[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 181 (Thursday, September 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58078-58081]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20476]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89828; File No. SR-C2-2020-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
To Amend its Fees Schedule

September 11, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 1, 2020 Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``C2'') 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 Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``C2'') is filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Cboe Commission'') a proposed
rule change to amend the Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule
change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/ctwo/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to amend certain
standard transaction fees for SPY transactions. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to (1) amend the transaction fee for public customer
SPY orders that remove liquidity, (2) amend the rebate for C2 market-
maker SPY orders that add liquidity, (3) amend the rebate for non-
customer, non-market-maker SPY orders that add liquidity and (4) adopt
an enhanced rebate for C2 market-maker SPY orders that are NBBO Joiners
or NBBO Setters. The proposed changes will be effective September 1,
2020.
    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 options venues to which market participants
may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information,
no single options exchange has more than 16% of the market share and
currently the Exchange represents approximately 3% of the market
share.\3\ Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly competitive
market, no single options exchange, including the Exchange, possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of option order flow. The
Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain the Exchange's transaction fees, and market participants can
readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those
other venues to be more favorable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Volume Summary
by Month (August 31, 2020), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the exchange proposes to amend the transaction fee for
public customer SPY orders that remove liquidity. Currently, public
customer orders in all equity, multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN
options classes, including SPY, that remove liquidity are assessed a
standard transaction fee of $0.43 per contract and yield fee code
``PC''. The Exchange proposes to reduce the fee assessed for public
customer SPY orders that remove liquidity to $0.39 per contract and
adopt new fee code ``SC'' for such orders (and remove SPY orders from
fee code ``PC'').
    The Exchange next proposes to amend the rebate for C2 market-maker
SPY orders that add liquidity. Currently, C2 market-makers orders in
all equity, multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN options classes,
including SPY, that add liquidity are provided a rebate of $0.41 per
contract and yield fee code ``PM''. The Exchange proposes to reduce the
rebate provided for market-maker SPY orders that add liquidity to $0.26
per contract per contract and adopt new fee code ``SM'' for such orders
(and remove SPY orders from fee code ``PM'').
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the rebate for non-market-
maker, non-customer SPY orders that add liquidity. Currently, non-
market-maker, non-

customer orders (i.e., Professional Customer, Firm, Broker/Dealer, non-
C2 Market-Maker, JBO, etc.) in all equity, multiply-listed index, ETF
and ETN options classes, including SPY, that add liquidity are provided
a rebate of $0.36 per contract and yield fee code ``PN''. The Exchange
proposes to reduce the rebate provided for non-market-maker, non-
customer SPY orders that add liquidity to $0.20 per contract per
contract and adopt new fee code ``SN'' for such orders (and remove SPY
orders from fee code ``PN'').
    The Exchange also proposes to adopt a new rebate of $0.31 per
contract for C2 market-maker SPY orders that are a National Best Bid or
Offer (``NBBO'') Joiner or NBBO Setter and adopt new fee code ``SL''
for such orders. Particularly, to qualify as a NBBO Joiner, a C2
market-maker order must improve the C2 Best Bid or Offer (``BBO'') and
result in C2 joining an existing NBBO. Only the first order received
that results in C2 BBO joining the NBBO at a new price level will
qualify for the enhanced rebate. If C2 is at the NBBO, the order will
not qualify. Alternatively, C2 market-makers may receive the enhanced
rebate if they are a NBBO Setter. To qualify as a NBBO Setter and
receive the enhanced rebate, a C2 market-maker order must set the NBBO.
The Exchange believes the proposed enhanced rebate for C2 market-makers
that are NBBO Joiners or Setters will incentivize liquidity providers
to provide more aggressively priced liquidity in SPY options.
    The Exchange lastly proposes to adopt a new table in the Fees
Schedule to set forth SPY-specific pricing, similar to pricing tables
adopted for RUT and DJX. The Exchange also proposes to clarify that the
first transaction fee table does not apply to SPY or DJX.\4\ The
Exchange notes that transaction fees and rebates that apply to (1)
public customer SPY orders that add liquidity, (2) C2 market-maker SPY
orders that remove liquidity, (3) non-market-maker, non-customer SPY
orders that remove liquidity, (4) SPY orders that trade at the open and
(5) resting SPY orders that trades with resting complex orders are not
changing, nor are the associated fee codes. Rather the Exchange is just
copying those current fee codes and rates into the new SPY pricing
table to make the Fees Schedule easy to follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange notes that when it adopted the DJX pricing
table, it inadvertently omitted adding DJX to the list of excepted
products for the rates provided in the standard transaction fee
table. See Securities Exchange Release No. 85855 (May 14, 2019) 84
FR 22916 (May 20, 2019) (SR-C2-2019-010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\6\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \7\
requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest, and, particularly, is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. In particular, the proposed
changes to Exchange execution fees and rebates for certain SPY orders
are intended to attract order flow to the Exchange by continuing to
offer competitive pricing while also creating additional incentives to
providing aggressively priced displayed liquidity, which the Exchange
believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all market
participants.
    The Exchange believes its proposed changes are reasonable as they
are competitive and in line with SPY-specific pricing at other
exchanges.\8\ The Exchange believes it's reasonable to reduce the
transaction fee for public customer SPY orders that remove liquidity
because market participants will be subject to lower fees for such
orders. The Exchange believes the proposed amendment will also
encourage market participants to increase retail SPY order flow to the
Exchange. The Exchange believes it's reasonable to reduce the rebates
for both C2 market-maker and non-market-maker, non-customer SPY orders
that add liquidity because such market participants will still receive
rebates for such orders, albeit at a lower amount. Additionally,
market-makers that are NBBO Joiners or Setters would be eligible to
receive an enhanced rebate. The Exchange believes that the proposed
NBBO Joiner and Setter rebates are reasonable as C2 market-makers would
be eligible to receive enhanced rebates for orders that add liquidity
in return for improving the C2 BBO resulting in C2 joining an existing
NBBO or setting a new NBBO. The Exchange believes the proposed new
rebate will incentivize the entry on the Exchange by C2 market-makers
of more aggressive SPY orders that will maintain tight spreads,
benefitting both Trading Permit Holders and public investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See e.g., MIAX Pearl Fee Schedule, Section 1 Transaction
Rebates/Fees, which provides for a fee of $0.46 per contract for
priority customer SPY orders that remove liquidity. See also Nasdaq
ISE Pricing Schedule, Section 3, Footnote 5, which provides for
tiered rebates for market-maker SPY orders that add liquidity
between $0.05-$0.26 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to adopt SPY-specific pricing as the Exchange
already maintains product-specific pricing for other products, such as
RUT and DJX.\9\ Additionally, as noted above, other exchanges similarly
provide for SPY-specific pricing.\10\ The Exchange also believes that
it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess a lower fee
for public customer SPY orders as compared to other market participants
because customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the
benefit of all market participants. Specifically, customer liquidity
benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities, which attracts Market-Makers. An increase in the
activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter
spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order
flow from other market participants. Moreover, the options industry has
a long history of providing preferential pricing to customers, and the
Exchange's current Fee Schedule currently does so in many places, as do
the fees structures of multiple other

exchanges.\11\ The Exchange notes that the proposed fee change will be
applied equally to all public customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Cboe C2 Options Exchange Fees Schedule, Transaction
Fees.
    \10\ See e.g., MIAX Pearl Fee Schedule, Section 1 Transaction
Rebates/Fees, which provides for a fee of $0.46 per contract for
priority customer SPY orders that remove liquidity. See also Nasdaq
ISE Pricing Schedule, Section 3, Footnote 5, which provides for
tiered rebates for market-maker SPY orders that add liquidity
between $0.05-$0.26 per contract.
    \11\ See Cboe C2 Options Exchange Fees Schedule, Transaction
Fees. See also BZX Options Fee Schedule, Fee Codes and Associated
Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to assess higher rebates to market-makers that
add liquidity as compared to other market participants, other than
customers, because market-makers, unlike other market participants,
take on a number of obligations, including quoting obligations, which
other market participants do not have. Further, these rebates are
intended to incent market-makers to quote and trade more on C2 Options,
thereby providing more trading opportunities for all market
participants. The Exchange notes that the proposed changes to C2
market-maker rebates for SPY options will be applied equally to all C2
market-makers. Similarly, the Exchange believes it's equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to provide C2 market-makers that are NBBO
Joiners or Setters an enhanced rebate because such market participants
are providing more aggressively priced liquidity in SPY options.
Additionally, increased add volume order flow, particularly by
liquidity providers, contributes to a deeper, more liquid market,
which, in turn, provides for increased execution opportunities and thus
overall enhanced price discovery and price improvement opportunities on
the Exchange. As such, this benefits all market participants by
contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem,
offering additional flexibility for all investors to enjoy cost
savings, supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market
transparency and improving investor protection. The Exchange believes
the proposed change to the rebate for non-market-maker, non-customer
SPY orders is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it
will be applied equally to all non-market-makers, non-customers.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposal to adopt a pricing
table specific to SPY executions will further simplify the fee schedule
and alleviate potential confusion in light of the proposed changes,
thereby removing impediments to, and perfecting the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system, and, in general,
protecting investors and the public interest.

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 intramarket or intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Rather, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would encourage the submission of additional liquidity in SPY to
a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price discovery and
transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for all
Trading Permit Holders. As a result, the Exchange believes that the
proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation
NMS of fostering competition among orders, which promotes ``more
efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large
and small.''
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed
change applies to all similarly situated Trading Permit Holders
equally. Overall, the proposed change is designed to attract additional
SPY public customer orders that remove liquidity and SPY market-maker
and non-market-maker, non-customer orders that add liquidity to the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that the new C2 market-maker rebate for
SPY orders that are NBBO Joiners or Setters would incentivize entry on
the Exchange of more aggressive SPY orders that will maintain tight
spreads, benefitting both Trading Permit Holders and public investors
criteria and, as a result, provide for deeper levels of liquidity,
increasing trading opportunities for other market participants, thus
signaling further trading activity, ultimately incentivizing more
overall order flow and improving price transparency on the Exchange.
    Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously
discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market.
Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on
and director their order flow, including 15 other options exchanges and
off-exchange venues. Additionally, the Exchange represents a small
percentage of the overall market. Based on publicly available
information, no single options exchange has more than 16% of the market
share. Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power in
the execution of option order flow. Indeed, participants can readily
choose to send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues
if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in
Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' The fact that
this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the courts.
In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .''. Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe its proposed fee change imposes any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \13\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the

public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-C2-2020-013 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-C2-2020-013. 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-C2-2020-013 and should be submitted on
or before October 8, 2020.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-20476 Filed 9-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Data Requirement:				PMRA DATA CODE 	{............}
                        EPA DP Barcode			460199
                        OECD Data Point		{............}
                        EPA MRID 				51499401
                        EPA Guideline			850.4500

Test material:	Tetrachloroterephthalic Acid (degradate of DCPA)	Purity:	99.94%
Common name	TPA
Chemical name:	IUPAC: Not reported
            CAS name: Not reported
            CAS No.: 2136-79-0
            Synonyms: None

Primary Reviewer:	Jocelyn Marsack							Signature:
Environmental Scientist, CDM/CSS-Dynamac JV`				Date:   04/01/2021
Secondary Reviewer:   Julie Burns								Signature:
Environmental Scientist, CDM/CSS-Dynamac JV				Date:   04/12/2021

Primary Reviewer:	Christina M. Wendel						Signature:
EPA/OPP/EFED/ERB2/Biologist 								Date: 10/25/2021

Secondary Reviewer(s): Michael Wagman						Signature:
EPA/OPP/EFED/ERB2/Senior Scientist						Date: 11/19/2021

Reference/Submission No.:  {.....................}

Company Code 		{............}	[For PMRA]
Active Code			{............}	[For PMRA]
Use Site Category:	{............}	[For PMRA]
EPA PC Code 		078701

Date Evaluation Completed: 19-11-2021

CITATION: Manson, P.S. 2003. Tetrachloroterephthalic Acid (TPA): Inhibition of Growth to the Alga Selenastrum capricornutum. Study conducted by Covance Laboratories Ltd, North Yorkshire, England. Study report no. 1708/022-D2149. Study sponsored by AMVAC Chemical UK Ltd, Surrey, England. Study initiated on March 12, 2003 and completed on November 24, 2003.

This Data Evaluation Record may have been altered by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division subsequent to signing by CDM/CSS-Dynamac JV personnel. The CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture role does not include establishing Agency policies.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

In a 96-hour acute toxicity study, cultures of the green algae Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata (formerly Selenastrum capricornutum) (Chlorophyceae, CCAP 278/4) were exposed to Tetrachloroterephthalic Acid (degradate of DCPA) at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative control), 4.27, 9.39, 20.7, 45.5, and 100 mg a.i./L under static conditions. The test substance was stable under the test conditions, so the mean-measured concentrations provided by the study author and verified by the reviewer were used for analysis and reporting. The mean-measured concentrations were <0.01 (<LOD, control), 3.99, 8.90, 19.7, 46.1, and 103 mg a.i./L.

The % growth inhibition in the treated algal culture as compared to the control ranged from 4 to 44%. All endpoints in this study were significantly affected in the two highest test levels and based on the uncertainty surrounding the pH as discussed below, the most sensitive endpoint, based on the NOAEC was all three endpoints with the NOAEC being 19.7 mg a.i./L. The IC50 for yield, growth rate, and area under the curve (AUC) was >46.1 mg a.i./L, as the highest test concentration does not appear to be reliable for use based on the uncertainties surrounding pH.

At exposure initiation, the test solutions appeared clear and colorless. After 96 hours, test vessels containing algae appeared as green suspensions in the control and four lowest treatment levels. The highest test level solutions appeared slightly hazy and paler green in color than the control.

The pH at test initiation was 7.7 in the control and ranged from 7.7 to 7.8 in the test solutions. After 96 hours, the pH increased significantly in the control (ranging from 10.0 to 10.2) and four lowest treatment levels (ranging from 8.3 to 10.1). Conversely, the pH in the highest treatment level decreased substantially by test termination (ranging from 4.9 to 5.0). Measurements on pH were only taken at 0 and 96 hours, and it is unclear if the difference in the highest test concentration was treatment related or if something else is going on within the test system. Had pH measurements been taken more frequently (i.e., daily), there would be more certainty that the similar dose-responses (and any consequently estimated NOAEC and IC50 endpoints) observed in treatment groups at 24-hour and 72-hour, compared to the treatments at 96-hour, were not a result of inhibitions in control growth due to high pH. Therefore, the highest test concentration does not appear to be reliable, and so based on these uncertainties, this test concentration should not be used to estimate endpoints.

This study is scientifically sound and is classified as supplemental and may be used for risk characterization.

Results Synopsis

   Test Organism: Green algae, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata (formerly Selenastrum capricornutum)
   Test Type (Flow-through, Static, Static Renewal): Static

   Yield
   IC05: 32.3 mg a.i./L				95% C.I.:  N/A to 52.7 mg a.i./L
   IC50: >46 mg a.i./L[+]				95% C.I.:  NA
   NOAEC: 19.7 mg a.i./L
   LOAEC: 46.1 mg a.i./L

   Growth rate
   IC05: 75.1 mg a.i./L				95% C.I.:  55.8 to 92.5 mg a.i./L
   IC50: >46.1 mg a.i./L				95% C.I.:  N/A
   NOAEC: 19.7 mg a.i./L
   LOAEC: 46.1 mg a.i./L

   Area under the curve (AUC)
   IC05: 0.65 mg ai/L*				95% C.I.:  N/A to 31.9 mg a.i./L
   IC50: >46.1 mg a.i./L				95% C.I.:  N/A
   NOAEC: 19.7 mg a.i./L
   LOAEC: 46.1 mg a.i./L
   *Value is not bracketed by the measured concentrations and should be interpreted with caution.
   [+] See reviewer comments regarding the IC50 endpoint in reference to the highest test concentration.

   Endpoint(s) Affected:  Yield, area under the curve, and growth rate
   Most Sensitive Endpoint:  Yield, area under the curve, and growth rate, based on the NOAEC
I. MATERIALS AND METHODS

   GUIDELINE FOLLOWED:		The study was conducted according to OECD 201, JMAFF 2-7-3 and OPPTS draft guideline 850.4500. The review assessed the study according to OCSPP 850.1000 (2016), OCSPP 850.4000 (2012), OCSPP 850.4500 (2012) and OECD 201 (2011) noting any similarities and/or differences where they existed. The following deviations and deficiencies from validity requirements and the listed guidelines were noted:

 The study author did not indicate if treatments were randomly assigned to test vessels and if test vessels were randomly assigned to positions in the growth chamber. Random treatment assignment to test vessels and test vessel location in the growth chamber are test validity requirements per OCSPP 850.4500 guidance. OECD recommends test chambers are randomly placed in the incubator.
 The pH of the control medium increased by a minimum of 2.3 units during the test. OECD states the control medium should not increase >1.5 units during the test. OCSPP does not provide guidance for pH increases in the control. After 96 hours, the pH increased significantly in the control (ranging from 10.0 to 10.2) and four lowest treatment levels (ranging from 8.3 to 10.1). Conversely, the highest treatment level pH decreased substantially by test termination (ranging from 4.9 to 5.0). The pH measurements were only taken at 0 and 96 hours and it is unclear if the difference in the highest test concentration is chemical related or if something else is going on within the test system. The increase in the controls and lower treatment groups to extremely alkaline conditions is likely a result of the test system reaching the carrying capacity of the test vessels. Laboratory toxicity tests should be conducted in environmentally relevant conditions which may not be represented by the strongly basic water conditions present in the Day 4 samples. The alkaline conditions may have inhibited growth in the controls and lower treatment groups, resulting in less sensitive endpoints than would have occurred had the pH stayed in the environmentally relevant range. Had pH measurements been taken more frequently (i.e., daily), there would be more certainty that the similar dose-responses (and consequent NOAEC and IC50 endpoints) observed in treatment groups at 24-hours and 72-hours, compared to the treatments at 96-hours, were not a result of inhibitions in control growth due to high pH.
 The ICx and NOAEC values for yield (cell density) were not determined by the study author. OECD requires that both average specific growth rate and yield endpoints be evaluated for the test results to be acceptable in all member countries. OCSPP requires the evaluation of yield, average specific growth rate, and area under the curve. As the reviewer was able to determine yield endpoints, this is considered a minor deviation.
 Due to a sampling error in the mean-measured 19.7 mg a.i./L (nominal 20.7 mg a.i./L) test level at 24 hours, the data for a replicate was excluded by the study author which led to unbalanced replication across treatment levels. These data were also excluded in the MRID, so the reviewer was unable to include the replicate in the statistical analysis.
 Three replicates were used for each treatment level, except for two replicates in the 19.7 mg a.i./L concentration as described in the error listed above in #4 and six replicates were used for the negative control. OCSPP recommends a minimum of four replicates per concentration. However, OECD recommends three replicates per treatment level and preferably double the replicates for the control groups. Since the 19.7 mg a.i./L concentration was identified as the NOAEC, but only had two replicates, with inhibitions ranging from 1-5%, relative to the negative control, this introduces a degree of uncertainty into the endpoint. However, CVs for this concentration were reasonably low (2-12%), so this is not considered a major deficiency.
 Observations of phytotoxic effects from the test material (e.g., swollen cells and aggregation) were not provided as required by OCSPP and OECD. Furthermore, OCSPP recommends daily observations on cell appearance and health. OECD recommends observations at test termination.
 The age of the inoculum at test initiation was not reported.
 Culture conditions, acclimation, and pre-test health conditions were not reported.
 The light intensity (7790 lux) during the test was within the range recommended by OECD (4440  -  8880 lux) but was nearly double the amount recommended by OCSPP (~4300 lux).
 Dilution water quality characteristics were not reported.
 Incomplete physiochemical properties of the test item were reported. This is considered to be a minor deficiency.
 The deionized water used to prepare the nutrient medium was not reagent grade quality water as recommended by OCSPP guidance. However, OECD guidance does not require that the deionized water is reagent grade. This is considered to be a minor deficiency.

      These deviations do affect the validity of the study.

   COMPLIANCE:				Signed and dated Quality Assurance and Good Laboratory Practice Compliance statements were provided. A No Data Confidentiality Claim statement was provided, but a signature and date were missing. The study was conducted in accordance with UK Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 3106, the OECD Principles of Good Laboratory Practice (1997), U.S. EPA 40 CFR Part 160 (1989), and the Good Laboratory Practice Standard for Agricultural Chemicals 14-Seisan-7739 (2002).

   A. MATERIALS:

   	1. Test material  				 Tetrachloroterephthalic Acid (degradate of DCPA)

      Description: 				White powder

      Lot No./Batch No. : 			021101 (Batch no.)

      Purity: 						99.94%

      Stability of compound
      under test conditions:		Stable. Analytical recoveries at 96 hours were >=101% of initial-measured
            			concentrations. The mean-measured concentrations ranged from 93 to 103% 					of the nominal TPA exposure concentrations of nominal.
      							(OECD recommends stability in water and light)

      Storage conditions of
      test chemicals: 				Room temperature.

		Physicochemical properties of Tetrachloroterephthalic Acid (degradate of DCPA).
Parameter
Values
Comments
Water solubility at 20°C
Not reported

Vapor pressure
Not reported

UV absorption
Not reported

pKa
Not reported

Kow
Not reported

   2. Test organism:

         Name:					Green Alga, Chlorophyceae, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata (formerly Selenastrum capricornutum)
         Strain:					CCAP 278/4
         Source: 					Cultures were obtained from an axenic culture derived from the Culture Collection of Algae and Protozoa (CCAP), CEH Windermere, The Ferry House, Far Sawrey, Ambleside, Cumbria, UK.
                           EPA recommends algae be from the same source and stock culture or commercial sources.
         Age of inoculum:		Not reported
                           EPA recommends the algal inoculum should be from logarithmically growing stock cultures (typically 3- to 7-days old).
         Method of cultivation:	Not reported
   B.  STUDY DESIGN:

      1. Experimental Conditions

         a. Range-finding  -  A preliminary range finding test was conducted at nominal concentrations of 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, and 100 mg a.i./L. After 96 hours, inhibitions for area under the curve and growth rate were only observed in the highest test group at 41% and 9%, respectively, in the highest treatment group. The % inhibitions for all other treatment levels were 0% for these endpoints. For both endpoints, the NOAEC and EC50 -  were determined to be 10 and 100 mg a.i./L, respectively.

         b. Definitive Study
Table 1:  Experimental Parameters
                                   Parameter
                                    Details
                                    Remarks

                                   Criteria
Acclimation period:

Culturing media and conditions:  (same as test or not)

Health:  (any mortality observed)
Not reported

Liquid culture, further details provided in Appendix 1 pg 31-32 of the study report.

Not reported

EPA recommends the algal inoculum used to initiate toxicity testing is from a liquid culture shown to be actively growing (i.e. capable of logarithmic growth within the test period) in at least two subcultures lasting 7 days each prior to the start of the definitive test. A culture should not be used if it is contaminated by fungi/other algae or if test algae were used in a previous test.

OECD recommends an amount of algae suitable for the inoculation of test cultures and incubated under the conditions of the test and used when still exponentially growing, normally after an incubation period of about 3 days. When the algal cultures contain deformed or abnormal cells, they must be discarded.
Test system
Static/static renewal

Renewal rate for static renewal

Static

N/A

EPA recommends a static exposure technique. Although semi-continuous algal culturing techniques are available, they have not been commonly employed in algal toxicity testing and their use is not recommended.
Incubation facility
Orbital incubator

Duration of the test
96 hours

EPA recommends 96 hours at a minimum.
OECD:  72 hours.
Test vessel
Material: (glass/stainless steel)
Size:
Fill volume:

Glass Erlenmeyer flask
250 mL
100 mL

EPA recommends 125-500 mL Erlenmeyer flasks and test solution volume <=50% of flask volume. Flasks may be covered with foam plugs (that are proven non-toxic), stainless steel caps, Shimadzu enclosures, glass caps or screw caps.

EPA recommends all test vessels and closures to be identical.
OECD recommends 250 ml conical flasks are suitable when the volume of the test solution is 100 ml or use a culturing apparatus.
Details of growth medium
Name:
pH at test initiation:
pH at test termination:
Chelator used:
Carbon source:

Salinity (for marine algae):

Algal Culture Medium (EC/AM)
7.7 (negative control)
10.0 to 10.2 (negative control)
Na2EDTA ● 2H2O
NaHCO3  (added after filter sterilization (0.2um)
N/A
Additional details found in Appendix 1 pg 31-32 of the study report.

EPA recommends an AAP medium with chelating agents (e.g. EDTA) prepared according to EPA's 850.4500 guideline (http://www2.epa.gov/test-guidelines-pesticides-and-toxic-substances/series-850-ecological-effects-test-guidelines).  Lower concentrations of chelating agents (down to one-third of the normal concentration recommended for AAP medium) may be used in the nutrient medium for test solution preparation if it is suspected that the chelator will interact with the test material.

EPA recommends adjustment of pH before adding inoculum, if pH of test solution is <5 or highly basic.

OECD recommends the medium pH after equilibration with air is ~8 with less than 0.001 mmol/L of chelator if used.
If non-standard nutrient medium was used, detailed composition provided (Yes/No)
N/A  -  standard medium and detailed composition provided.

Dilution water used to prepare media
Source of dilution water:

Quality of dilution water
Hardness:
Alkalinity:
pH:
Specific conductivity:
Salinity (for marine algae):
Water pretreatment (if any):
TOC:
COD:
Particulate matter:
Metals:
Pesticides/PCBs:
Chlorine:

Deionized water

Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
N/A
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported

Water used for preparation of nutrient medium should be of reagent quality (e.g., ASTM Type I water).

Marine algal nutrient medium is prepared by adding reagent grade chemicals to synthetic salt water or filtered natural salt water, or by preparing a complete saltwater medium. Salinity for saltwater medium should be 30 +- 5 %..

Indicate how the test material is added to the medium (added directly or used stock solution)
A nominal 100 mg a.i./L stock solution was made by dissolving 201.8 mg of the test material to a final volume of 2 L with EC media. The stock solution was stirred for 1 hour using a magnetic stirrer. Secondary stock solutions at nominal concentrations of 9.39, 20.7, and 45.5 mg a.i./L were made by serial dilution of the 100 mg ai/L stock solution in EC media. A nominal 4.27 mg a.i./L stock solution was made from dilution of the 9.39 mg a.i./L stock solution in EC media. A control solution was prepared using EC media only.

Aeration or agitation

Oscillation rate:
Agitated in a cooled orbital incubator

100 cycles/min under constant illumination

EPA recommends rotary shaking apparatus to oscillate vessels at approximately 100 cycles/min during the test. The rate of oscillation should be determined at test initiation or at least once daily during testing if the shaking rate changes. S. costatum should be shaken by hand 1-2X daily or shaken at 60 cycles/min.
Initial cell density
1.00 x 10[4] cells/mL

EPA recommends an initial population density of 10,000 cells/mL for P. subcapitata, S. costatum and at a minimum 10,000 cells/mL for all other test species. Other species may need a higher initial inoculum density and should be determined on a case-by case basis.

OECD recommends that the initial cell concentration be approximately 10,000 cells/ml for S. capricornutum and S. subspicatus. When other species are used the biomass should be comparable.
Number of replicates
Negative control:
Solvent control:
Treatments:

6
N/A
3/level*

*Due to a sampling error at 24 hours in the nominal 20.7 mg a.i./L test level, only two of the replicate test vessels were used for cell counts and growth inhibitions, causing unbalanced replication.

EPA recommends a minimum number of 4 replicates per treatment and control/ solvent control.

OECD preferably three replicates at each test concentration and ideally twice that number of controls. When a vehicle is used to solubilize the test substance, additional controls containing the vehicle at the highest concentration used in the test.

EPA recommends treatments be randomly assigned to test vessels, and test vessels randomly assigned to positions in the growth chamber.
Test concentrations
Nominal:

Initial

Mean-Measured:

0 (negative control), 4.27, 9.39, 20.7, 45.5, and 100 mg a.i./L

<0.01 (<LOD, control), 3.98, 8.82, 19.3, 44.7, and 101 mg a.i./L

<0.01 (<LOD, control), 3.99, 8.90, 19.7, 46.1, and 103 mg a.i./L
Mean-measured concentration is a mean of 0 and 96-hour (with algae) values.
Limit of determination (LOD) = 0.01 mg/L

EPA recommends at least 5 test concentrations, in geometric series with a ratio of 2 to 4 and insure bracketing the NOAEC or IC05 and the IC50, plus a control/solvent control.

OECD recommends at least five concentrations arranged in a geometric series, with the lowest concentration tested should have no observed effect on the growth of the algae. The highest concentration tested should inhibit growth by at least 50% relatively to the control and, preferably, stop growth completely.
Solvent (type, percentage, if used)
N/A
EPA recommends the solvent N,N-dimethyl-formamide. The concentration of solvent should be the same in all test treatments and should not exceed 0.1 mL/L.
Method and interval of analytical verification
Test solutions were analytically verified at 0 and 96 hours.

Each test solution was analyzed to determine the test substance concentration using high performance liquid chromatographic analysis with UV detection (HPLC-UV) at 220 nm.
EPA recommends confirmation of dissolved test concentrations at a minimum at test initiation and at test termination for static tests.
Test conditions
pH:
Temperature (media):
Temperature (air):
Photoperiod:
Light intensity and quality:

7.7  -  10.2
22.9  -  25.1 ℃
Not reported
Constant illumination
7790 lux

EPA Recommendations
pH at test initiation: 7.5+-0.1 for freshwater and 8.0+-0.1 for marine.
Temperature for P. subcapita and N. pelliculosa is 24+-2 °C, and for S. costatum is 20+-2 [o]C
Photoperiod for P. subcapita and N. pelliculosa is continuous, and for S. costatum is 14 hr light/ 10 hr dark.
Light intensity: 60 μmol/m2/s or 4300 lux.

OECD recommended the temperature in the range of 21 to 25[o]C maintained at +- 2[o]C and continuous uniform illumination provided at approximately 8000 Lux measured with a spherical collector. OECD: pH is measured at beginning of the test and at 72 hours, it should not normally deviate by more than one unit during the test.

EPA recommends measuring pH at test initiation and at end of the test (or daily if pH adjustment was necessary); temperature on a separate vessel or hourly/daily on the air; and light intensity at test initiation (or daily if intensity changed by >15%);
Reference chemical (if used)
name:
concentrations:

N/A
N/A

Other parameters, if any
None

      2. Observations:

Table 2:  Observation parameters
                                  Parameters
                                    Details
                                    Remarks

                                   Criteria
Parameters measured including the growth inhibition/other toxicity symptoms
Cell density, growth rate, and area under the curve

Recommended parameters measured per replicate include:
-Algal cell density (cell count/mL)
-yield (final population density)
-average specific growth rate
-mean area under growth curve (AUC)
Measurement technique for cell density and other end points
Cell counts were performed using a Z2 Coulter Counter (Coulter Electronics Ltd, Luton, UK). Corrections for cell counts were made by subtraction of the background cell counts from the test flasks without algae. Initial cell concentration of the starter culture was measured using a hemacytometer and confirmed using the Z2 Coulter Counter.

Growth rate:
u= logeNn  -  logeN0
                tn
where:
N0 = initial measured cell concentration at time t0 (cells/mL)
N1 = measured cell concentration at time t1 (cells/mL)
Nn = measured cell concentration at time tn (cells/mL)
N2 = measured cell concentration at time t2 (cells/mL)
t1 = time of first measurement after the beginning of the test (h)
t2 = time of second measurement after the beginning of the test (h)
tn = time of n[th] measurement after the beginning of the test (h)

Area under the curve:
A = ((N1-N0)/2)(t1)+((N1+N2-2N0)/2)(t2-t1)+ ((Nn-1+Nn-2 N0)/2)(tn-tn-1)

where:
N0 = initial measured cell concentration at time t0 (cells/mL)
N1 = measured cell concentration at time t1 (cells/mL)
Nn = measured cell concentration at time tn (cells/mL)
N2 = measured cell concentration at time t2 (cells/mL)
t1 = time of first measurement after the beginning of the test (h)
t2 = time of second measurement after the beginning of the test (h)
tn = time of n[th] measurement after the beginning of the test (h)
The reviewer calculated cell density, yield, growth rate, and area under the curve according to the formulas provided by OCSPP 850.4500 guidance.

EPA recommends the measurement of cell counts by microscopic observation or electronic particle counter, with alternative option of measuring chlorophyll a.

OECD recommends the electronic particle counter, microscope with counting chamber, fluorimeter, spectrophotometer, and colorimeter. (note: in order to provide useful measurements at low cell concentrations when using a spectrophotometer, it may be necessary to use cuvettes with a light path of at least 4 cm).
Observation intervals
Observations were conducted at 0, 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours.

EPA and OECD: every 24 hours.
Other observations, if any
Test solutions were clear and colorless at exposure initiation (0 hours). After 96 hours, test vessels containing algae appeared as green suspensions in the control and four lowest treatment levels. The highest test level solutions appeared slightly hazy and paler green in color than the control.
Limit of determination (LOD) = 0.01 mg/L
Indicate whether there was an exponential growth in the control
Yes, cell density in the negative control increased by a factor of 462X during the test.

During the 96 hour test period, cell counts in the controls did not increase by a factor of at least 100X for P. subcapitata and a factor of at least 30X for S. costatum (i.e., logarithmic growth in the controls was not reached during the test).

OECD: cell concentration in control cultures should have increased by a factor of at least 16 within three days.
Were raw data included?
Yes, except for phytotoxic effects.

II. RESULTS and DISCUSSION:

	A. INHIBITORY EFFECTS:

   At 96 hours, yield inhibitions relative to the control were low (<=17%) in the four lowest test groups and increased to 44% in the highest test level. Inhibitions for area under the curve and growth rate were low in every test level, reaching a maximum inhibition of 17% and 10%, respectively. For all endpoints, effects were highest in the mean-measured 103 mg a.i./L treatment group.

   At exposure initiation, the test solutions appeared clear and colorless. After 96 hours, test vessels containing algae appeared as green suspensions in the control and four lowest treatment levels. The highest test level solutions appeared slightly hazy and paler green in color than the control. Further details on phytotoxic effects were not provided.

   The pH at test initiation was 7.7 in the control and ranged from 7.7 to 7.8 in the test solutions. After 96 hours, the pH increased significantly in the control (ranging from 10.0 to 10.2) and four lowest treatment levels (ranging from 8.3 to 10.1). Conversely, the highest treatment level pH decreased substantially by test termination (ranging from 4.9 to 5.0).
   For a satisfactory test, cell counts in the controls should increase by a factor of at least 100X for P. subcapitata and a factor of at least 30X for S. costatum by test termination (i.e., logarithmic growth in the controls). At test termination the coefficient of variation (CV) for mean control yield should be < 15% and the CV for average specific growth rate should be < 15%, which is a logarithmically-transformed variable.

Table 3:  Effect of Tetrachloroterephthalic Acid (degradate of DCPA) on Algal Growth Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata (formerly Selenastrum capricornutum).
            Mean-Measured
(and Nominal) Concentrations,
 mg a.i./L
                                 Initial Cell
                                    Density
                              (x 10[4] cells/mL)
                      Cell density (x 10[4] cells/mL)[a]

                                   24 hours
                                   72 hours
                                   96 hours

                                 Cell Density
                                 % Inhibition
Negative control (<LOD)
                                     1.00
                                     6.38
                                      185
                                      462
                                      N/A
3.99 (4.27)
                                     1.00
                                     6.15
                                      171
                                      389
                                      16
8.90 (9.39)
                                     1.00
                                     6.29
                                      175
                                      421
                                       9
19.7 (20.7)
                                     1.00
                                     5.96
                                      175
                                      442
                                       4
46.1 (45.5)
                                     1.00
                                     5.82
                                      168
                                      384
                                      17
103 (100)
                                     1.00
                                     6.22
                                      214
                                      258
                                      44
  a Calculated by the reviewer.
  N/A - Not Applicable.
  Data were obtained from Table 3 on page 25 of the study report.
  LOD was 0.01 mg a.i./L

Table 4:  Effect of Tetrachloroterephthalic Acid (degradate of DCPA) on Algal Growth Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata (formerly Selenastrum capricornutum).
                 Mean-Measured
(and Nominal) Concentrations
                                  (mg a.i./L)
                                 Initial cell
                                    density
                              (x 10[4] cells/mL)
                               Mean growth rate
                                 (day[-1]) [a]
         Mean area under the curve (AUC; x 10[4] cells x days/mL) [a]

                                  0-96 Hours
                                 % Inhibition
                                  0-96 Hours
                                 % Inhibition
Negative control (<LOD)
                                     1.00
                                     1.53
                                      N/A
                                      460
                                      N/A
3.99 (4.27)
                                     1.00
                                     1.49
                                       3
                                      406
                                      12
8.90 (9.39)
                                     1.00
                                     1.51
                                       2
                                      427
                                       7
19.7 (20.7)
                                     1.00
                                     1.52
                                       1
                                      437
                                       5
46.1 (45.5)
                                     1.00
                                     1.49
                                       3
                                      399
                                      13
103 (100)
                                     1.00
                                     1.39
                                      10
                                      384
                                      17
  [a]     Calculated by the reviewer.
  N/A - Not applicable
  Data were obtained from Table 3 on page 25 of the study report.
  LOD was 0.01 mg a.i./L

Table 5:  Statistical endpoint values calculated by the study author based on nominal concentrations
                             Statistical Endpoint
                                     Yield
                                  Growth Rate
                             Area Under
the Curve
NOAEC (mg a.i./L) (95% C.I.)
                                 Not reported
                                     45.5
                                   <4.27
IC50/EC50 (mg a.i./L) (95% C.I.)
                                 Not reported
                                    >100
                                    >100

   B. REPORTED STATISTICS:

   The NOAEC was determined using ANOVA followed by Dunnett's test (α=0.05). Due to the lack of inhibitory effects, the IC50 values were empirically to be greater than the highest nominal concentration tested. The study author's results are based on the nominal concentrations.

	C. VERIFICATION OF STATISTICAL RESULTS:

   The data were analyzed using CETIS Version <IP_ADDRESS> with database backend settings implemented by EFED on 7/25/17. The mean-measured concentrations provided by the study author were used for analysis.

   The data were tested for normality and equality of variance using Shapiro-Wilk's and Bartlett's tests (α = 0.01), respectively. The data for all endpoints were normally distributed and homoscedastic. Area under the curve data were monotonically decreasing and analyzed using William's Multiple Comparison test. Growth rate and cell density data responses straddled monotonicity and non-monotonicity. Further, hypothesis testing results were the same for both William's and Dunnett's test, so the shared NOAEC results are reported.

   The IC05 values were calculated using non-linear regression. The yield IC50 was slightly extrapolated using non-linear regression results, and results should be interpreted with caution. The growth rate IC50 was highly extrapolated to a value that was approximately 5X greater than the highest measured test concentration and should be interpreted with great caution. The reviewer attempted non-linear regression to determine the area under the curve IC50, but the value was highly extrapolated and confidence intervals could not be determined. Additionally, the effects were low, with a maximum effect of 17%. Therefore, the IC50 value was visually determined to be greater than the highest mean-measured concentration tested.

   Yield
   IC05: 32.3 mg a.i./L				95% C.I.:  N/A to 52.7 mg a.i./L
   IC50: >46 mg a.i./L[+]				95% C.I.:  NA
   NOAEC: 19.7 mg a.i./L
   LOAEC: 46 mg a.i./L

   Growth rate
   IC05: 75.1 mg a.i./L				95% C.I.:  55.8 to 92.5 mg a.i./L
   IC50: >46.1 mg a.i./L[+]				95% C.I.:  N/A
   NOAEC: 19.7 mg a.i./L
   LOAEC: 46 mg a.i./L

   Area under the curve (AUC)
   IC05: 0.65 mg a.i./L*				95% C.I.:  N/A to 31.9 mg a.i./L
   IC50: >46.1 mg a.i./L[+]				95% C.I.:  N/A
   NOAEC: 19.7 mg a.i./L
   LOAEC: 46 mg a.i./L
   *Value is not bracketed by the measured concentrations and should be interpreted with caution.
   [+] See reviewer comments below regarding the IC50 endpoint in reference to the highest test concentration.

   Endpoint(s) Affected:  Yield, area under the curve, and growth rate
   Most Sensitive Endpoint:  Yield, area under the curve, and growth rate, based on the NOAEC

   D.  STUDY DEFICIENCIES:

   The pH of the control medium increased by a minimum of 2.3 units during the test, and OECD guidance states that the pH of the control medium should not increase by more than 1.5 units during the test. Whereas OCSPP does not provide guidance for pH increases in the control. Also, the highest test level solutions appeared slightly hazy and paler green in color than the control. After 96 hours, the pH increased significantly in the control (ranging from 10.0 to 10.2) and four lowest treatment levels (ranging from 8.3 to 10.1). Conversely, the highest treatment level pH decreased substantially by test termination (ranging from 4.9 to 5.0). Measurements were only taken at 0 and 96 hours and it is unclear if the effect in the highest test concentration are treatment related or if something else is going on within the test system.

   Three replicates were used for each treatment level, except the 19.7 mg a.i./L (nominal 20.7 mg a.i./L) test level (where a sampling error occurred in one replicate), and six replicates were used for the negative control. OCSPP recommends a minimum of four replicates per concentration. However, OECD recommends three replicates per treatment level and preferably double the replicates for the control groups. Due to the noted sampling error, a replicate was excluded by the study author which led to unbalanced replication across treatment levels. These data were also excluded in the MRID, so the reviewer was unable to include the replicate in the statistical analysis. This is not considered a major deficiency as the two remaining replicates had fairly similar responses (CVs of 2-12%) and variation throughout the test system was low (maximum CV of 15% across all concentrations and endpoints).

   E.  REVIEWER'S COMMENTS:

   The reviewer's and study author's NOAEC results for area under the curve (AUC) and growth rate were not in agreement. The study author reported the NOAEC for AUC to be undefined based on Dunnett's test (<4.27 mg a.i./L, the lowest test concentration, which was "the highest concentration that did not produce a statistically significant adverse effect when compared to the control"), whereas the reviewer determined a higher toxicity value using William's test, effects were not dose-responsive. Conversely, the study author determined a higher NOAEC value for growth rate using Dunnett's test then was determined by the reviewer. The reason for this discrepancy is unclear as the reviewer's results based on Dunnett's and William's test produced a higher NOAEC value, but one potential fact is that effects in the three lowest test concentrations were not dose-responsive. The reviewer's and study author's IC50 results for area under the curve and growth rate were in general agreement, both were visually determined to be greater than the highest test level. Variations in all results can be attributed to the study author using nominal concentrations for analysis, compared to the reviewer using the mean-measured concentrations for analysis. Additionally, the reviewer's `highest concentration' was the second highest test concentration, as the highest test concentration does not appear to be reliable, due to issues with pH (as discussed in the study deficiency section above), and so based on these uncertainties, this test concentration should not be used to estimate endpoints. The study author did not assess yield, which was an affected endpoint in this study. The reviewer's results are presented in the Executive Summary and Conclusions section of this DER.

   All endpoints in this study were significantly affected in the two highest test levels, and based on the uncertainty surrounding the pH as discussed below, the most sensitive endpoint, based on the NOAEC was all three endpoints, with the NOAEC being 19.7 mg a.i./L.

   With pH measurements taken at 0 and 96 hours, it is unclear if the difference (increased inhibition, relative to control plants) in the highest test concentration is treatment related or if something else was going on within the test system. Therefore, the highest test concentration does not appear to be reliable, based on these uncertainties, and was not used to estimate endpoints. Consequently, the reviewer concluded that the IC50 for all endpoints was greater than the 2[nd] highest tested concentration (46.1 mg a.i./L).

   All OCSPP 850.4500 (2012) validity criteria were met except: The study author did not indicate whether treatments were randomly assigned to test vessels. Although based on the description of the study summary this was likely completed. All OECD 201 (2011) validity criteria were met.

   The highest test level solutions appeared slightly hazy and paler green in color than the control. After 96 hours, the pH increased significantly in the control (ranging from 10.0 to 10.2) and four lowest treatment levels (ranging from 8.3 to 10.1). Conversely, the highest treatment level pH decreased substantially by test termination (ranging from 4.9 to 5.0). Measurements on pH were only taken at 0 and 96 hours, and it is unclear if the difference in the highest test concentration was treatment related or if something else is going on within the test system. The increase in the controls and other treatment groups to extremely alkaline conditions are likely a result of the test system reaching the carrying capacity of the test vessels. Laboratory toxicity tests should be conducted in environmentally relevant conditions which may not be represented by the strongly basic water conditions present in the Day 4 samples. The alkaline conditions may have inhibited growth in the controls and lower treatment groups, resulting in less sensitive endpoints than would have occurred had the pH stayed in the environmentally relevant range. Had pH measurements been taken more frequently (i.e., daily), there would be more certainty that the similar dose-responses (and any consequently estimated NOAEC and IC50 endpoints) observed in treatment groups at 24-hours and 72-hours, compared to the treatments at 96-hours, were not a result of inhibitions in control growth due to high pH.

   After 96 hours, the reviewer-calculated %CV for control yield and growth rate were 8 and 1%, respectively, which meets the OCSPP 850.4500 Guideline requirement of <15% (yield and growth rate) and OECD 201 Guideline requirement of <10% (growth rate).

   The in-life phase of the study was conducted sometime between March 12, 2003 and April 11, 2003.

   F. CONCLUSIONS:

   This study is scientifically sound and is classified as supplemental and may be used for risk characterization. All endpoints in this study were significantly affected in the two highest test levels and based on the uncertainty surrounding the pH, the most sensitive endpoint, based on the NOAEC was all three endpoints with the NOAEC being 19.7 mg a.i./L. With pH measurements taken at 0 and 96 hours, it is unclear if the difference (increased inhibition, relative to control plants) in the highest test concentration is treatment related or if something else was impacting the test system. Therefore, the highest test concentration does not appear to be reliable, and so based on these uncertainties, this test concentration should not be used to estimate endpoints. The IC50 for yield, growth rate and area under the curve (AUC) was >46.1 mg a.i./L, as the highest test concentration does not appear to be reliable for use based on the uncertainties surrounding pH.

III.  REFERENCES:

No references were provided in the MRID.


[Federal Register: May 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 101)]
[Notices]
[Page 30126]
[DOCID:fr25my06-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EC06-119-000]

Griffith Energy LLC; PPL Southwest Generation Holdings, LLC; PPl
EnergyPlus, LLC; LSP Mohave, LLC (f/k/a/ Duke Energy Mohave, LLC); LS
Power Generation II, LLC; Notice of Filing

May 19, 2006.
    Take notice that on May 12, 2006, Griffith Energy LLC (Griffith),
PPL Southwest Generation Holdings, LLC (PPL Southwest), PPL EnergyPlus,
LLC (PPL EnergyPlus), LSP Mohave, LLC and LS Power Generation II, LLC
(LSP Generation II) (collectively, Applicants) submitted an application
pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act seeking authorization
from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the transfer by PPL
Southwest, and the acquisition by LSP Generation II, of PPL Southwest's
indirect 50% ownership interest in Griffith.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is
not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons
other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 2, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-8023 Filed 5-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 191)]
[Notices]
[Page 57169]
[DOCID:fr01oc08-130]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: [to be published].

Status: Open meeting.

Place: 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC.

Date and Time of Previously Announced Meeting: Wednesday, October 1,
2008 at 10 a.m.

Change in the Meeting: Cancellation of Meeting.
    The Open Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, October 1, 2008 has been
cancelled.
    For further information please contact the Office of the Secretary
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 26, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-23074 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39785-39787]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16403]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67291; File No. SR-EDGA-2012-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Changes To Amend EDGA Rules To Add the Route
Peg Order

June 28, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 26, 2012, the EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items 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 changes from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.5 to provide an additional
order type, the Route Peg Order. In addition, the Exchange proposes to
amend Rule 11.8 to describe the priority of the Route Peg Order
relative to other orders on the EDGA Book.
    The text of the proposed rule changes are attached as Exhibit 5 \3\
and are available on the Exchange's Web site at www.directedge.com, at
the Exchange's principal office, at the Public Reference Room of the
Commission, and on the Commission's Web site at www.sec.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission notes that the Exhibit 5 is attached to the
filing, but is not attached to this Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.5(c) to add a new
subparagraph (14) that describes a Route Peg Order. A Route Peg Order
would be a non-displayed limit order eligible for execution at the
national best bid (the ``NBB'') for Route Peg Orders to buy, and at the
national best offer (the ``NBO'', and together with the NBB, the
``NBBO'') for Route Peg Orders to sell, against routable orders \4\
that are equal to or less than the size of the Route Peg Order. Thus,
the Route Peg Order would only be eligible for execution at a price
that matches the NBB for buy orders, and the NBO for sell orders. The
Route Peg Order would be a passive, resting order designed exclusively
to provide liquidity; therefore, it would not be permitted to take
liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Orders that are not designated for routing are not
executable against Route Peg Orders because Users entering non-
routable orders typically expect to post liquidity on EDGA or seek
to execute immediately against the EDGA displayed quote or attempt
to ferret out hidden liquidity at or within the NBBO, e.g., through
an Immediate-or-Cancel Order type. By contrast, the Route Peg Order
would be designed for Users to interact with other Users that seek
to access liquidity at the NBBO, and that employ routable orders to
access such liquidity at a range of trading venues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An incoming order that has been designated as eligible for routing
would be able to interact with Route Peg Orders. Such an order would
first be matched against orders other than Route Peg Orders in price/
time priority in accordance with Rule 11.8(a)(2)(A)-(C). If any portion
of the incoming order remained unexecuted, only then would such order
be eligible to execute against Route Peg Orders.\5\ Thus, the Route Peg
Order is intended only to provide liquidity in the event that a
marketable order would otherwise route to another destination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange is proposing to [sic] The Exchange proposes to
codify this principle in proposed new paragraph (a)(2)(D) of Rule
11.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned supra, Route Peg Orders would only trade with orders
that are equal to or smaller in quantity than the original order
quantity of the Route Peg Order. If a Route Peg Order were partially
executed, it would be able to execute against orders that were

larger than the remaining balance of the order, but those orders would
still need to be equal to or smaller than the original order quantity
of the Route Peg Order.\6\ The following example illustrates how this
would work: Assume Member A places a Route Peg Order to buy 500 shares,
and an incoming order to sell executes against the Route Peg Order at
the NBB for 300 shares. That would leave Member A with a remaining
balance of 200 shares to buy. Another incoming order to sell 400 shares
would be eligible to execute against Member A's balance, for 200
shares, because the size of its order would be less than the original
size of Member A's order. If, however, the incoming order were to sell
600 shares, it would not execute against the Route Peg Order because
the size of the order would be greater than the original size of Member
A's order. In that event, such order would be routed externally. It
should be noted, however, that if there were another Route Peg Order on
the Book, behind Member A's order in time priority, for, say, 1000
shares, the order to sell 600 shares would execute against that second
Route Peg Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ If a Route Peg Order were partially executed, the remaining
portion of the order would continue to be eligible for execution,
but it would be assigned a new time priority and new timestamp after
each partial execution, until either the remaining size of the order
is exhausted or it is cancelled. Assigning a new timestamp after
each partial execution would allow for a kind of rotating priority
of execution for Users who place Route Peg Orders. The Exchange is
proposing to codify this principle in Rule 11.8(a)(5) and proposed
new subparagraph (a)(7) of Rule 11.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange elected to design the System in this manner, as
opposed to alternatives such as measuring incoming orders against the
aggregate size of all Route Peg Orders then on the Book, in order to
avoid the possibility of a single block-sized order potentially
clearing all the liquidity on the Book attributable to Route Peg
Orders.
    Route Peg Orders would be able to be entered, cancelled and
cancelled/replaced prior to and during Regular Trading Hours.\7\ Route
Peg Orders would be eligible for execution in a given security during
Regular Trading Hours, except that, even after the commencement of
Regular Trading Hours, Route Peg Orders would not be eligible for
execution (1) in the opening cross, and (2) until such time that
regular session orders in that security could be posted to the EDGA
Book.\8\ A Route Peg Order would not execute at a price that is
inferior to a Protected Quotation,\9\ and would not be permitted to
execute if the NBBO were locked or crossed. Any and all remaining,
unexecuted Route Peg Orders would be cancelled at the conclusion of
Regular Trading Hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As defined in Rule 1.5(y).
    \8\ To illustrate, for stocks listed on the New York Stock
Exchange LLC (the ``NYSE''), regular session orders can be posted to
the EDGA Book upon the dissemination by the responsible Securities
Information Processor (``SIP'') of an opening print in that stock on
the NYSE. Conversely, for stocks listed on, say, the NASDAQ Stock
Market LLC, regular session orders can be posted to the EDGA Book
upon the dissemination of the NBBO by the responsible SIP in that
stock.
    \9\ As defined in Rule 1.5(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Route Peg Order would provide Members with an additional means
to post stable trading interest at the NBB and NBO. The purpose of the
Route Peg Order is to encourage Members to further enhance the depth of
liquidity at the NBBO on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that if
the Route Peg Order became widely used, Members seeking to access
liquidity at the NBBO would be more motivated to direct their orders to
EDGA because they would have a heightened expectation of the
availability of liquidity at the NBBO. In addition, a User \10\ whose
order executed against a Route Peg Order would be able to obtain an
execution at the NBB or NBO while minimizing the risk that incremental
latency associated with routing the order to an away destination may
result in an inferior execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As defined in Rule 1.5(ee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \11\ and further the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in that they are designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and 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. Moreover, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule changes are not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The benefits to investors of enhanced depth of liquidity at the
NBBO in today's market structure cannot be understated. The Route Peg
Order is designed to incentivize Users to place greater liquidity at
the NBBO, thereby promoting more favorable and efficient executions for
the benefit of public customers. It would do so by (1) offering
liquidity providers a means to use the Exchange to post larger limit
orders that are only executable at the NBBO and that do not disclose
their trading interest to other market participants in advance of
execution; (2) offering market participants seeking to access liquidity
a greater expectation of market depth at the NBBO than may currently be
the case; and (3) offering more predictable executions at the NBBO for
Users by reducing the risk that incremental latency associated with
routing an order to an away destination may result in an inferior
execution. Thus, by providing an additional means by which market
participants can be encouraged to post liquidity at the NBBO on the
Exchange, which would add depth and support to the NBBO on the Exchange
and mitigate the negative effects of market fragmentation, the proposed
rule changes would promote just and equitable principles of trade and
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and national market system. Moreover, the proposed rule changes
would protect investors and the public interest by increasing the
probability of an execution on the Exchange at the NBBO in the event
that the order would otherwise be shipped to an external destination
and potentially miss an execution at the NBBO while in transit.
    The Exchange believes, however, that the benefits to be derived
from Route Peg Orders would only be realized if Route Peg Orders only
interact with orders eligible for routing. Routable orders are
typically characteristic of public customers, both retail and
institutional (colloquially referred to as well as ``natural''
investors), who are concerned with executing at the best price. On the
other hand, non-routable orders typically expect to post liquidity on
the Book or seek to execute immediately, such as via an Immediate-or-
Cancel Order, against the Exchange's best displayed bid or offer or to
ferret out hidden liquidity at or inside the NBBO (colloquially
referred to as well as ``pinging''). Professional traders, in
particular, are more apt to submit, and often immediately cancel,
``pinging'' orders, as reflected in generally higher message-to-trade
ratios. The Exchange believes this type of order behavior, while it may
have its own business purposes, would not be suitable to interact with
Route Peg Orders simply because Users would be reticent to post
liquidity via Route Peg Orders given the uncertain, and therefore
difficult to manage, exposure to executions against orders attributable
to professional traders. Indeed, we believe potential

liquidity providers would be more apt to provide liquidity in
alternative trading systems and other non-exchange market centers where
the customization and segmentation experience may be less transparent
and objective.
    While non-routable orders would not be permitted to execute against
Route Peg Orders, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule
changes would be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, brokers, or dealers. First, the Exchange believes this
limited exception is constructed narrowly enough, based on rational and
legitimate grounds, so that the compelling policy objectives, which are
wholly consistent with the Act, can be realized. Second, the Exchange
is not proposing to limit the type of User that can place routable
orders, or that can place Route Peg Orders. So any disadvantage
resulting from the limitation to executing against routable orders
would not target particular segments of market participants, per se,
but rather a particular type of market behavior. Therefore, the
Exchange believes that not only would the proposed rule changes not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, brokers, or
dealers, the differentiation between routable and non-routable orders
is an important element for the Route Peg Order to be able to achieve
the objectives of protecting investors and the public interest and
promoting just and equitable principles of trade.
    Finally, because the Route Peg Order would be functionally similar
to the Supplemental Order that is currently offered by the NASDAQ Stock
Market LLC (``NASDAQ''),\13\ the Route Peg Order would promote
competition by enhancing EDGA's ability to compete with NASDAQ as well
as other non-exchange market centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See NASDAQ Rules 4751(f)(14), 4751(g) and 4757(a)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice or within
such longer period (i) as the Commission may designate up to 45 days of
such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and
publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-
regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (a) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule changes; or
    (b) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
changes should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-EDGA-2012-28 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-EDGA-2012-28. 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
a.m. and 3 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-EDGA-2012-28 and should be
submitted on or before July 26, 2012.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-16403 Filed 7-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		7/31/2015

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Mike Gordon, EPA Region 3

SUBJECT:	6/30/15 Town Hall Meeting with Congressman Boyle --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      On June 30, 2015 EPA attended a town hall meeting on climate change with Congressman Boyle to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.               ATTENDEES

Mike Gordon, EPA Region 3 Dave Arnold, EPA Region 3