March 16, 2020 through [the earlier of August 31, 2020 and] the
reopening of the Mahwah, New Jersey data center. The date of the
reopening will be announced through a customer notice.
    The Exchange believes that there will be sufficient Data Center
staff on-site to comply with User requests for Hot Hands service.
    The proposed extension of the waiver would apply equally to all
Users. The proposed extension of the fee waiver would not apply
differently to distinct types or sizes of market participants. Rather,
it would continue to apply uniformly to all Users.
    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the
Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in
complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\11\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. In addition, it is designed to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest
and because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable
for the following reasons.
    Given that the closure of the Data Center has been extended, the
Exchange believes that it is reasonable to grant the proposed
corresponding extension of the waiver of the Hot Hands Fee. While a
Rules 7.1-E and 7.1-O closure is in effect, User representatives are
not allowed access to the Data Center. If a User's equipment requires
work during such period, the User has to use the Hot Hands service.
Absent a waiver, the User would incur Hot Hands fees for the work.
    The proposed extension of the waiver would allow a User to have
work carried out on its equipment notwithstanding

the closure of the Data Center without incurring Hot Hands fees.
    The Exchange does not know when the Mahwah data center will be
reopened, and so believes it is reasonable to leave the date open
ended. Adding a revised potential reopening date to the footnote may
create an expectation that the closure has a stated end point. The
Exchange believes that it is more reasonable to state that the waiver
will continue until the data center is reopened, and to inform Users
how they will receive notice of the reopening. The change would also be
consistent with the announcement that ICE has made to Users.
The Proposed Rule Change Is Equitable
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is an equitable
allocation of its fees and credits for the following reasons.
    The proposed extension of the waiver would apply equally to all
Users. The proposed extension would not apply differently to distinct
types or sizes of market participants. Rather, it would apply uniformly
to all Users.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is equitable because the
extension of the waiver would mean that for the duration of the closure
of the Data Center all similarly-situated Users would not be charged a
fee to use the Hot Hands service.
The Proposed Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory and Would Protect
Investors and the Public Interest
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is not unfairly
discriminatory for the following reasons.
    The proposed extension of the waiver would not apply differently to
distinct types or sizes of market participants. Rather, all Users whose
equipment requires work during the extension of the Data Center closure
would have the resulting fees waived, and the extension of the waiver
would apply uniformly to all Users during the period. For the reasons
above, the proposed changes do not unfairly discriminate between or
among market participants.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
would perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, protect investors and the public
interest because it would allow a User to have work carried out on its
equipment notwithstanding a Rules 7.1-E and 7.1-O closure without
incurring Hot Hands fees. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the
requested extension of the waiver is designed to perfect the mechanisms
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
protect investors and the public interest by facilitating the
uninterrupted availability of Users' equipment.
    For all of the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the
proposal is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\12\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change would place
any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate.
    The proposed extension of the waiver is not designed to affect
competition, but rather to provide relief to Users that, while a Rules
7.1-E and 7.1-O closure is in effect, have no option but to use the Hot
Hands service.
    The proposed extension of the waiver would not apply differently to
distinct types or sizes of market participants. Rather, all Users whose
equipment requires work during the extension of the Data Center closure
would have the resulting fees waived, and the extension of the waiver
would apply uniformly to all Users during the period.
Intermarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change would impose
any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change would not affect the
competitive landscape among the national securities exchanges, as the
Hot Hands service is solely charged within co-location to existing
Users, and would be temporary.
    For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \13\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \14\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \15\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2020-74 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2020-74.
This file number should be included on the subject line if email is
used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEArca-2020-74 and should be submitted on or before September 21,
2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-19046 Filed 8-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 76)]
[Notices]
[Page 18369-18370]
[DOCID:fr22ap09-37]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12429-001--Montana]

Clark Canyon Dam Hydroelectric Project; Notice of Availability of
Environmental Assessment

April 15, 2009.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed Clark Canyon Hydro, LLC's application
for license for the proposed Clark Canyon Dam Hydroelectric Project,
located at Clark Canyon reservoir on the Beaverhead River near the city
of Dillon, Beaverhead County, Montana, and has prepared an
environmental assessment (EA) for the project. The proposed project
would occupy a total of 1.15 acres of Federal lands administered by the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
    The EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental
impacts of the project, and concludes that licensing the project, with
appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a
major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the
human environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
202-502-8659.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.

    Any comments should be filed within 45 days \1\ from the date of
this notice and should be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Please affix Project No. 12429-001 to all
comments. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu
of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. For a simpler
method of submitting text-only comments, click on ``Quick Comment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although the typical comment period for an EA is 30 days,
the comment period in this instance is 45 days to allow the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and others to respond to Commission
staff's preliminary section 10(j) determination, as discussed in
section 5.4.1 of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For further information, contact Dianne Rodman by telephone at 202-
502-6077 or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-9172 Filed 4-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 8503]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03479]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1698]

Food and Drug Administration Activities for Patient Participation
in Medical Product Discussions; Report on Stakeholder Views;
Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is making
available the summary report of the public comments received during the
open period from November 4 to December 4, 2014, on FDA activities
under the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act
(FDASIA), Patient Participation in Medical Product Discussions. The
purpose of this notice is to announce the public availability of the
report on stakeholder views based on the comments received in the
docket.

ADDRESSES: An electronic copy of the summary report is available at
http://www.fda.gov/ForPatients/About/ucm483931.htm.
    The summary report is also available in Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1698.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Furia-Helms, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5319, Silver
Spring MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 9, 2012, the President signed into law FDASIA (Pub. L. 112-
144). FDASIA expands FDA's authorities and strengthens the Agency's
ability to safeguard and advance public health in several areas
including increasing stakeholder involvement in FDA regulatory
processes. Specifically, section 1137 of FDASIA directs the Secretary
of Health and Human Services to develop and implement strategies to
solicit the views of patients during the medical product development
process and consider the perspectives of patients during regulatory
discussions, including by fostering participation of a patient
representative who may serve as a special government employee in
appropriate Agency meetings with medical product sponsors and
investigators and exploring means to provide for identification of
patient representatives who do not have any, or have minimal, financial
interests in the medical products industry.
    FDA formed an Agency-wide working group to explore approaches and
procedures as well as to align strategies across the Agency for patient
participation in accordance with the statute.

    Dated: February 16, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-03479 Filed 2-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: Maggie Rudick<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS> TEMPLATE:

Dow AgroSciences LLC 9330 Zionsville Road Indianapolis, IN 46268-1054

2F8086

	EPA has received a pesticide petition 2F8086 from Dow AgroSciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268 requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180

	1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of

	the herbicide Halauxifen-methyl, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities listed below.  Compliance with the tolerance levels specified is to be determined by measuring the combined residues of halauxifen-methyl (Methyl 4-amino-3-chloro-6-(4-chloro-2-fluoro-3-methoxyphenyl)pyridine-2-carboxylate) and halauxifen (4-amino-3-chloro-6-(4-chloro-2-fluoro-3-methoxyphenyl)pyridine-2-carboxylic acid) expressed as halauxifen-methyl (parent) equivalents in or on the raw agricultural commodity barley, grain at 0.01 parts per million (ppm); barley, hay at 0.01 ppm; barley, straw at 0.01 ppm; cattle, fat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, meat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; goat, fat at 0.01 ppm; goat, meat at 0.01 ppm; goat, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; horse, fat at 0.01 ppm; horse, meat at 0.01 ppm; horse, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; milk at 0.01 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; wheat, forage at 0.5 ppm; wheat, grain at 0.01 ppm; wheat, hay at 0.04 ppm; wheat, straw at 0.015 ppm.  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. The nature of the residue in plants is adequately understood for the purpose of establishing the proposed tolerances.  Based on the findings from metabolism studies in wheat and turnips, the residue of concern in plants is the combined residue of halauxifen-methyl and halauxifen, expressed as halauxifen-methyl.

	2. Analytical method. The residue profile of halauxifen-methyl and halauxifen is adequately understood and an acceptable analytical method is available for enforcement purposes.  The DAS analytical method study number 110004 outlining the Method Validation for the Determination of Residues of Halauxifen-methyl Ester and Halauxifen in Agricultural Commodities and Wheat Processed Products using Offline Solid-Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography with Mass Spectrometry Detection was validated on a variety of plant matrices.  The method was validated over the concentration range of 0.01-1.00 mg/kg with a limit of quantitation of 0.01 mg/kg.

	3. Magnitude of residues. Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) for each crop have been harmonized as much as possible across countries.  A significant number of supervised residue trials have been carried out at the critical GAP on wheat and barley in Australia, New Zealand, United States, and Canada to provide harmonized data for MRL setting.  Data on oats was also generated in Australia, where it is a required representative crop.  There were thirty-nine trials conducted on wheat, twenty-two trials conducted on barley, and four trials conducted on oats.  Residues in food and feed commodities were rather homogeneous within each crop, and did not show significant statistical differences across geographies, varieties, or cultural practices.  Therefore, it is adequate to propose and support harmonized MRLs.

Trials from NAFTA regions during the 2010 and 2011 growing seasons are summarized for the purpose of the US petition.  For both barley and wheat, applications were made at the BBCH 39 growth stage at a target rate of 0.0089 lb a.e./A of applied halauxifen-methyl plus 0.0089 lb ai/A of the safener cloquintocet.  The Limit of Detection (LOD) and Limit of Quantification (LOQ) values were validated for the analytical method as 0.001 ppm and 0.003 ppm, respectively for each analyte in grain, straw, forage and hay.  Observed residues support a suite of proposed US tolerances at the limit of quantitation (LOQ) for most commodities.

For barley, residues of halauxifen-methyl and halauxifen were determined following 1 foliar application for 18 field locations.  Grain and straw samples were collected at harvest, 43 to 83 days after treatment (DAT); hay was harvested 19 to 33 DAT and dried before collection.  Residues of both halauxifen-methyl and halauxifen ranged from non detectable (< LOD) to <LOQ, in/on barley grain,  barley straw harvested at normal commercial harvest (NCH) and barley hay harvested at 17-33 DAA.

For wheat, residues of halauxifen-methyl and halauxifen were determined following one foliar application for 27 field locations.  Grain and straw samples were collected at harvest, 42 to 73 days after treatment (DAT); forage was collected 1 DAT and hay was harvested 17 to 31 DAT and dried before collection.  For wheat grain, all residues were below the LOD.  For wheat straw, all residues were below the LOQ.  Residues of halauxifen-methyl and halauxifen ranged from 0.036 to 0.389 ppm and from below the LOD to <LOQ in wheat forage.  For wheat hay, residues of halauxifen-methyl and halauxifen ranged from below the LOD to 0.026 ppm and from below the LOD to <LOQ, respectively.  Processed wheat commodities were also generated; results indicate that residues are not expected to concentrate above detectable levels in processed fractions derived from the processing of wheat grain.

Because the proposed tolerances cover crops commonly used as feed for livestock, a proposal for animal commodity milk and meat tolerances at the LOQ of 0.01 ppm is included.  The estimated animal burden was calculated based on NAFTA feeding diets in order to determine if these uses would result in detectable residues in meat and meat product commodities.  The maximum dietary burden in ruminants estimated from proposed uses on potential feed crops was compared with the doses tested in the cattle feeding study conducted by Dow AgroSciences. All calculated residue levels in meat, meat products and milk were below the level of quantitation (LOQ). However, taking a conservative precautionary approach, Dow AgroSciences is proposing cow, sheep, goat and horse meat, meat products and milk tolerances at the LOQ (0.01 mg/kg).

B. Toxicological Profile  A complete set of core toxicology studies were conducted on halauxifen and a bridging package of toxicology studies was conducted on halauxifen-methyl to demonstrate toxicological equivalence.  This set of bridging toxicology studies conducted on halauxifen-methyl demonstrated that although having different NOAELs and target organs with high dose repeat exposure, halauxifen-methyl and halauxifen are toxicologically equivalent up to 10 mg/kg bw/day (mkd).

	1. Acute toxicity.  Halauxifen and halauxifen-methyl exhibited low acute oral and dermal toxicity with an LD50 >5000 mg/kg bw for all studies.  An adequate test atmosphere was not able to be generated for halauxifen and halauxifen-methyl in the acute inhalation test; therefore, they were not conducted.  Skin and eye irritation studies with halauxifen and halauxifen-methyl showed minimal irritation that cleared in 72 hours or less.  Halauxifen and halauxifen-methyl were negative for sensitization potential.

	2. Genotoxicty. Halauxifen and halauxifen-methyl were negative in a series of in vitro genotoxicity studies; halauxifen was also negative in an in vivo mouse micronucleus assay.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Halauxifen was assessed in a two-generation reproduction study in rats and developmental studies in both rats and rabbits. There were no adverse, treatment-related effects on reproduction or development.

Halauxifen-methyl was assessed in developmental studies with both rats and rabbits. No treatment-related developmental toxicity was observed in rats. In the rabbit developmental study, there were no treatment-related fetal malformations in any group.  The developmental NOAEL was based on a treatment-related decrease in fetal body weights and associated secondary effects at the high dose.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. Sub-chronic dietary toxicity studies were conducted with halauxifen in rats, mice, and dogs. The primary target organs of halauxifen are the kidney in rats and dogs, and the urinary bladder in mice.  No toxicity was observed at the limit dose with dermal administration in rats (NOEL > 1000 mkd) after 28 days.

      Sub-chronic dietary toxicity studies were conducted with halauxifen-methyl in rats, with the primary target organ identified as the liver, with secondary effects observed in the thyroid and the thymus. The NOAEL in rats was 10 mkd (males) and 52 mkd (females) after 28 days and 10 mkd (males and females) after 90 days.]

	5. Chronic toxicity. The NOAELs for the rat 2-year study and the mouse 18-month study with halauxifen were based on kidney and urinary bladder effects. No tumors were observed in mouse and rat. Halauxifen-methyl is proposed as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in rat and mouse studies with halauxifen, and the absence of a mutagenicity concern.

	6. Animal metabolism. Halauxifen and halauxifen-methyl were rapidly and highly absorbed after oral administration in the rat and mouse.  Halauxifen is poorly metabolized and readily eliminated in urine and feces.  Data suggest rapid hydrolysis of halauxifen-methyl in vivo, and the systemic exposure is predominantly to the halauxifen.  Minor metabolites of both test materials consisted of the acyl-glucuronide conjugate of halauxifen, demethylated halauxifen-methyl and halauxifen and their corresponding sulfate and glucuronide conjugates. Halauxifen and halauxifen-methyl do not accumulate in tissues. 	7. Metabolite toxicology. The primary mammalian metabolite and main form of systemic exposure following dietary administration of halauxifen-methyl is halauxifen and there is a complete set of toxicology studies demonstrating limited toxicity.  Other mammalian metabolites observed include demethylated halauxifen-methyl and demethylated halauxifen and their sulfate and glucuronide conjugates following dietary administration of halauxifen-methyl. The demethylated metabolites have been co-investigated in the mammalian toxicology studies and both metabolites are considered to be of no toxicological significance.  	8. Endocrine disruption. A complete set of toxicology studies were conducted with halauxifen, and there was no evidence of any endocrine-related effects. Bridging toxicology studies with halauxifen-methyl demonstrated systemic exposure was to halauxifen and metabolites with negligible or no halauxifen-methyl found in blood, urine and fetuses. For this reason, the weight of evidence suggests halauxifen and halauxifen-methyl are not endocrine modulators.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. A Dietary Assessment was conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model(TM) (DEEM-FCID, ver. 3.14) software which contains food consumption data based on NHANES 2-day food Consumption data for 2003 to 2008 and food translation to RACs, as indicated by EPA/USDA FCID recipe set as of February 2012.  This assessment evaluates potential risks due to chronic dietary exposures of the U.S. population subgroups to residues of halauxifen-methyl.  These analyses cover all proposed tolerances, including meat and milk.

	i. Food. a). Acute exposure.  No appropriate toxicological endpoint attributable to a single exposure was identified in the available toxicology studies on halauxifen-methyl and halauxifen. Since no acute toxicological endpoints are proposed, no acute assessment was performed.

b). The current chronic dietary assessment is an unrefined Tier I assessment using tolerance values and 100% crop-treated assumption to estimate dietary exposure.  These results are conservative (health protective) risk estimates.  Chronic assessments were conducted to evaluate potential risks due to chronic dietary exposure of the U.S population and sensitive subpopulations to residues of halauxifen-methyl against the proposed chronic reference dose (cRfD) of 0.1 mg/kg/day based on a NOAEL of 10 mg/kg/day from the halauxifen-methyl 90-day rat toxicity study and an uncertainty factor of 100 (10X for intra-species variation and 10X for inter-species variation).  The proposed FQPA Safety Factor (SF) = 1X; therefore, the proposed chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) = cRfD.

	ii. Drinking water. Because halauxifen-methyl is a new active ingredient there are no water-related data from monitoring to complete a quantitative drinking water exposure analysis and risk assessment.  Screening level exposure levels to water were estimated from the Agency's water models. The Index Drinking Water Reservoir (FIRST) was used to calculate estimated concentrations in surface waters. The screening concentration in ground water was estimated using the Screening Concentrations In Ground Water model (SCI-GROW). These models take into account the use patterns and the environmental profile of the pesticide, but do not include consideration of the impact that processing raw water for distribution as drinking water would likely have on the removal f pesticides from the source water. The primary use of these models is to provide a coarse screen for assessing whether a pesticide is likely to be present in drinking water at concentrations which would exceed human health levels of concern.

a). Acute exposure and risk. No acute dietary endpoint is proposed by Dow AgroSciences.  Therefore, no acute assessment was conducted and it is proposed that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from acute exposure from drinking water.

b). Chronic exposure and risk. Tier I screening level exposure assessments were conducted using SCI-GROW and FIRST. The models were run with input data for both halauxifen-methyl and halauxifen, as both theoretically could be found in the environment. The highest calculated water concentration was for halauxifen in surface water at 0.029 ppb. As a conservative approach, this water concentration was used in the DEEM-FCID(TM) dietary risk assessment for all direct and indirect water sources.

The Tier-I DEEM exposure for food and water with proposed tolerances resulted in an estimated exposure of 0.0001 mg/kg bw/day for the US general population which is 0.1% of the chronic RfD.  For the most highly exposed population subgroup, children 1 to 2 years old, the estimated exposure is 0. 0.0005 mg/kg/day at 0.5% of cPAD.  These results are conservative (health protective) risk estimates.  Refinements such as use of percent crop-treated information and/or anticipated residue values would yield lower estimates of chronic dietary exposure.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. Halauxifen-methyl does not have any proposed residential non-food uses. Therefore, there is no non-dietary acute, chronic, short or intermediate-term exposure and the dietary assessment alone serves to cover the aggregate assessment.  Dow AgroSciences concludes that residues of halauxifen-methyl and halauxifen in food and drinking water will not contribute significantly to human exposure and that the chronic aggregate exposure from halauxifen-methyl residues in food and drinking water will not exceed the proposed level of concern (100% of the chronic PAD) for any population subgroup.  The Agency generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the cPAD because the cPAD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to human health.

D. Cumulative Effects

	Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider "available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and "other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity."  EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether halauxifen-methyl has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment.  Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, halauxifen-methyl does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances.  For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, it is assumed that halauxifen-methyl does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. The unrefined chronic dietary exposure for food and water (which covers the aggregate exposure) occupies up to 0.1% of the cRfD for the U.S. general population. EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the chronic cRfD, because the cRfD represents the level at or below which daily dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to human health. Dow AgroSciences concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. general population or any subpopulation from aggregate exposure to halauxifen-methyl residues.

	2. Infants and children. The toxicology data available includes acceptable developmental studies in both rats and rabbits conducted using halauxifen-methyl and acceptable developmental studies (on rats and rabbits) and a two generation reproduction study using halauxifen.  A complete toxicity database is available for to jointly support halauxifen-methyl and halauxifen.  Exposure estimates are highly conservative and protective and complete. Based on the completeness of the database and the lack of prenatal and postnatal toxicity, Dow AgroSciences proposes that an additional safety factor is not needed for the protection of infants and children (FQPA SF = 1X).

Since no acute toxicological endpoints are proposed by Dow AgroSciences, the acute aggregate risk is considered to be negligible. Using the exposure assumptions described above, Dow AgroSciences has concluded that chronic dietary exposure (food and water) to halauxifen-methyl from the proposed new tolerances will utilize 0.5% of the cPAD for infants and children. The Agency generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the cPAD because the cPAD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to human health.  Based on these risk assessments, Dow AgroSciences concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to halauxifen-methyl residues.  The risk assessment is conservative in nature and results in a risk profile of halauxifen-methyl that is very protective of human health.

F. International Tolerances

	There are no existing international MRLs in other countries at this time.  The same tolerances values proposed in the USA have also been proposed as harmonized MRLs the countries that have generated data for the global residue package (Canada, Australia). In addition for Australia, MRLs are proposed for the small grain subgroup (grain at 0.01 ppm, straw at 0.015 ppm, forage, at 0.8 ppm and hay at 0.04 ppm).  Specifically, the animal meat and milk tolerances are helpful for global harmonization with Australia's MRL requirements for trade export.


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

			Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 30, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2003-16580

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant: Kuwait Airways Corporation						Date Filed: November 26, 2003

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to conduct
scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail
between Kuwait and Chicago, Illinois, via the intermediate point Athens,
Greece, at a frequency

of two roundtrip flights per week.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  New authority

Applicant representative: Henry C. Cashen II<PHONE_NUMBER>/Douglas N.
Jacobson<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT analyst:  Shelita Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved									Action date:  December 30, 2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  December 30, 2003 – December
30, 2004

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  Reciprocity

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

_X_ Standard exemption conditions (attached)        _X_ Foreign air
carrier permit conditions (Order 95-11-17)

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

We found that the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that  (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to advise the PSI of its
plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security Administration
has determined that security is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be
served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

08/2003


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

Project Name: 304( m) OCPSF Detailed Study TELEPHONE CALL RECORD Outgoing Call Date: 06/ 09/ 04 Time: 12 p. m.

Company Name: Georgia Pacific Green Bay, WI 920 438 2587 Contact Name: Ellie Ku Codding Phone No.: 703 633 1673 Name: Kenneth Graves Eastern Research Group, Inc.

GENERAL SUBJECT : Chlor Alkali Plants TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN I called Mr. Graves to ask if they still operated a chlor alkali plant at their mill. Mr. Graves said yes, they used to operate a Hooker cell asbestos diaphragm, and now they operate a Polyramics teflon diaphragm cell. They use the chlorine to manufacture calcium hypochlorite for on site use. They are converting to hydroxide based bleaches at other plants.


6 342 6.7 Region 7 Nonattainment Areas 6.7.1 EPA 9 Factor Analyses for Missouri for Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas Recommendations:

MO IL CMSA Area EPA Recommendation State Recommendation Missouri Nonattaining full counties: Franklin Jefferson St. Charles St. Louis St. Louis City Nonattaining full counties: Franklin Jefferson St. Charles St. Louis St. Louis City In Missouri the MO IL St. Louis CMSA counties include Franklin, Jefferson, Lincoln, St. Charles, St. Louis, St. Louis City, and Warren Counties.

Analysis The following is a brief summary of the 9 factor analysis for the Missouri portion of the MO IL St. Louis C/ MSA. Missouri counties that are in the CMSA are in bold; other counties are adjacent to the C/ MSA counties.

Factor 1: Emissions For this factor, EPA Region 7 looked at primary PM2.5, SO2, NOx, carbon, and crustal PM2.5 emissions. An emissions score was developed for each county to serve as an indicator of the local PM2.5 contribution for the CMSA. The emissions score was derived as follows:

Emissions Score = [( county SO2 tons/ CMSA SO2 tons)*(% sulfate of urban excess PM2.5)] + [( county NOx tons/ CMSA NOx tons)*(% nitrate of urban excess PM2.5)] + [( county carbon tons/ CMSA carbon tons)*(% carbon of urban excess PM2.5)] + [( county crustal PM tons/ CMSA crustal PM tons)*(% crustal of urban excess PM2.5)]

The emissions score incorporated an urban excess factor to evaluate the local scale contribution for the pollutants listed below. This excess factor ( local scale contribution) was determined by comparing speciated pollutants measurements between the St. Louis ( urban) monitor at Blair Street with the rural monitor at Mingo located in Stoddard County approximately 120 miles SSE of St. Louis. The local scale contribution for each pollutant category is as follows: 6 343 Urban Excess ( mass)   6.2 ug/ m3   Nitrates  ( 29%)   Sulfates  ( 8%)   Total Carbon Mass  ( 58%)   Crustal Material  ( 5%)

By evaluating the speciation data between these two monitoring sites, one is able to differentiate between regional and local source influences. Regional influences are seen predominantly in the summertime with sulfate sources ( power plants), while during the fall and winter seasons, higher levels of total carbon and nitrates are seen from local sources.

The emissions score for all 12 counties ( Missouri and Illinois) within MO IL C/ MSA add to 100. Counties adjacent to the C/ MSA are also calculated an emissions score so that emissions from those counties can be compared to the CMSA counties.

The following table shows total emissions ( in tons/ year) and emission scores for Missouri counties that are included in the MO IL St. Louis C/ MSA and for those that are adjacent to the CMSA. ( Date source: 2001 NEI)

County direct PM2.5 ( tons/ yr) SO2 ( tons/ yr) NOx ( tons/ yr) Carbon PM2.5 ( tons/ yr) Crustal/ other direct PM2.5 ( tons/ yr) Emission Score Cum Emission Score St. Louis, MO 6,689 30,400 53,358 3,456 2,897 27.4 27.4 St. Louis City, MO 2,424 14,647 27,193 1,214 958 11.0 55.2 Jefferson, MO 4,870 52,671 13,612 1,160 3,291 10.4 65.6 St. Charles, MO 3,424 40,596 25,793 896 2,415 10.2 75.8 Franklin, MO 4,066 45,216 15,482 918 2,864 9.1 84.9 Lincoln, MO 1,650 221 2,935 273 1,358 2.1 93.8 Warren, MO 889 324 1,803 205 674 1.5 98.9 Crawford, MO 590 110 2,199 183 396 1.4 Gasconade, MO 533 248 1,727 132 393 1.0 Montgomery, MO 879 364 1,740 145 719 1.2 Pike, MO 1,156 15,206 10,931 206 773 3.3 St. Francois, MO 1,212 697 4,204 328 825 2.5 * Ste. Genevieve, MO 1,308 9,205 18,027 255 940 2.7 to 4.2 Washington, MO 467 152 1,161 137 322 1.0 *  Emissions in Ste. Genevieve County were adjusted to account for industrial growth from new permits and PSD applications received by the state of Missouri. This growth resulted in the cumulative emission score changing from 2.7 to 4.2.

A natural break was observed for Missouri counties with an emission score 9.1 and above. In the case of the MO IL, the natural break CMSA county is Franklin Co., MO 6 344 ( Emission Score = 9.1). Applied to Missouri, this process identifies St. Louis, St. Louis City, Jefferson, St. Charles, and Franklin counties in MO as candidates for a PM2.5 nonattainment designation ( i. e., counties with emission scores >= 9.1), and, therefore, requiring further analysis of the remaining factors is required ( see below).

Crawford, Gasconade, Montgomery, Pike, St. Francois, Ste. Genevieve, and Washington counties in Missouri are dropped from further analysis because ( 1) none of these counties contain violating PM2.5 monitors, ( 2) none were recommended for a nonattainment designation by the state, and ( 3) al have emission scores significantly below < 9.1. The next closest county is Ste. Genevieve with an emission score of 4.2 based upon projected emissions from industrial growth. NOx emissions increased for St. Genevieve from industrial growth by 12,000 tons/ year, while SO2 emissions increased by 4,000 tons/ year.

Factor 2: Air Quality County 2001 2003 design value ( PM2.5 in µ g/ m3) St. Louis City, MO 15.2 Jefferson, MO 14.5 St. Charles, MO 14.3 St. Louis, MO 14.0 Based on the analysis for this factor, only one county, St. Louis City, shows a violation of the annual PM2.5 standard. The violating area ( St. Louis City) must have a nonattainment designation. However, this factor alone is not sufficient to eliminate the other counties as candidates for nonattainment status.

Factor 3: Population Density and Urbanization County 2002 Population ( people) 2002 Pop Density ( pop/ sq mi) St. Louis, MO 1,018,102 2,004 St. Louis City, MO 338,353 5,457 St. Charles, MO 303,030 540 Jefferson, MO 203,993 310 Franklin, MO 95,890 104 Factors 3 5 correlate very well with mobile source emissions, population and commuting activities. An evaluation of these factors and Vehicles Miles Traveled ( VMT) data support the county emission scores in Factor 1. The national approach of utilizing emission scores outlined in Factor 1 supported the recommendations made by the state.

Factor 4: Traffic and commuting patterns County 2002 VMT ( 1000 miles) VMT Growth1 ( 1000 miles) VMT % Change2 St. Louis, MO 11,553 3,280 24 St. Louis City, MO 4,178 1,719 41 6 345 St. Charles, MO 2,738 577 21 Jefferson, MO 2,511 322 13 Franklin, MO 1,391  263  19 1 2002 to 2010 2 2002 to 2010 ( as percentage of 2002 population)

Factor 5: Expected growth County 2002 Population ( people) Population Growth1 ( people) % Change2 St. Louis, MO 1,018,102 22,786 2 St. Louis City, MO 338,353  48,496  12 St. Charles, MO 303,030 70,976 33 Jefferson, MO 203,993 26,719 16 Franklin, MO 95,890 104 16 1 2002 to 2010 2 Estimated change in population growth, 2002 to 2010 ( as a percentage of 2002 population)

Factors 6 9 did not significantly influence the designation process.

Factor 6: Meteorology An evaluation conducted by Region 7 included trajectory cluster analysis using sulfate, nitrate, and organic carbon PM2.5 speciation measurements for the Blair Street site in St. Louis. This analysis generates back trajectories from the HYSPLIT model to characterize meteorological events for 8 specific clusters. High nitrate events occurred from trajectories originating from the North   Northwest, which agrees with the atmospheric chemistry for nitrate formation that occurs during fall/ winter cooling periods. High sulfate events occurred during the summer with trajectories occurring from the Ohio River Valley or upper Mississippi River Valley.

Factor 7: Geography/ topography The Missouri counties of the St. Louis MO IL CMSA counties do not have any geographical or topographical boundaries limiting transport across this airshed. The only observation noted in our review was the noticeable gradient of PM2.5 measurements as you go from east to west possibly indicating a more significant source of PM2.5 sources from the East or Illinois side of the River. The critical monitor is located in Madison County, Illinois with a 2001 2004 design value of 17.5 µ g/ m3. As you move from East to West, the ambient levels drop to 14 µ g/ m3.

Factor 8: Jurisdictional boundaries Jurisdictional boundaries did not play a role in determining nonattainment boundaries. Areas designated as 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas are also important boundaries for state air quality planning. Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, St. Louis, and St. Louis City were included in the nonattainment area associated with the St. Louis 8 hour ozone nonattainment area. A goal in designating PM2.5 nonattainment areas is to achieve a 6 346 degree of consistency with ozone NA areas. Comparison of ozone areas with potential PM2.5 NA areas, therefore, gives added weight to designation of the above counties.

Factor 9: Level of control of emission sources A review of all the factors as well as the recommendations and supporting documentation from the state of Missouri did not identify any additional counties that should be excluded or included in the St. Louis PM2.5 nonattainment area. Based upon this review and the methodology established by the PM2.5 Review Team consisting of members from Regions 1 5 and 7 9 as well as representatives from the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, the following Missouri counties are recommended for nonattainment for PM2.5 for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area:

  St. Louis   St. Louis City   St. Charles   Jefferson   Franklin