[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 201 (Monday, October 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63257-63261]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26426]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76130; File No. SR-BATS-2015-85]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.

October 13, 2015.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on October 2, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the
``Exchange'' or ``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one
establishing or changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by
the Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2)

thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members\5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to BATS Rules
15.1(a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule applicable to the
Exchange's options platform (``BATS Options'') effective immediately,
in order to modify certain standard pricing and to amend the thresholds
related to meeting certain pricing tiers, the applicability of certain
pricing tiers and the fees and rebates associated with certain pricing
tiers, as described below.
Standard Pricing
    The Exchange proposes to modify certain standard pricing applicable
to BATS Options, including: (i) The rebate to add liquidity in non-
Penny Pilot Securities \6\ applicable to Firm,\7\ Broker Dealer
(``BD'') \8\ and Joint Back Office (``JBO'') \9\ orders, which yield
fee code NF; (ii) the fee for Customer \10\ orders that remove
liquidity in Penny Pilot Securities, which yield fee code PC; and (iii)
the fee for non-Customer orders that remove liquidity in Penny Pilot
Securities, which yield fee code PP. The proposed changes are set forth
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Penny Pilot Securities'' are those issues quoted pursuant
to Exchange Rule 21.5, Interpretation and Policy .01.
    \7\ ``Firm'' applies to any transaction identified by a Member
for clearing in the Firm range at the Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC''), excluding any Joint Back office transaction.
    \8\ ``Broker Dealer'' applies to any order for the account of a
broker dealer, including a foreign broker dealer, that clears in the
Customer range at the OCC.
    \9\ ``Joint Back Office'' applies to any transaction identified
by a Member for clearing in the Firm Range at the OCC that is
identified with an origin code as Joint Back Office.
    \10\ ``Customer'' applies to any transaction identified by a
Member for clearing in the Customer range at the OCC, excluding any
transaction for a Broker Dealer or a ``Professional'' as defined in
Exchange Rule 16.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Exchange currently provides a rebate of $0.40 per
contract for Firm, BD and JBO orders that add liquidity in non-Penny
Pilot Securities, which yield fee code NF. The Exchange proposes to
reduce this rebate to $0.36 per contract.
     The Exchange currently charges a fee of $0.45 per contract
for Customer orders that remove liquidity in Penny Pilot Securities,
which yield fee code PC. The Exchange proposes to increase this fee to
$0.46 per contract.
     The Exchange currently charges a fee of $0.49 per contract
or non-Customer orders that remove liquidity in Penny Pilot Securities,
which yield fee code PP. The Exchange proposes to increase this fee to
$0.50 per contract.
    Each of the changes to standard pricing described above is proposed
in order to increase revenue generated by the Exchange or to decrease
the rebates paid by the Exchange in order to contribute to the overall
profitability of the Exchange. The Exchange believes that these changes
represent relatively modest increases to fees charged and adjustments
to the rebates that are necessary to fund the continued growth of the
Exchange.
Non-Customer Penny Pilot Add Volume Tier Rebates and Thresholds
    The Exchange currently offers enhanced rebates under both the Firm,
Broker Dealer, and Joint Back Office Penny Pilot Add Volume Tiers
(which apply to fee code PF) and the Market Maker and Non-BATS Market
Maker Penny Pilot Add Volume Tiers (which apply to fee code PM) to
Members with trading activity on BATS Options that meets certain
thresholds. More specifically, in Tier 3 of each of these sets of
tiers, BATS Options offers an enhanced rebate of $0.47 per contract to
orders that yield fee code PF and PM where: (i) The Member has an ADAV
\11\ in Firm, BD and JBO orders in Penny Pilot Securities (yielding Fee
Code PF) equal to or greater than 0.25% of average TCV; \12\ and (ii)
the Member has an ADV \13\ equal to or greater than 1.50% of average
TCV. The Exchange proposes to reduce the rebate offered in Tier 3 of
each of these sets of tiers to $0.46 per contract. The Exchange has
proposed this change for reasons consistent with the reason for the
changes to Standard Pricing described above, including the generation
of additional revenue by the Exchange in order to contribute to the
overall profitability of the Exchange and to fund the continued growth
of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``ADAV'' means average daily added volume calculated as the
number of contracts per day.
    \12\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges to the consolidated transaction
reporting plan for the month for which the fees apply, excluding
volume on any day that the Exchange experiences an Exchange System
Disruption and on any day with a scheduled early market close.
    \13\ ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as the number
of contracts added or removed, combined, per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to modify the criteria necessary to
qualify for Tier 2 of the Market Maker and Non-BATS Market Maker Penny
Pilot Add Volume Tiers, which applies to fee code PM and provides a
rebate of $0.42 per contract. Currently, in order to qualify for such
Tier, a Member of BATS Options must: (i) Have an ADAV equal to or
greater than 1.00% of average TCV; and (ii) have an ADV equal to or
greater than 2.00% of average TCV. The Exchange proposes to modify the
first prong of this requirement such that a Member must have an ADAV in
Market Maker \14\ and/or Non-BATS Market Maker \15\ orders equal to or
greater than 1.00% of average TCV. The Exchange is proposing to require
a Member's ADAV necessary to qualify for Tier 2 to be Market Maker and/
or Non-BATS Market Maker orders in order to incentivize the entry of
such orders to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ ``Market Maker'' applies to any transaction identified by a
Member for clearing in the Market Maker range at the OCC.
    \15\ ``Non-BATS Market Maker'' applies to any transaction
identified by a Member for clearing in the Market Maker range at the
OCC, where such Member is not registered with the Exchange as a
Market Maker, but is registered as a market maker on another options
exchange.

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

Non-Customer Penny Pilot Take Volume Tiers
    The Exchange currently offers a total of five Non-Customer Penny
Pilot Take Volume Tiers that provide discounted fees for Non-Customer
orders in Penny Pilot Securities that remove liquidity from BATS
Options under fee code PP. The Exchange proposes various updates to the
existing tiers as well as to add an additional tier, as set forth
below.
     The Exchange currently charges $0.48 per contract for
Members that qualify for Non-Customer Volume Tier 1, which requires
that a Member has an ADV equal to or greater than 1.00% of average TCV.
The Exchange proposes increasing this fee to $0.49 per contract.
     The Exchange currently charges $0.47 per contract for
Members that qualify for Non-Customer Volume Tier 2, which requires
that a Member has an ADV equal to or greater than 1.25% of average TCV.
The Exchange proposes to increase this fee to $0.48 per contract. The
Exchange also proposes to increase the ADV threshold required to reach
Non-Customer Volume Tier 2 from 1.25% to 1.50% of average TCV.
     The Exchange currently charges $0.45 per contract for
Members that qualify for Non-Customer Volume Tier 3, which requires
that a Member: (i) Has an ADAV equal to or greater than 1.00% of
average TCV, and (ii) has an ADV equal to or greater than 2.00% of
average TCV. The Exchange proposes to increase this fee to $0.47 per
contract. The Exchange also proposes to eliminate the first prong of
the criteria, which contains an ADAV component, such that a Member
would simply be required to reach an ADV equal to or greater than 2.00%
of average TCV.
     The Exchange proposes to add a new tier, Non-Customer Take
Volume Tier 4, which would charge $0.45 per share for any Member with
an ADAV in Customer orders equal to or greater than 0.80% of average
TCV. The Exchange notes that this is similar to but easier to attain
than current Non-Customer Take Volume Tier 4, which results in a fee of
$0.43 per contract for any Member with an ADAV in Customer orders equal
to or greater than 2.00% of average TCV. Because the new tier is easier
to attain, the Exchange has proposed a higher fee. In connection with
this change, the Exchange proposes to rename current Non-Customer Take
Volume Tier 4 as Non-Customer Take Volume Tier 5.
    The majority of the changes set forth above represent modest
increases in rates or higher criteria to obtain such rates and are
proposed for reasons consistent with the reason for the changes to
Standard Pricing described above, including the generation of
additional revenue by the Exchange in order to contribute to the
overall profitability of the Exchange and to fund the continued growth
of the Exchange. The Exchange notes that the addition of the new Non-
Customer Take Volume Tier 4 is intended to incentivize the entry of
additional Customer orders to the Exchange.
NBBO Setter Tiers
    The Exchange's NBBO Setter Program is a program intended to
incentivize aggressive quoting on BATS Options by providing an
additional rebate upon execution for all orders that add liquidity that
set either the NBB or NBO, subject to certain volume requirements. The
Exchange currently operates three NBBO Setter Tiers that provide an
additional rebate of either $0.02 per contract or $0.04 per contract to
orders from qualifying Members that submit orders that yield PA, PF,
PM, NA, NF and NM.
    The Exchange is proposing to add a new tier, Tier 4, which would
provide an additional rebate of $0.05 per contract to orders yielding
fee code PF or PM that establish a new NBBO and are submitted by a
Member that has an ADAV in non-Customer orders equal to or greater than
1.00% of average TCV and has an ADV in non-Customer orders equal to or
greater than 1.80% of average TCV. The Exchange proposes to limit the
applicability of Tier 4 to orders yielding fee code PF and PM, which
represent added liquidity in Penny Pilot Securities for Market Maker
orders, Non-BATS Market Maker orders, Firm orders, BD orders and JBO
orders. Thus, contrary to other NBBO Setter Tiers, Tier 4 would not
apply to Professional Customer orders or to orders in non-Penny Pilot
Securities. The Exchange believes that this new tier will incentivize
additional entry of orders that set a new NBBO, thereby contributing to
the availability of aggressively priced liquidity on the Exchange and
the price discovery process.
QIP Tiers
    Pursuant to the Quoting Incentive Program (``QIP'') the Exchange
currently provides an additional rebate per contract for an order that
adds liquidity to the BATS Options order book in options classes in
which a Member is a Market Maker registered on BATS Options pursuant to
Rule 22.2. A Market Maker must be registered with BATS Options in an
average of 20% or more of the associated options series in a class in
order to qualify for QIP rebates for that class. The Exchange currently
offers two tiers, Tier 1 and Tier 2, which provide an additional rebate
of $0.02 per contract or $0.04 per contract, respectively, for Members
that satisfy applicable QIP criteria. The Exchange does not propose to
modify the criteria necessary to qualify for QIP tiers or the rebates
provided thereunder, however the Exchange does propose to limit the
applicability of such tiers to fee codes PM and NM, which apply to
added liquidity for Market Maker and Non-BATS Market Maker orders.
Thus, QIP rebates would no longer be provided to orders yielding fee
codes NA or PA, which apply to added liquidity in Professional Customer
orders, or to fee codes NF or PF, which apply to added liquidity in
Firm, BD and JBO orders. Because QIP rebates are no longer applicable,
the Exchange also proposes to eliminate references to footnote 5 for
each of these fee codes on the Fee Codes and Associated Fees chart.
Firm, Broker Dealer and Joint Back Office Non-Penny Pilot Add Volume
Tiers
    The Exchange is also proposing to modify its Firm, BD and JBO Non-
Penny Pilot Add Volume Tiers, under which there are three tiers
offering enhanced rebates for Firm, BD and JBO orders that add
liquidity in non-Penny Pilot Securities. Specifically, the tiers
provide the following rebates under the following conditions for Firm,
BD and JBO orders that add volume in non-Penny Pilot Securities: Tier 1
provides a $0.50 rebate per contract to a Member that has an ADV equal
to or greater than 0.05% of average TCV; Tier 2 provides a $0.60 rebate
per contract to a Member that has an ADV equal to or greater than 0.15%
of average TCV; and Tier 3 provides a $0.65 rebate per contract to
Member that has an ADV equal to or greater than 0.25% of average TCV.
The Exchange proposes the following changes to these tiers.
     The Exchange proposes to reduce the rebate provided under
Tier 1 from $0.50 per contract to $0.45 per contract and to increase
the requirement such that a Member needs to have an ADV equal to or
greater than 0.15% of average TCV (rather than 0.05% as currently
required).
     The Exchange proposes to eliminate Tier 2 in its entirety.
     The Exchange proposes to rename current Tier 3 as Tier 2.
Other Changes
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the Standard Rates table, which
summarizes the range of fees at the beginning of the fee schedule, in
order to reflect the changes proposed above.

Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its Fee
Schedule effective immediately.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\16\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\17\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels to be
excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Volume-based rebates and fees such as the ones currently maintained
on BATS Options have been widely adopted by equities and options
exchanges and are equitable because they are open to all Members on an
equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are
reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality
associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels
of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns, and introduction of
higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery processes.
    As explained above, the Exchange is proposing various slight
increases to fees as well as decreases in rebates in order to
contribute to the overall profitability of the Exchange. The Exchange
believes that these changes represent relatively modest increases to
fees charged and adjustments to the rebates that are necessary to fund
the continued growth of the Exchange. For the same reason, the Exchange
believes that the modest increases to qualification thresholds for
various pricing tiers is reasonable, fair and equitable and non-
discriminatory, specifically because such increases will either
incentivize participants to further contribute to market quality to the
Exchange or the Exchange will be providing fewer or lower enhanced
rebates to participants. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
fees and rebates remain consistent with pricing previously offered by
the Exchange as well as competitors of the Exchange and do not
represent a significant departure from the Exchange's general pricing
structure.
    The Exchange believes that its proposed new Non-Customer Penny
Pilot Take Volume Tier 4 is reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-
discriminatory in that it is aimed to attract additional liquidity to
the Exchange and is consistent with other existing pricing tiers on the
Exchange. The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable, fair and
equitable, and non-discriminatory to limit the applicability of QIP
rebates to Market Maker orders and Non-BATS Market Maker orders because
QIP is a program aimed to incentivize active market making on the
Exchange. Similarly, the Exchange believes it is reasonable, fair and
equitable, and non-discriminatory to modify the Market Maker and Non-
BATS Market Maker Penny Pilot Add Tier 2 to require that qualifying
ADAV results from Market Maker and Non-BATS Market Maker orders because
the tier is intended to incentivize the entry of market orders and the
enhanced rebates are provided to such orders (specifically, those
yielding fee code PM, which are Market Maker or Non-BATS Market Maker
orders in Penny Pilot Securities).
    The Exchange believes that new proposed NBBO Setter Tier 4 is
reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-discriminatory because it will
help to further incentivize the entry of aggressively priced liquidity
to the Exchange. The Exchange believes it is reasonable, fair and
equitable, and non-discriminatory to limit the new NBBO Setter Tier,
Tier 4, to orders yielding fee codes applicable to Penny Pilot
Securities (thus excluding non-Penny Pilot Securities) and to orders on
behalf of participants that are most likely to actively engage in
providing liquidity on the Exchange (thus excluding Customers and
Professional Customers).
    The Exchange believes that the pricing continues to be reasonable,
fair and equitable, and also consistent with or better than other
options exchanges that operate similar market models.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that any of the proposed changes to increase fees or decrease rebates
burden competition, but instead, that they enhance competition as they
are intended to increase the profitability, and thus, competitiveness
of BATS Options by allowing the Exchange to create additional pricing
incentives and to maintain and improve the infrastructure of the
Exchange. Also, the Exchange believes that the increase to certain
thresholds necessary to meet tiers offered by the Exchange contributes
to rather than burdens competition, as such changes are intended to
incentivize participants to increase their participation on the
Exchange. Similarly, the introduction of new tiers is intended to
provide incentives to Members to encourage them to enter orders to BATS
Options, and thus is again intended to enhance competition. Finally,
the Exchange does not believe that its proposal to limit the
applicability of certain incentives to certain fee codes unnecessarily
burdens competition, as each change is intended to more narrowly reward
participation by those that are actually the target of the incentive
and that are participating on the Exchange accordingly (i.e., limiting
rebates to Market Maker and Non-BATS Market Maker incentives when the
incentive is based on market making activity).
    As stated above, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels to be excessive
or providers of routing services if they deem routing fee levels to be
excessive.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \18\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \19\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 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) \20\ of the Act to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 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 No. SR-BATS-2015-85 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BATS-2015-85. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-BATS-2015-85, and should be
submitted on or before November 9, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-26426 Filed 10-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 222 (Monday, November 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55103-55104]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25079]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-133-000]

Northwest Pipeline LLC; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed North Fork Nooksack Line
Lowering Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the North
Fork Nooksack Line Lowering Project, proposed by Northwest Pipeline LLC
(Northwest) in the above-referenced docket. Northwest requests
authorization to replace and lower approximately 1,700 feet of 30-inch-
diameter natural gas pipeline, and remove about 1,550 feet of
previously abandoned 26-inch-diameter pipeline in Whatcom County,
Washington. The North Fork Nooksack Line Lowering Project would
eliminate a potential obstruction to river flow and improve system
reliability.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the North Fork Nooksack Line Lowering
Project in accordance with the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval
of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would
not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has participated as a cooperating
agency in the preparation of the EA. Cooperating agencies have
jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources
potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA
analysis.
    The proposed North Fork Nooksack Line Lowering Project includes the
following:
     Remove, replace, and lower approximately 1,700 feet of 30-
inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in the same trench; and
     remove approximately 1,550 feet of previously abandoned
26-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline that would become exposed during
the removal and installation of the 30-inch-diameter pipeline.
    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native
American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested
individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project
area. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's
Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited number of
copies of the EA are available for distribution and public inspection
at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888
First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To
ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your
comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important
that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before December
13, 2017.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
project docket number (CP17-133-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy

method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on eRegister. You must select the type of filing you are making. If you
are filing a comment on a particular project, please select ``Comment
on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\1\ Only intervenors have the
right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The Commission
grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns
intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a
clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can
adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not
give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to
have your comments considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the previous discussion on the methods for filing
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP17-
133). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: November 13, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-25079 Filed 11-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="13/03/2008 06:06:59 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


Public Comment Received December 1, 2016
Docket EPA-RO 2-OAR-2016-0161
Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; New York, New Jersey and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; Other Solid Waste Incineration Units
Comment On: EPA-RO 2-OAR-2016-0161-001
Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico; Designated Facilities; Other Solid Waste Incineration Units.
Submitted Comment: "This is not beneficial, as evidenced by recent funding statistics. As the trend shows increased regulations result in decreased funding for research grants".
EPA Memo to the Docket:
This comment is not a "significant comment" pursuant to Section 307(d)(6)(B) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §7607(d)(6)(B) and therefore EPA is not responding.  The comment does not relate to the underlying purpose of the Notice, which is to exempt the States of New York and New Jersey and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico from the requirement to submit a plan under Sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§7411(d) and 7429. Therefore, the comment is neither relevant nor adverse to this action. The commenter has not made clear any connection between "increased regulations" and decreased funding for research grants in the context of this rule which is merely a negative declaration that "Other Solid Waste Incineration Units" do not exist within the noted jurisdictions.
We note that the commenter, who is not identified in the comment, provided an attachment which is corrupted.  EPA technical staff in Region 2's Information Systems Branch were unable to open the attached file because the .html file is a website file that was not properly formatted, and the javascript link does not lead to anything accessible.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72304-72305]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27533]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1159]

Deadline for Notification of Intent To Use the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) Primary, Cargo, and Nonprimary Entitlement
Funds Available to Date for Fiscal Year 2022.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Federal Register notice.

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

SUMMARY: This action announces February 15, 2022, as the deadline for
each airport sponsor to notify the FAA if it will use its Fiscal Year
(FY) 2022 entitlement funds to accomplish Airport Improvement Program
(AIP) eligible projects. Each sponsor has previously identified to the
FAA such projects through the Airports Capital Improvement Plan
process. This action further announces April 11, 2022, as the deadline
for an airport sponsor to submit a final grant application, based on
bids, for grants that will be funded with FY 2022 entitlements funds
only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David F. Cushing, Manager, Airports
Financial Assistance Division, APP-500, at<PHONE_NUMBER>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title 49 U.S.C. 47105(f) provides that the
sponsor of an airport for which entitlement funds are apportioned shall
notify the Secretary, by such time and in a form as prescribed by the
Secretary, of the airport sponsor's intent to submit a grant
application for its available entitlement funds. Therefore, the FAA is
hereby notifying such airport sponsors of the steps required to ensure
that the FAA has sufficient time to carry over and convert remaining
entitlement funds.
    The AIP grant program is authorized by Public Law 115-254, the
``FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018,'' enacted on October 5, 2018, which
permits the FAA to make grants for planning and airport development and
airport noise compatibility under the AIP through September 30, 2023.
The funds allocated to the FAA to fund the AIP grant program are
appropriated by an annual Appropriations Act. Funding for the FY 2022
AIP will be contingent upon the amounts appropriated by Congress and
any requirements included in an annual Appropriations Act, once
enacted. Apportioned funds will be subject to allocation formulas
prescribed by 49 U.S.C. 47114 and any other applicable legislative
text.
    This notice applies only to sponsors of airports that have
entitlement funds

appropriated for FY 2022 to use on eligible and justified projects.
State aviation agencies participating in the FAA's State Block Grant
Program, as prescribed by 49 U.S.C. 47128, are responsible for
notifying the FAA which covered nonprimary airports in their programs
will be using their entitlement funds for eligible and justified
projects.
    An airport sponsor intending to apply for any of its available
entitlement funds, including those unused, but still available in
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47117 from prior years, must notify the FAA
of its intent to submit a grant application by 12 p.m. prevailing local
time on Tuesday, February 15, 2022.
    This notice must be in writing and stipulate the total amount the
sponsor intends to use for eligible and justified projects during FY
2022, including those entitlement funds not obligated from prior years
that remain available in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47117 (also known as
protected carryover). These notifications are critical to ensure
efficient planning and administration of the AIP. The final grant
application deadline for entitlement funds only is Monday, April 11,
2022. The final grant application funding requests should be based on
bids, not estimates. As prescribed under 49 U.S.C. 47117, the FAA will
carryover the remainder of available entitlement funds after June 1,
2022. These funds will not be available again to the airport sponsor
until the beginning of FY 2023. Dates are subject to possible
adjustment based on future legislation. As of the publication of this
notice, past appropriations for the FAA expired on September 30, 2021,
and the FAA is currently under a Continuing Resolution (CR) until
February 18, 2022. However, FAA authorizing legislation expires on
September 30, 2023 and the FAA will continue its planning process
during the current and any future CR.
    The FAA has determined these deadlines will expedite and facilitate
the FY 2022 grant-making process.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 15, 2021.
Robert John Craven,
Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming.
[FR Doc. 2021-27533 Filed 12-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES May12, 2004 Memorandum SUBJECT: Review of " Dissipation of Transferable Residues of Benefin and Trifluralin on Turf Treated with a Formulation of the Pesticides"

FROM: Shanna Recore, Industrial Hygienist Reregistration Branch II Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

THRU: Al Nielsen, Branch Senior Scientist Reregistration Branch II Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

TO: John Pates, Chemical Review Manager Reregistration Branch Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508W)

DP Barcode: D300239 PC Code: 036101 EPA MRID No.: 457456 01 Attached is a review of the trifluralin turf transferable residue data submitted by Dow AgroSciences LLC. This review was completed by Versar, Inc. on April 9, 2004, under supervision of HED. It has undergone secondary review in HED and has been revised to reflect Agency policies. 2 Executive Summary The data collected, reflecting the turf tranferable residues, meet most of the criteria specified by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's ( US EPA) OPPTS Series 875, Occupational and Residential Exposure Test Guidelines, Group B: Post Application Summary This study was designed to characterize dissipation of benefin and trifluralin transferable turf residues when applied to turf at three test sites in California, Indiana, and Mississippi. Team 2G, formulated as a granular containing 1.33% benefin and 0.67% trifluralin was applied one time to separate plots at each site using ground application equipment. Each application was made at the maximum target application rate of 2.0 lbs benefin/ 1.0 lb trifluralin per acre). Transferable turf residues ( TTR) were collected using the modified California Roller Technique. The application method, rate, and frequency ( number and timing) were relevant to the use pattern proposed by the product label. Three samples from each treated plot were collected at each location immediately after each application and then at 1, 2, 4, and 7 days after the application. At all three sites ( CA, IN, and MS), the raw TTR values did not require correction for field fortification recoveries, as the overall average percent recovery was > 90%. At the California site, the maximum average TTR values for benefin and trifluralin occurred immediately after the application of the test substance ( 0.0026

g/ cm2 and 0.00138

g/ cm2, respectively). After day 0, no residues were detectable. At the Indiana site, the maximum average TTR values for benefin and trifluralin occurred immediately after the application of the test substance ( 0.0021

g/ cm2 and 0.0011

g/ cm2, respectively). After day 0, no residues were detectable. At the Mississippi site, the maximum average TTR values for benefin and trifluralin occurred immediately after the application of the test substance ( 0.0012

g/ cm2 and 0.00077

g/ cm2, respectively). After day 0, no residues were detectable.

Conclusion The study completed in support of the regulatory requirements contained the following omissions and flaws with respect to OPPTS Series 875 Test Guidelines. The most important discrepancies and issues of concern was that:

° separate control plots were not established at each site.

This study met most of the Series 875.2100 Guidelines and the results will be used by HED in the trifluralin Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision Document. 3 Reviewer: Bill Smith Date April 9, 2004 STUDY TYPE: Determination of Transferable Turf Residue Dissipation from Turf Treated with Team 2G TEST MATERIAL: Team 2G is formulated as a granular containing 1.33% benefin and 0.67% trifluralin as the active ingredients.

SYNONYMS: Benefin: benfluralin, B Butyl N Ethyl 2,6 Dinitro 4( Trofluoromethyl) Benzenamine Trifluralin: Benzenamine, 2,6 Dinitro N, N Dipropyl 4( Trofluoromethyl)

CITATION: Authors: E. M. Bargar Title: Dissipation of Transferable Residues of Benefin and Trifluralin on Turf Treated with a Formulation of the Pesticides Report Date: July 26, 2002 ( amended study date) Analytical Laboratory: Global Environmental Chemistry Laboratory   Indianapolis Lab Dow AgroSciences LLC 9330 Zionsville Road Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 1054 Identifying Codes: MRID 457456 01; Laboratory Study ID RES97075 SPONSOR: Dow AgroSciences LLC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This study was designed to characterize dissipation of benefin and trifluralin transferable turf residues when applied to turf at three test sites in California, Indiana, and Mississippi. Team 2G, formulated as a granular containing 1.33% benefin and 0.67% trifluralin was applied one time to separate plots at each site using ground application equipment. Each application was made at the maximum target application rate of 2.0 lbs benefin/ 1.0 lb trifluralin per acre). Transferable turf residues ( TTR) were collected using the modified California Roller Technique. The application method, rate, and frequency ( number and timing) were relevant to the use pattern proposed by the product label. Three samples from each treated plot were collected at each location immediately after each application and then at 1, 2, 4, and 7 days after the application. At all three sites ( CA, IN, and MS), the raw TTR values did not require correction for field fortification recoveries, as the overall average percent recovery was > 90%. At the California site, the maximum average TTR values for benefin and trifluralin occurred immediately after the application of the test substance ( 0.0026

g/ cm2 and 0.00138

g/ cm2, respectively). After day 0, no residues were detectable. At the Indiana site, the maximum average TTR values for benefin and trifluralin occurred immediately after the application of the test substance ( 0.0021

g/ cm2 and 0.0011

g/ cm2, respectively). After day 0, no residues were detectable. At the Mississippi site, the maximum average TTR values for benefin and trifluralin occurred immediately after the application of the test substance ( 0.0012

g/ cm2 and 0.00077

g/ cm2, respectively). After day 0, no residues were detectable.

This study met most of the Series 875.2100 Guidelines ( See Appendix A). The only issue of concern is:

° separate control plots were not established at each site.

COMPLIANCE: Signed and dated GLP, Quality Assurance, and Data Confidentiality statements were provided. The study sponsor waived claims of confidentiality within the scope of FIFRA Section 10 ( d)( 1)( A), ( B), or ( C). The Study Report indicated that the study was conducted under EPA Good Laboratory Practice Standards ( 40 CFR Part 160), with the following exceptions: ( 1) documentation is incomplete by GLP standards for weather/ meteorological data and ( 2) documentation is incomplete by GLP standards for turf and pesticide history. According to the study author, these GLP deviations did not compromise the scientific integrity of the study.

CONCURRENT EXPOSURE STUDY?: No GUIDELINE OR PROTOCOL FOLLOWED: According the study authors, an accepted protocol was used; however, the protocol was not provided with the Study Report. Series 875, Occupational and 4 Residential Exposure Test Guidelines Group B: Postapplication Exposure Monitoring Test Guidelines, 875.2100, Transferable Residue Dissipation, Lawn and Turf was followed for the compliance review of this study.

I. MATERIALS AND METHODS A. MATERIALS 1. Test Material:

Formulation: Team 2G is a granular formulation that contains 1.33% benefin and 0.67% trifluralin. Lot/ Batch # formulation: No lot or batch number was provided in the Study Report. Formulation guarantee: The stability and homogeneity of the active ingredients in the formulation were established prior to the conduct of this study ( Report No. FA& PC 973042). Detailed results were not provided in the Study Report. CAS #( s): 1861 40 1 ( benefin) 1582 09 8 ( trifluarlin) Other Relevant Information: EPA Reg No.: 62719 137 2. Relevance of Test Material to Proposed Formulation( s):

According to the Study Report, the test product sent to the field sites was Team 2G containing 1.33% benefin and 0.67% trifluralin. No label was provided with the Study Report; however, using the OPP Pesticide Products Database, Versar located a label for EPA Registration No. 62719 137. This label had the same product name ( Team 2G) and active ingredients ( 1.33% benefin and 0.67% trifluralin ) as the test product, thus they appear to be the same products.

B. STUDY DESIGN According to the Study Report, the deviations to the study protocol ( which was not provided with the Study Report) are as follows: ( 1) values of the percent active ingredient and last analysis date, although known prior to application, were not added to the study file until after application of the test material; ( 2) Application of the test materials at one site was approximately 8% of that stated in the protocol; and ( 3) Protective foot coverings were not changed during the daily sampling because samplers did not walk in the treated areas. The study authors stated that these deviations had no effect on the integrity of the data generated for this study.

As this report is an amended version of a previous report ( MRID No. 449983 01), the amendment changes were as follows: ( 1) in the application section, the range of application rates was changed to reflect the re calculated values; ( 2) the applied rate and percent of target application for the CA site were changed to reflect the recalculated values; and ( 3) the actual application rate and percent of target application for the CA site were changed to reflect the re calculated values. These amendments were necessary as calculation errors on the application for the CA site were discovered in the original Study Report. The study authors stated that the corrections had no impact on the study since the corrected values did not affect the interpretation or results of the study.

1. Site Description Test locations: The field portion of the study was conducted in Fresno County, California ( Experiment No. 97075CA), in Hancock County, Indiana ( Experiment No. 97075IN), and Washington County, Mississippi ( Experiment No. 97075MS).

Areas sprayed and sampled: The test plot at each site measured 100 ft by 10 ft and was divided into three subplots, each measuring 2.5 ft by 6 ft.

Meteorological Data: California Meteorological data were collected at the California site from a Campbell weather station located one mile from the site. Measurements were collected from June 5 to June 13, 1997. During this time period, the lowest minimum temperature was 54  F and the highest maximum temperature was 93  F. There were no precipitation events during the study. Additionally, irrigation was not used. Conditions during the application were as follows: wind speed averaged 2.1 miles per hour ( mph) in a southeast direction; air 5 temperatures averaged 80  F; relative humidity averaged 44%; and the turf surface was dry.

Indiana Meteorological data were collected at the Indiana site from a Campbell weather station located on site. Measurements were collected from July 30 to August 7, 1997. During this time period, the lowest minimum temperature was 48  F and the highest maximum temperature was 91  F. There were no precipitation events during the study. Additionally, irrigation was not used. Conditions during the application were as follows: wind speed ranged from 0.9 to 5.1 miles per hour ( mph) in an easterly direction; air temperatures averaged 82.0  F; relative humidity averaged 56%; and the turf surface was dry.

Pennsylvania Meteorological data were collected at the Mississippi site from a Campbell weather station located on site. Measurements were collected from June 19 to June 27, 1997. During this time period, the lowest minimum temperature was 68  F and the highest maximum temperature was 94  F. One precipitation event occurred on June 24th, totaling 0.15 inches of rainfall at the site. Irrigation was not used at the site. Conditions during the application were as follows: wind speed ranged from 2.0 to 3.0 miles per hour ( mph) in a southerly direction; air temperatures averaged 85  F; relative humidity averaged 70%; and the turf surface was dry.

2. Surface Monitored:

California Turf Species: Common Bermuda Residential or Public Area: Not Provided Other relevant Characteristics: The sodding date for the treated plots was unknown. At the time of the application, the grass was considered established turf and was approximately 1.5 inches in height. The grass was mowed just prior to each application. Other products used on turf ( treated plots): No maintenance chemicals were used on the treated plot for the duration of the study ( i. e., control sampling on the day prior to application through the last sampling day).

Indiana Turf Species: Bonanza Tall Fescue Residential or Public Area: Not Provided Other relevant Characteristics: The plots at this site were established in 1992 At the time of the application, the grass was considered established turf and was approximately 3.0 inches in height. The grass was mowed just prior to each application. Other products used on turf ( treated plots): No maintenance chemicals were used on the treated plot for the duration of the study ( i. e., control sampling on the day prior to application through the last sampling day).

Mississippi Turf Species: Bermuda/ Baryard Grass Mixture (~ 70/ 30) Residential or Public Area: Not Provided Other relevant Characteristics: The plots at this site were established in 1997. At the time of the application, the grass was considered established turf and was approximately 3.0 inches in height. The grass was mowed just prior to each application. Other products used on turf ( treated plots): No maintenance chemicals were used on the treated plot for the duration of the study ( i. e., control sampling on the day prior to application through the last sampling day).

3. Physical State of Formulation as Applied The physical state of the formulation as applied was granular. 6 4. Application Rates and Regimes California Residential or Commercial Applicator: Commercial Application rate: The target application rate was 2.0 lbs benefin per acre and 1.0 lb trifluralin per acre. The actual application rate was 2.01 lb benefin per acre and 1.0 lb trifluralin per acre. Application Regime: One application was made to the test site on June 6, 1997. Application Equipment: Applications were made with a tractor mounted Gandy Applicator, which was air powered with 4 banders on 30 inch spacing. Equipment Calibration Procedures: According to the Study Report, the sprayer was calibrated to deposit 16 grams of Team 2G/ sec.; however, the raw data for the calibration procedure was not provided. Was application " watered in"? No Was total deposition measured? No Indiana Residential or Commercial Applicator: Commercial Application rate: The target application rates were 2.0 lbs benefin per acre and 1.0 lb trifluralin per acre. The actual application rate was 2.02 lb benefin per acre and 1.0 lb trifluralin per acre. Application Regime: One application was made to the test site on July 31, 1997. Application Equipment: Applications were made with a tractor mounted Gandy Applicator, which was air powered with 4 banders on 30 inch spacing. Equipment Calibration Procedures: Sprayer calibration was performed but the raw data for this calibration was not provided. The sprayer was calibrated to deposit 20.77 grams of Team 2G/ sec. Was application " watered in"? No Was total deposition measured? No Mississippi Residential or Commercial Applicator: Commercial Application rate: The target application rates were 2.0 lbs benefin per acre and 1.0 lb trifluralin per acre. The actual application rate was 2.02 lb benefin per acre and 1.0 lb trifluralin per acre. Application Regime: One application was made to the test site on June 20, 1997. Application Equipment: Applications were made with a tractor mounted Gandy spreader ( dropgranule with 30 banders on 3 inch spacing. Equipment Calibration Procedures: Sprayer calibration was performed but the raw data for this calibration was not provided. The sprayer was calibrated to deposit 64.4 grams of Team 2G/ sec. Was application " watered in"? No Was total deposition measured? No 5. Dislodgeable Residue Sampling Procedures Method and Equipment: Samples were collected using the California Roller Technique. A weighted foam covered roller ( 2 ft x 4 in diameter pipe) weighing about 25 lbs was used in this study. The dosimeters were pre cut, 100% cotton, 200 thread count percale sheets, measuring 2 ft by 3 ft.

Sampling Procedure: The cloth dosimeters were covered by a plastic layer and secured to the sampling media frame. The frame was placed randomly in the subplots. The roller was placed on top of the plastic sheet and rolled back and forth five times without pushing down. The cloth dosimeter was then carefully removed from the surface, and folded with the exposed side inward. They were then placed in a labeled sampling container. Control samples were collected prior to treated samples.

Surface area( s) sampled: Each cloth dosimeter measured 2 ft by 3 ft. However, the laboratory calculated residue values were based upon an area of 24 inches by 36 inches ( 5,574 cm2) which represents the area of the cloth in contact with the treated turf when placed in the sampling frame.

Replicates per surface: 7  Replicates per sampling time: Cotton cloth samples were collected in duplicate from the treated plots. One sample was also collected from the control plot.  Number of sampling times: There was a total of 6 sampling events for each plot at each site.

Times of sampling after application: Samples were collected before and after the application and at 1, 2, 4, and 7 days after application ( DAT).

6. Sample Handling Cotton samples were folded ( with the exposed part of the cloth inward) and then placed in a labeled sampling container. The samples were put on dry ice or in a freezer within four hours of collection. Samples were maintained under frozen storage until shipped. The samples were shipped in insulated boxes with dry ice by either an overnight or hand delivery to Dow AgroSciences, Sample Management. The samples were stored frozen ( approximately  20  C) at Dow AgroSciences until analysis.

7. Analytical Methodology:

Extraction method: Residues of benefin and trifluralin were extracted from the percale cloth by adding 500 mL of hexane to the cloth samples in 32 ounce plastic coated glass jars. Each sample was mechanically shaken for a minimum of one hour. After the shaking period, an aliquot was removed from each sample and transferred to a gas chromatographic vial and analyzed by gas chromatography ( see Table 1).

Detection methods: See Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of GC Operating Conditions GC Column J & W Scientific fused silica capillary column, 30 m x 0.25 mm, 0.25

m film thickness Temperatures Inlet: 250 oC Detector: 325 oC Column Temperatures: Initial = 100 oC, hold 1.5 min.; Final = 300 oC, hold 2 min.

Injection Volume 3

L Run Time 48.5 min. Method validation: Method validation was performed prior to sample analysis through analysis of matrix blanks ( untreated cloth) and analysis of cloth samples fortified with 6, 17, 550 and 8500

g of benefin and trifluralin per cloth sample, respectively. Recovery for the 6, 17, 550 and 8500

g benefin fortification levels were < LOQ, 99 ± 3.7%, 106 ± 10.5% and 118 ± 1.4%, respectively. Recovery for the 6, 17, 550 and 8500

g trifluralin fortification levels were < LOQ, 100 ± 4.1%, 106 ± 11.1% and 119 ± 1.3%, respectively. Neither benefin or trifluralin were detected at concentrations above the LOQ in the matrix blanks. The target LOQ and LOD for both benefin and trifluralin were 0.003 and 0.001

g/ cm2, respectively. The calculated LOQs and LODs, based on the method validation results, were defined as 0.0012

g/ cm2 and 0.0003

g/ cm2, respectively, for benefin and 0.0011

g/ cm2 and 0.0003

g/ cm2, respectively, for trifluralin.

Instrument performance and calibration: Calibration standards ranged from 0.003

g/ cm2 to 1.5

g/ cm2.

8. Quality Control:

Lab Recovery: Laboratory recovery samples were analyzed with each analytical sequence of cloth samples. Laboratory recovery values ranged from 908 to 118% for fortification levels from 17

g to 8,500

g per cloth sample. The overall mean recovery was 106 ± 8% ( n= 15) for benefin and 106 ± 9% ( n= 15) for trifluralin.

Field blanks: Single samples were collected from the untreated plot at each field site before application occurred. There were no trifluralin or benefin residues detected above the LOQ in any of these field blank samples. There were three unfortified field blank samples which were prepared on each of three field fortification dates at each site. Trifluralin or benefin residues were not detected in these samples at a concentration above the LOQ. 8 Field recovery: Field fortification samples were prepared in triplicate at three fortification levels ( 50, 500 and 5,000

g/ cloth) for each field site. The samples used for fortification were subjected to the same rolling technique required for the field samples. The fortification solution was delivered onto the cloth and the solvent was allowed to dry from the cloth as much as possible prior to placing the samples in labeled sample containers and placing them in the freezer prior to shipment to the analytical laboratory. The field fortified samples were shipped and stored frozen for 161 to 236 days under the same conditions as the field samples. Table 2 provides the mean recoveries and standard deviations for each field fortification event at each site. At the 50, 500, and 5,000

g field fortification levels, overall average recoveries ± standard deviation were 90 ± 6.2% , 95 ± 6.0%, and 98 ± 9.8% for benefin and 94 ± 6.5%, 96 ± 6.2%, 98 ± 9.8% for trifluralin.

Table 2. Summary of Field Fortification Recoveries Study Site 50 ug Fortification Level 500 ug Fortification Level 5,000 ug Fortification Level Percent Recovery Average ± Std Dev Percent Recovery Average ± Std Dev Percent Recovery Average ± Std Dev Benefin California 86 91 ± 9.0 84 91 ± 6.4 82 88 ± 5.5 101 95 88 85 95 93 Indiana 88 92 ± 6.9 96 99 ± 2.5 113 110 ± 7.0 88 101 115 100 99 102 Mississippi 86 86 ± 0.6 92 95 ± 7.6 91 92 ± 1.7 87 104 91 86 90 94 Total Average 90 95 98 Total Std Dev 6.2 6.0 9.8 Trifluralin California 87 94 ± 11.0 84 92 ± 6.9 84 89 ± 5.5 107 96 89 89 96 95 Indiana 90 95 ± 6.4 94 97 ± 2.5 112 109 ± 6.4 92 99 114 102 97 102 Mississippi 93 93 ± 0.57 95 99 ± 8.1 96 97 ± 2.1 93 108 95 92 93 99 Total Average 94 96 98 Total Std Dev 6.5 6.2 9.8 Tank mix: Tank mix samples were not discussed in this Study Report.

Travel Recovery: Travel recovery was not discussed in the Study Report.

Storage Stability: The cloth samples in this study were stored for a maximum of 236 days prior to analysis. Based on the results of the field fortification samples that were stored and analyzed along with the treated samples, benefin and trifluralin residues were found to be stable for the length of frozen storage. 9 II. RESULTS AND CALCULATIONS:

The statistical summaries for the three sites are provided in Tables 3 and 4. For all three sites ( CA, IN, and MS), Versar did not correct the raw TTR values for field fortification recoveries, as the overall average percent recovery was > 90%. The raw TTR values were corrected for field fortification recovery by the study author.

At the California site, the maximum average TTR values for benefin and trifluralin occurred immediately after the application of the test substance ( 0.0026

g/ cm2 and 0.00138

g/ cm2, respectively). After day 0, residues were not quantifiable. At the Indiana site, the maximum average TTR values for benefin and trifluralin occurred immediately after the application of the test substance ( 0.0021

g/ cm2 and 0.0011

g/ cm2, respectively). After day 0, residues were not quantifiable. At the Mississippi site, the maximum average TTR values for benefin and trifluralin occurred immediately after the application of the test substance ( 0.0012

g/ cm2 and 0.00077

g/ cm2, respectively). After day 0, residues were not quantifiable.

III DISCUSSION A. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY:

This study met most of the Series 875.2100 Guidelines ( See Appendix A). The only issue of concern is:

° separate control plots were not established at each site. 10 B. CONCLUSIONS:

It was not necessary to perform a linear regression on the data from this study because at all three sites, there were no residues detected after day 0. This may be a result of dry granular formulations not being easily transferable.

Table 3. Transferable Turf Residue Data for Benefin on Turf from Team 2G Applications Site Sampling Interval ( Days after treatment) Benefin Residue ( ug/ sample) Trifluralin Residue ( ug/ cm2) Average California 0 19 0.0034 0.0026 0 10.3 0.0018 1 4.8 < LOQ < LOQa 1 4.3 < LOQ 2 3.3 < LOQ 2 3.8 < LOQ 4 2.5 < LOQ 4 2.2 < LOQ 7 0 < LOQ 7 0.7 < LOQ Indiana 0 9.8 0.0018 0.0021 0 12.6 0.0023 1 0.8 < LOQ < LOQa 1 0.7 < LOQ 2 1.2 < LOQ 2 1.1 < LOQ 4 1.3 < LOQ 4 1.6 < LOQ 7 0.8 < LOQ 7 1.2 < LOQ Mississippi 0 7.4 0.0013 0.0012 0 5.8 0.001 1 4.4 < LOQ < LOQa 1 1.6 < LOQ 2 2 < LOQ 2 2.3 < LOQ 4 0.8 < LOQ 4 1.1 < LOQ 7 0.5 < LOQ 7 0 < LOQ a LOQ = 0.0011

g/ cm2 11 Table 4. Transferable Turf Residue Data for Trifluralin on Turf from Team 2G Applications Site Sampling Interval ( Days after treatment) Trifluralin Residue ( ug/ sample) Trifluralin Residue ( ug/ cm2) Average California 0 10.0 0.00179 0.00138 0 5.4 0.00097 1 2.6 < LOQ < LOQa 1 2.2 < LOQ 2 1.4 < LOQ 2 1.7 < LOQ 4 1.0 < LOQ 4 1.1 < LOQ 7 0.0 < LOQ 7 0.0 < LOQ Indiana 0 5.4 0.00097 0.0011 0 6.9 0.00124 1 0.5 < LOQ < LOQa 1 0.5 < LOQ 2 0.6 < LOQ 2 0.7 < LOQ 4 0.7 < LOQ 4 1.0 < LOQ 7 0.5 < LOQ 7 0.6 < LOQ Mississippi 0 4.7 0.00084 0.00077 0 3.9 0.00070 1 2.2 < LOQ < LOQa 1 0.8 < LOQ 2 0.9 < LOQ 2 0.7 < LOQ 4 0.0 < LOQ 4 0.6 < LOQ 7 0.0 < LOQ 7 0.0 < LOQ a LOQ = 0.0012

g/ cm2 12 _________________________ ____________________________ Name: Name: Evaluator Peer Reviewer Occupational Exposure Assessment Section Occupational Exposure Assessment Section _________________________ _________________________ Date Date _________________________ Name: Head, Occupational Exposure Assessment Section _________________________ Date 13 APPENDIX A Compliance Checklist for " Dissipation of Transferable Residues of Benefin and Trifluralin on Turf Treated with a Formulation of the Pesticides" 14 Compliance Checklist Compliance with OPPTS Series 875, Occupational and Residential Exposure Test Guidelines, Group B: Post application Exposure Monitoring Test Guidelines, 875.2100, Transferable Residue Dissipation, Lawn and Turf, is critical. The itemized checklist below describes compliance with the major technical aspects of OPPTS 875.2100.

 The test substance must be the typical end use product of the active ingredient. This criterion was met.

 The production of metabolites, breakdown products, or the presence of contaminants of potential toxicologic concern, should be considered on a case by case basis. It is not certain if this criterion was met. Metabolites, breakdown products, or the presence of contaminants of potential toxicological concern for benefin and trifluralin were not discussed in the Study Report.

 Applications should occur at the time of season that the end use product is normally applied to achieve intended pest control. This criterion was met.

 Initiating testing immediately before a precipitation event should be avoided. Applications should be made after mowing and watering. This criterion was met.

 The end use product should be applied by the application method recommended. Formulations which can be applied in a minimal amount of water and do not require " watering in" should be used. Information that verifies that the application equipment ( e. g., sprayer) was properly calibrated should be included. This criterion was partly met. The end use product was applied by the application method recommended. The calibration data was not provided for the application equipment.

 The application rate used in the study should be provided and should be the maximum rate specified on the label. However, monitoring following application at a typical application rate is more appropriate in certain cases. This criterion was met.

 If multiple applications are made, the minimum allowable interval between applications should be used. This criterion does not apply to this Study Report  Transferable turf residue ( TTR) data should be collected from at least three geographically distinct locations for each formulation. The sites should be representative of the regions ( and turf types) where the chemical is used. This criterion was met. Transferable turf residue data were collected from sites in California, Indiana, and Mississippi.

 The site( s) treated should be representative of reasonable worst case climatic conditions expected in intended use areas. Meteorological conditions including temperature, wind speed, daily rainfall, and humidity should be provided for the duration of the study. This criterion was met. Meteorological conditions including temperature and rainfall were recorded for the duration of the study.

 Sampling should be sufficient to characterize the dissipation mechanisms of the compound ( e. g., three half lives or 72 hours after application, unless the compound has been found to fully dissipate in less time; for more persistent pesticides, longer sampling periods may be necessary). Sampling intervals may be relatively short in the beginning and lengthen as the study progresses. Background samples should be collected before application of the test substance occurs. These criteria were met.

 Triplicate, randomly collected samples should be collected at each sampling interval. This criterion was met. Triplicate turf sample replicates were collected at each sampling interval.

 Samples should be collected using a suitable methodology ( e. g., California Cloth Roller, Polyurethane Roller, Drag Sled, etc.) for turf. This criterion was met. Turf residue samples were collected using the California Cloth Roller methodology.  Control plots should be established from which sufficient control samples can be collected. Control sites should be upwind and a reasonable distance from the treatment site. These criteria were not met. Separate control plots were not established on site. Control samples were taken from the plots before application occurred.  Residues should be dislodged from turf within a reasonable time period ( i. e., Pennsylvania recommends that dislodging occur within 4 hours). Other transferable method samples should be handled in a manner that is appropriate to the method used. This criterion was met. The modified California cloth roller was used to collect samples. Extraction of the residues from the cloth sample occurred just prior to analysis of the samples. 15  Samples should be stored in a manner that will minimize deterioration and loss of analytes between collection and analysis. Information on storage stability should be provided. These criteria were met. The samples were stored frozen shortly after collection and remained frozen until analysis. The field fortification samples verified the stability of the pesticide.

 Validated analytical methods of sufficient sensitivity are needed. Information on method efficiency ( residue recovery), and limit of quantitation ( LOQ) should be provided. This criterion was met.

 Information on recovery samples must be included in the study report. A complete set of field recoveries should consist of at least one blank control sample and three or more each of a low level and high level fortification. These fortifications should be in the range of anticipated residue levels in the field study. This criterion was met.

 Raw residue data must be corrected if appropriate recovery values are less than 90 percent. Distributional data should be reported, to the extent possible. This criterion was met. Raw residue data were not corrected for all three sites because the corresponding average field fortification values were greater than 90%.

 Foliar residue data expressed as µ g/ cm2 turf leaf surface area. This criterion was met. All residue data were provided in

g/ cm2.


                                  APPENDIX H               FACILITIES REQUIRED TO REPORT TO TRI (NAICS CODES)                                                                             Table 1               Facilities Required to Report to TRI (NAICS CODES)                   (Corresponding to SIC codes 20 through 39) Subsector or Industry Code    Code

                         Exceptions and/or Limitations 311 Except 311119 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in Custom Grain Grinding for Animal Feed (previously classified under SIC 0723, Crop Preparation Services for Market, Except Cotton Ginning);        Except 311340 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in the retail sale of candy, nuts, popcorn and other confections not for immediate consumption made on the premises (previously classified under SIC 5441, Candy, Nut, and Confectionery Stores);

Except 311352 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in the retail sale of candy, nuts, popcorn and other confections not for immediate consumption made on the premises (previously classified under SIC 5441, Candy, Nut, and Confectionery Stores);

Except 311611 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in Custom Slaughtering for individuals (previously classified under SIC 0751, Livestock Services, Except Veterinary, Slaughtering, custom: for individuals); Except 311612 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in the cutting up and resale of purchased fresh carcasses for the trade (including boxed beef), and in the wholesale distribution of fresh, cured, and processed (but not canned) meats and lard (previously classified under SIC 5147, Meats and Meat Products);

Except 311811 - Retail Bakeries (previously classified under SIC 5461, Retail Bakeries);  312

Except 312112 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in bottling mineral or spring water (previously classified under SIC 5149, Groceries and Related Products, NEC)

Except 312230 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in providing Tobacco Sheeting Services (previously classified under SIC 7389, Business Services, NEC); 313 Except 313310 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in converting broadwoven piece goods and broadwoven textiles, (previously classified under SIC 5131, Piece Goods Notions, and Other Dry Goods, broadwoven and non-broadwoven piece good converters);, and facilities primarily engaged in converting narrow woven Textiles and narrow woven piece goods, (previously classified under SIC 5131, Piece Good Notions, and Other Dry Goods, converters, except broadwoven fabric); and facilities primarily engaged in sponging fabric for tailors and dressmakers (previously classified under SIC 7389, Business Services, NEC (Sponging fabric for tailors and dressmakers)); 314

Except 314120 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in making Custom drapery and in making Custom slipcovers for retail sale (previously classified under SIC 5714, Drapery, Curtain, and Upholstery Stores);

Except 314999 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in Binding carpets and rugs for the trade, Carpet cutting and binding, and Embroidering on textile products (except apparel) for the trade (previously classified under SIC 7389, Business Services Not Elsewhere Classified, Embroidering of advertising on shirts and Rug binding for the trade); 315 Except 315220 - Exception is limited to custom tailors primarily engaged in making and selling men's and boys' suits, men's and boys' dress shirts, and bridal dresses or gowns or women's,  misses' and girls' dresses, cut and sewn from purchased fabric (previously classified under SIC 5699, Miscellaneous Apparel and Accessory Stores (custom tailors)) and to custom tailors primarily engaged in making and selling  bridal dresses or gowns, or women's, misses' and girls' dresses cut and sewn from purchased fabric (except apparel contractors)(custom dressmakers) (previously classified under SIC Code 5699, Miscellaneous Apparel and Accessory Stores);

Except 315240 - Exception is limited to custom tailors primarily engaged in making and selling bridal dresses or gowns, or women's, misses' and girls' dresses cut and sewn from purchased fabric (except apparel contractor custom dressmakers previously classified under SIC Code 5699, Miscellaneous Apparel and Accessory Stores) 316

321

322

323 Except 323111 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in reproducing text, drawings, plans, maps, or other copy, by blueprinting, photocopying, mimeographing, or other methods of duplication other than printing or microfilming (i.e., instant printing) (previously classified under SIC 7334, Photocopying and Duplicating Services, (instant printing)); 324

325 Except 325998 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in Aerosol can filling on a job order or contract basis (previously classified under SIC 7389, Business Services, NEC (aerosol packaging));  326 Except 326212 - Tire Retreading, (previously classified under SIC 7534, Tire Retreading and Repair Shops (rebuilding));  327 Except 327110 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in manufacturing and selling pottery on site (previously classified under SIC 5719, Miscellaneous Home Furnishing Stores) 331

332

333

334 Except 334614  -  Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in Software Reproducing (previously classified under SIC 7372, Prepackaged Software, (reproduction of software)) and to facilities primarily engaged in mass reproducing pre-recorded Video cassettes, and mass reproducing Video tape or disk (previously classified under SIC 7819, Services Allied to Motion Picture Production (reproduction of Video)); 335 Except 335312 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in armature rewinding on a factory basis (previously classified under SIC 7694 (Armature Rewinding Shops (remanufacturing) - ); 336

337 Except 337110 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in the retail sale of household furniture and that manufacture custom wood kitchen cabinets and counter tops (previously classified under SIC 5712, Furniture Stores (custom wood cabinets));

Except 337121 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in the retail sale of household furniture and that manufacture custom made upholstered household furniture (previously classified under SIC 5712, Furniture Stores (upholstered, custom made furniture));

Except 337122 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in the retail sale of household furniture and that manufacture non-upholstered, household type, custom wood furniture (previously classified under SIC 5712, Furniture Stores (custom made wood non-upholstered household furniture except cabinets));  339 Except 339113 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in manufacturing orthopedic devices to prescription in a retail environment (previously classified under SIC 5999, Miscellaneous Retail Stores, NEC)

Except 339115 - Exception is limited to lens grinding facilities that are primarily engaged in the retail sale of eyeglasses and contact lenses to prescription for individuals (previously classified under SIC 5995, Optical Goods Stores (optical laboratories grinding of lenses to prescription));

Except 339116 - Dental Laboratories (previously classified under SIC 8072, Dental Laboratories); 111998 Limited to facilities primarily engaged in reducing maple sap to maple syrup (previously classified under SIC 2099, Food Preparations, NEC, Reducing Maple Sap to Maple Syrup); 113310

211112 Limited to facilities that recover sulfur from natural gas (previously classified under SIC 2819, Industrial Inorganic chemicals, NEC (recovering sulfur from natural gas)); 212324 Limited to facilities operating without a mine or quarry and that are primarily engaged in beneficiating kaolin and clay (previously classified under SIC 3295, Minerals and Earths, Ground or Otherwise Treated (grinding, washing, separating, etc. of minerals in SIC 1455));  212325 Limited to facilities operating without a mine or quarry and that are primarily engaged in beneficia - ting clay and ceramic and refractory minerals (previously classified under SIC 3295, Minerals and Earths, Ground or Otherwise Treated (grinding, washing, separating, etc. of minerals in SIC 1459)); 212393 Limited to facilities operating without a mine or quarry and that are primarily engaged in beneficiating chemical or fertilizer mineral raw materials (previously classified under SIC 3295, Minerals and Earth - s, Ground or Otherwise Treat - ed (grinding, washing, separating, etc. of minerals in SIC 1479)); 212399 Limited to facilities operating without a mine or quarry and that are primarily engaged in beneficiating nonmetallic minerals (previously classified under SIC 3295, Minerals and Earths, Ground or Otherwise Treated (grinding, washing, separating, etc. of minerals in SIC 1499)); 488390 Limited to facilities that are primarily engaged in providing routine repair and maintenance of ships and boats from floating dry docks (previously classified under SIC 3731, Shipbuilding and Repairing (floating dry docks not associated with a shipyard)); 511110

511120

511130

511140 Except facilities that are primarily engaged in furnishing services for direct mail advertising including Address list compilers, Address list publishers, Address list publishers and printing combined, Address list publishing , Business directory publishers, Catalog of collections publishers, Catalog of collections publishers and printing combined, Mailing list compilers, Directory compilers, and Mailing list compiling services (previously classified under SIC 7331, Direct Mail Advertising Services (mailing list compilers)); 511191

511199

512220

512230  Except facilities primarily engaged in Music copyright authorizing use, Music copyright buying and licensing, and Music publishers working on their own account (previously classified under SIC 8999, Services, NEC (music publishing)); 519130 Limited to facilities primarily engaged in Internet newspaper publishing (previously classified under SIC 2711, Newspapers: Publishing, or Publishing and Printing), Internet periodical publishing (previously classified under SIC 2721, Periodicals: Publishing, or Publishing and Printing), Internet book publishing (previously classified under SIC 2731, Books: Publishing, or Publishing and Printing), Miscellaneous Internet publishing (previously classified under SIC 2741, Miscellaneous Publishing), Internet greeting card publishers (previously classified under SIC 2771, Greeting Cards); Except for facilities primarily engaged in web search portals. 541712 Limited to facilities that are primarily engaged in Guided missile and space vehicle engine research and development (previously classified under SIC 3764, Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Propulsion Units and Propulsion Unit Parts), and in Guided missile and space vehicle parts (except engines) research and development (previously classified under SIC 3769, Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and Auxiliary Equipment, Not Elsewhere Classified);  811490 Limited to facilities that are primarily engaged in repairing and servicing pleasure and sail boats without retailing new boats (previous - ly classified under SIC 3732, Boat Building and Repairing (pleasure boat building));

                                    Table 2               Facilities Required to Report to TRI (NAICS CODES)         (Corresponding to SIC codes other than SIC codes 20 through 39) Subsector or Industry Code                          Exceptions and/or Limitations 212111

212112

212113

212221

212222

212231

212234

212299

221111 Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce. 221112 Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce. 221113 Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce. 221118 Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce. 221121 Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce. 221122 Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce. 221330   Limited to facilities engaged in providing combinations of electric, gas, and other services, not elsewhere classified (NEC) (previously classified under SIC 4939, Combination Utility Services Not Elsewhere Classified. )  424690

424710

425110 Limited to facilities previously classified in SIC 5169, Chemicals and Allied Products, Not Elsewhere Classified. 425120 Limited to facilities previously classified in SIC 5169, Chemicals and Allied Products, Not Elsewhere Classified. 562112 Limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis (previously classified under SIC 7389, Business Services, NEC) 562211 Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq. 562212 Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq. 562213 Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq. 562219 Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq. 562920 Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.