[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 171 (Thursday, September 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53358-53360]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21867]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75781; File No. SR-CME-2015-016]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Reduce the Minimum IRS Guaranty Fund Contribution of IRS Clearing
Members

August 28, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'' or ``Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on August 24, 2015, Chicago Mercantile Exchange
Inc. (``CME'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change described in Items I, II and
III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by CME. CME filed
the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(4)(ii) thereunder,\4\ so that the proposal was 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).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CME is filing the proposed rule change that is limited to its
business as a derivatives clearing organization. More specifically, the
proposed rule change would reduce the minimum IRS Guaranty Fund
Contribution of IRS Clearing Members to $15,000,000 for all IRS
Clearing Members (including affiliates).

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CME included statements
concerning the purpose 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. CME 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

    CME is registered as a derivatives clearing organization with the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') and currently offers
clearing services for many different futures and swaps products. With
this filing, CME proposes to make rulebook changes that are limited to
its business clearing futures and swaps under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the CFTC. More specifically, the proposed rules would
reduce the minimum IRS Guaranty Fund Contribution of IRS Clearing
Members to $15,000,000 for all IRS Clearing Members (including
affiliates).
    CME periodically reviews its requirements for clearing membership
and has determined that it is appropriate to change the minimum
contribution to $15,000,000 as the current minimum, established at the
time of launch of the IRS clearing service to ensure a robust financial
safeguards for IRS products, can be reduced due to the growth of IRS
clearing activity at CME and corresponding growth of the IRS Guaranty
Fund size.\5\ The change could also encourage more entities to apply
for

IRS clearing membership which would further the diversification of IRS
Clearing Members and provide additional liquidity to the default
management process. No other changes to IRS clearing membership
requirements are being proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As of March 31, 2015, the IRS Guaranty Fund was
approximately $2.473 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change that is described in this filing is
limited to CME's business as a derivatives clearing organization
clearing products under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. CME has
not cleared security based swaps and does not plan to and therefore the
proposed rule change does not impact CME's security-based swap clearing
business in any way. The proposed rule change would become effective
upon filing but will be operationalized on August 31, 2015. CME notes
that it has also submitted the proposed rule change that is the subject
of this filing to its primary regulator, the CFTC, in CME Submission
15-346.
    CME believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act including Section 17A.\6\ The proposed
rules change the minimum IRS Guaranty Fund Contribution of IRS Clearing
Members to $15,000,000 as the current minimum, established at the time
of launch of the IRS clearing service to ensure a robust financial
safeguards for IRS products, can be reduced due to the growth of IRS
clearing activity at CME and corresponding growth of the IRS Guaranty
Fund size. The change could also encourage more entities to apply for
IRS clearing membership which would further the diversification of IRS
Clearing Members and provide additional liquidity to the default
management process. The proposed rule change is therefore designed to
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivatives agreements,
contracts, and transactions, to assure the safeguarding of securities
and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or
for which it is responsible, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Exchange Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the proposed rule change is limited to CME's futures
and swaps clearing businesses, which mean they are limited in their
effect to products that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
CFTC. As such, the proposed rule change is limited to CME's activities
as a DCO clearing futures that are not security futures and swaps that
are not security-based swaps. CME notes that the policies of the CFTC
with respect to administering the Commodity Exchange Act are comparable
to a number of the policies underlying the Exchange Act, such as
promoting market transparency for over-the-counter derivatives markets,
promoting the prompt and accurate clearance of transactions and
protecting investors and the public interest.
    Because the proposed rule change is limited in its effect to CME's
futures and swaps clearing businesses, the proposed rule change is
properly classified as effecting a change in an existing service of CME
that:
    (a) primarily affects the clearing operations of CME with respect
to products that are not securities, including futures that are not
security futures, swaps that are not security-based swaps or mixed
swaps; and forwards that are not security forwards; and
    (b) does not significantly affect any securities clearing
operations of CME or any rights or obligations of CME with respect to
securities clearing or persons using such securities-clearing service.

    As such, the proposed rule change is therefore consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Exchange Act \8\ and are properly
filed under Section 19(b)(3)(A) \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) \10\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed rules reduce
the minimum IRS Guaranty Fund Contribution of IRS Clearing Members to
$15,000,000 for all IRS Clearing Members (including affiliates) and
could be expected to encourage more entities to apply for IRS clearing
membership. Further, the changes are limited to CME's futures and swaps
clearing businesses and, as such, do not affect the security-based swap
clearing activities of CME in any way and therefore do not impose any
burden on competition that is inappropriate 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

    CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments
regarding this proposed rule change. CME has not received any
unsolicited written comments from interested parties.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act \11\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(4)(ii) thereunder,\12\ CME has designated that this proposal
constitutes a change in an existing service of CME that (a) primarily
affects the clearing operations of CME with respect to products that
are not securities, including futures that are not security futures,
and swaps that are not security-based swaps or mixed swaps, and
forwards that are not security forwards; and (b) does not significantly
affect any securities clearing operations of CME or any rights or
obligations of CME with respect to securities clearing or persons using
such securities-clearing service, which renders the proposed change
effective upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CME believes that the proposal does not significantly affect any
securities clearing operations of CME because CME recently filed a
proposed rule change that clarified that CME has decided not to clear
security-based swaps, except in a very limited set of
circumstances.\13\ The rule filing reflecting CME's decision not to
clear security-based swaps removed any ambiguity concerning CME's
ability or intent to perform the functions of a clearing agency with
respect to security-based swaps. Therefore, this proposal will have no
effect on any securities clearing operations of CME.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73615 (Nov. 17,
2014), 79 FR 69545 (Nov. 21, 2014) (SR-CME-2014-49). The only
exception is with regards to Restructuring European Single Name CDS
Contracts created following the occurrence of a Restructuring Credit
Event in respect of an iTraxx Component Transaction. The clearing of
Restructuring European Single Name CDS Contracts will be a necessary
byproduct after such time that CME begins clearing iTraxx Europe
index CDS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed 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 Exchange Act.

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-CME-2015-016 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-CME-2015-016. 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 CME and on CME's
Web site at http://www.cmegroup.com/market-regulation/rule-filings.html.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2015-016 and
should be submitted on or before September 24, 2015.

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-21867 Filed 9-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 29186-29189]
[DOCID:fr19my06-89]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 27320; 812-13189]

J.P. Morgan Fleming Series Trust and J.P. Morgan Investment
Management Inc.; Notice of Application

May 15, 2006.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 15(a) of
the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as certain disclosure
requirements.

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

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order that would permit
them to enter into and materially amend subadvisory agreements without
shareholder approval and would grant relief from certain disclosure
requirements.

Applicants: J.P. Morgan Fleming Series Trust (the ``Trust'') and J.P.
Morgan Investment Management Inc. (the ``Manager'').

Filing Dates: The application was filed on May 17, 2005 and amended on
May 8, 2006.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on June 12, 2006, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons may request notification of a hearing by writing to
the Commission's Secretary.

Addresses: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington DC 20549-1090. Applicants, Stephen M. Benham,
Esq., J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc., 522 Fifth Avenue, New
York, NY, 10036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura J. Riegel, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6873, or Nadya B. Roytblat, Assistant Director, at (202) 551-
6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 100 F Street NE, Washington DC
20549-0102 (tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Trust is organized as a Massachusetts business trust and is
registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company.
The Trust currently offers two series, each of which has its own
investment objectives, restrictions, and policies (each current or
future series, a ``Fund'' and collectively, the ``Funds''). Certain of
the Funds use or may use the multi-manager structure described below
(each, a ``Multi-Manager Fund,'' and collectively, the ``Multi-Manager
Funds'').\1\ The Manager is registered as an investment adviser under
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act'') and provides
investment management services to the Funds pursuant to an investment
advisory and management agreement with the Trust (``Advisory
Agreement''). The Advisory Agreement has been approved by the board of
trustees of the Trust (the ``Board''), including a majority of the
trustees who are not ``interested persons,'' as defined in section
2(a)(19) of the Act, of the Trust (``Disinterested Board Members''), as
well by each Fund's shareholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\Applicants request that any relief granted that pursuant to
the application also apply to any other existing or future
registered open-management investment company or series thereof
that: (i) is advised by the Manager or any entity controlling,
controlled by, or under common control with the Manager; and (ii)
adopts the multi-manager structure described in the application
(included in the term ``Multi-Manager Funds''). Any Multi-Manager
Fund that relies on the requested order will do so only in
accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the
application. The Trust is the only existing registered open-end
management investment company that currently intends to rely on the
order. If the name of any Multi-Manager Fund contains the name of a
Sub-Adviser (asdefined below), then the name of the Manager or the
name of the entity controlling, controlled by, or under commond
control with the Manager that serves as the primary adviser to the
Multi-Manager Fund will precede the name of the Sub-Adviser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Under the terms of the Advisory Agreement, the Manager oversees
the investments of the Multi-Manager Funds and manages each Multi-
Manager's business affairs, subject to oversight by the Board. The
Advisory Agreement also provides that the Manager may select and
contract with one or more investment advisers (``Sub-Advisers'') to
exercise day-to-day investment discretion over all or a portion of the
assets of the Multi-Manager Funds (each such agreement, a ``Sub-
advisory Agreement'' and collectively, the ``Sub-advisory
Agreements''). The Manager monitors and evaluates the Sub-Advisers and
recommends to the Board their hiring, retention or termination. Sub-
Advisers recommended to the Board by the Manager have been, or will be,
selected and approved by the Board, including a majority of the
Disinterested Board Members. Each Sub-Adviser to a Multi-Manager Fund
is, and any future Sub-Adviser to a Multi-Manager Fund will be, an
investment adviser registered under the Advisers Act. The Manager
compensates or will compensate each Sub-Adviser out of the fees paid to
the Manager under the Advisory Agreement.
    3. Applicants request relief to permit the Manager to enter into
and materially amend Sub-advisory Agreements without obtaining
shareholder approval. The requested relief will not extend to any Sub-
Adviser that is an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of
the Act, of a Multi-Manager Fund or the Manager, other than by reason
of serving as a Sub-Adviser to one or more of the Funds (``Affiliated
Sub-Adviser''). None of the current Sub-Advisers is an Affiliated Sub-
Adviser.
    4. Applicants also request an exemption from the various disclosure
provisions described below that may require the Multi-Manager Funds to
disclose the fees paid by the Manager to the Sub-Advisers. An exemption
is requested to permit a Multi-Manager Fund to disclose (as both a
dollar amount and as a percentage of the Multi-Manager Fund's net
assets): (a) the aggregate fees paid to the Manager and any Affiliated
Sub-Advisers; and (b) the aggregate fees paid to Sub-Advisers other
than Affiliated Sub-Advisers (``Aggregate Fees''). If a Multi-Manager
Fund employs an Affiliated Sub-Adviser, the Fund will provide separate
disclosure of any fees paid to the Affiliated Sub-Adviser.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that it is
unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered
investment company except under a written contract that has been
approved by the vote of a majority of the company's outstanding voting
securities. Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class
of stock in a series company affected by a matter must approve such
matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
    2. Form N-1A is the registration statement used by open-end
investment companies. Item 14(a)(3) of Form N-1A requires disclosure of
the method and amount of the investment adviser's compensation.
    3. Rule 20a-1 under the Act requires proxies solicited with respect
to an investment company to comply with Schedule 14A under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``1934 Act''). Items 22(c)(1)(ii),
22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A, taken together,
require a proxy statement for a shareholder meeting at which the
advisory contract will be voted upon to include the ``rate of
compensation of the investment adviser,'' the ``aggregate amount of the
investment adviser's fees,'' a description of the ``terms of the
contract to be acted upon,'' and, if a change in the advisory fee is
proposed, the existing and proposed fees and the difference between the
two fees.
    4. Form N-SAR is the semi-annual report filed with the Commission
by registered investment companies. Item 48 of Form N-SAR requires
investment companies to disclose the rate schedule for fees paid to
their investment advisers, including the Sub-Advisers.
    5. Regulation S-X sets forth the requirements for financial
statements required to be included as part of investment company
registration

statements and shareholder reports filed with the Commission. Sections
6-07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X require that investment
companies include in their financial statements information about
investment advisory fees.
    6. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or
from any rule thereunder, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors
and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the
Act. Applicants state that their requested relief meets this standard
for the reasons discussed below.
    7. Applicants assert that by investing in a Multi-Manager Fund,
shareholders, in effect, will hire the Manager to manage the Multi-
Manager Fund's assets by using its investment adviser selection and
monitoring process. Applicants assert that investors will purchase
Multi-Manager Fund shares to gain access to the Manager's expertise in
these areas. Applicants further assert that the requested relief will
reduce Multi-Manager Fund expenses and enable the Multi-Manager Funds
to operate more efficiently. Applicants note that the Advisory
Agreement will remain subject to the shareholder approval requirements
of section 15(a) and rule 18f-2.
    8. Applicants assert that many Sub-Advisers charge their customers
for advisory services according to a ``posted'' fee schedule.
Applicants state that while Sub-Advisers are willing to negotiate fees
that are lower than those posted on the schedule, they are reluctant to
do so where the fees are disclosed to other prospective and existing
customers. Applicants submit that the requested relief will better
enable the Manager to negotiate lower advisory fees with the Sub-
Advisers, the benefits of which would be passed on to the shareholders
of the Multi-Manager Funds.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Before a Multi-Manager Fund may rely on the requested order, the
operation of the Multi-Manager Fund in the manner described in the
application will be approved by a majority of the Multi-Manager Fund's
outstanding voting securities, as defined in the Act, or, in the case
of a Multi-Manager Fund whose public shareholders purchase shares on
the basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure contemplated by
condition 2 below, by the initial shareholder(s) prior to offering
shares of the Multi-Manager Fund to the public.
    2. Each Multi-Manager Fund will disclose in its prospectus the
existence, substance and effect of any order granted pursuant to the
application. In addition, each Multi-Manager Fund will hold itself out
to the public as employing the multi-manager approach described in the
application. The prospectus will prominently disclose that the Manager
has ultimate responsibility (subject to oversight by the Board) for the
investment performance of the Multi-Manager Fund due to its
responsibility to oversee Sub-Advisers and recommend their hiring,
termination and replacement.
    3. Within 90 days of the hiring of any new Sub-Adviser, the Manager
will furnish shareholders of the affected Multi-Manager Fund with all
of the information about the new Sub-Adviser that would be contained in
a proxy statement, except as modified by the order to permit the
disclosure of Aggregate Fees. This information will include the
disclosure of Aggregate Fees and any change in such disclosure caused
by the addition of a new Sub-Adviser. The Manager will meet this
condition by providing shareholders with an information statement
meeting the requirements of Regulation 14C, Schedule 14C and Item 22 of
Schedule 14A under the 1934 Act, except as modified by the order to
permit the disclosure of Aggregate Fees.
    4. The Manager will not enter into a Sub-advisory Agreement with
any Affiliated Sub-Adviser without such agreement, including the
compensation to be paid thereunder, being approved by the shareholders
of the affected Multi-Manager Fund.
    5. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be
Disinterested Board Members, and the nomination of new or additional
Disinterested Board Members will be placed within the discretion of the
then-existing Disinterested Board Members. The Board also will satisfy
the fund governance standards defined in rule 0-1(a)(7) under the Act.
    6. When a change of Sub-Adviser is proposed for a Multi-Manager
Fund with an Affiliated Sub-Adviser, the Board, including a majority of
the Disinterested Board Members, will make a separate finding,
reflected in the Board minutes, that such change is in the best
interests of the Multi-Manager Fund and its shareholders and does not
involve a conflict of interest from which the Manager or an Affiliated
Sub-Adviser derives an inappropriate advantage.
    7. The Manager will provide general management services to each
Multi-Manager Fund, including overall supervisory responsibility for
the general management and investment of the Multi-Manager Fund's
assets and, subject to review and approval of the Board, will: (i) Set
the Multi-Manager Fund's overall investment strategies; (ii) evaluate,
select and recommend Sub-Advisers to manage all or a part of the Multi-
Manager Fund's assets; (iii) when appropriate, allocate and reallocate
the Multi-Manager Fund's assets among multiple Sub-Advisers; (iv)
monitor and evaluate the Sub-Advisers' performance; and (v) implement
procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the Sub-Advisers comply
with the Multi-Manager Fund's investment objectives, policies and
restrictions.
    8. No trustee or officer of a Multi-Manager Fund, or director or
officer of the Manager will own directly or indirectly (other than
through a pooled investment vehicle over which such person does not
have control) any interest in a Sub-Adviser except for: (i) ownership
of interests in the Manager or any entity that controls, is controlled
by, or is under common control with the Manager; or (ii) ownership of
less than 1% of the outstanding securities of any class of equity or
debt of a publicly traded company that is either a Sub-Adviser or an
entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with
a Sub-Adviser.
    9. Each Multi-Manager Fund will disclose in its registration
statement the Aggregate Fees.
    10. Independent legal counsel, as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under
the Act, will be engaged to represent the Disinterested Board Members.
The selection of such counsel will be within the discretion of the
then-existing Disinterested Board Members.
    11. The Manager will provide the Board, no less frequently than
quarterly, with information about the Manager's profitability on a per-
Multi-Manager Fund basis. The information will reflect the impact on
profitability of the hiring or termination of any Sub-Adviser during
the applicable quarter.
    12. Whenever a Sub-Adviser is hired or terminated, the Manager will
provide the Board with information showing the expected impact on the
Manager's profitability.
    13. The requested order will expire on the effective date of rule
15a-5 under the Act, if adopted.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Jill M. Peterson
Assistant Secretary
[FR Doc. E6-7638 Filed 5-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6216-6218]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02184]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94095; No. SR-NYSEArca-2022-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE
Arca Options Fee Schedule

January 28, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on January 25, 2022, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
(the ``Fee Schedule'') to provide for a waiver of the Ratio Threshold
Fee in connection with the Exchange's migration to a new trading
platform. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend the Fee Schedule to waive
the Ratio Threshold Fee during the Exchange's migration of options
trading to a new electronic trading platform.
    Currently, the Exchange conducts options trading on an electronic
platform known as ``OX.'' OX refers to the Exchange's electronic order
delivery, execution, and reporting system for designated option issues
through which orders and quotes of Users are consolidated for execution
and/or display.\4\ On or about February 7, 2022, the Exchange
anticipates beginning the migration of its options trading to a new
technology platform known as Pillar.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.1A-O(a)(13).
    \5\ The Exchange has announced that, pending regulatory
approval, it will begin migrating Exchange-listed options to Pillar
on February 7, 2022, available here: https://www.nyse.com/trader-update/history#110000322291. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 92304 (June 30, 2021), 86 FR 36440 (July 9, 2021) (SR-
NYSEArca-2021-47) (SR-NYSEArca-2021-47) (Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change for New Rules 6.1P-O, 6.37AP-O, 6.40P-O, 6.41P-
O, 6.62P-O, 6.64P-O, 6.76P-O, and 6.76AP-O and Amendments to Rules
1.1, 6.1-O, 6.1A-O, 6.37-O, 6.65A-O and 6.96-O) and Amendment No. 4
to SR-NYSEArca-2021-47, available here: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2021-47/srnysearca202147-20112491-265389.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Ratio Threshold Fee is based on the number of orders entered as
compared to the number of executions received in a calendar month and
is intended to deter OTP Holders and OTP Firms (collectively, ``OTP
Holders'') from submitting an excessive number of orders that are not
executed.\6\ Because order to execution ratios of 10,000 to 1 or
greater have the potential residual effect of exhausting system
resources, bandwidth, and capacity, such ratios may create latency and
impact other OTP Holders' ability to receive timely executions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Fee Schedule, RATIO THRESHOLD FEE, available here:
https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf; see also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 60102 (June 11, 2009), 74 FR 29251 (June 19, 2009) (SR-
NYSEArca-2009-50).
    \7\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify the Fee Schedule to specify that
the monthly Ratio Threshold Fee assessed to OTP Holders will be waived
for the duration of the migration and for three calendar months after
the migration. Specifically, the Exchange proposes that the waiver of
the Ratio Threshold Fee take effect for the month during which the
migration begins and remain in effect for three months following the
month in which the migration is completed (the ``Waiver Period''). The
Exchange believes that waiving Ratio Threshold Fees during the Waiver
Period will give both OTP Holders and the Exchange an opportunity to
adjust to new functionality and new order handling mechanisms without
imposing a financial burden on OTP Holders based on their order to
execution ratios during the Pillar transition. In addition, during the
Waiver Period, the Exchange intends to work closely with OTP Holders to
monitor traffic rates and their order to execution ratio as they adapt
to trading on the Pillar platform.
    The Exchange proposes to implement this change beginning in the
month during which it commences its migration to the Pillar platform.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\9\ in particular,

because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. 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.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (``Reg NMS
Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options
trades.\11\ Therefore, currently no exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of multiply-listed equity & ETF options
order flow. More specifically, in December 2021, the Exchange had less
than 14% market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity &
ETF options trades.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety
of formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange,
available here: https://www.theocc.com/Market-Data/Market-Data-Reports/Volume-and-Open-Interest/Monthly-Weekly-Volume-Statistics.
    \12\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of ETF-based options, see
id., the Exchange's market share in equity-based options increased
from 9.65% for the month of December 2020 to 13.21% for the month of
December 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain options exchange fees. In response to this competitive
environment and to adapt to extenuating circumstances, the Exchange has
previously waived fees on a temporary basis.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88596 (April
8, 2020), 85 FR 20796 (April 14, 2020) (SR-NYSEArca-2020-29)
(waiving Floor related fees in connection with COVID-19
precautionary measures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed waiver of Ratio Threshold
Fees is reasonably designed to continue to incent OTP Holders to
maintain active participation on the Exchange during and after its
migration to a new trading platform. The Exchange further believes that
the proposed waiver is reasonably designed to lessen the impact of the
migration on OTP Holders and would thus encourage OTP Holders to
promptly transition to the more efficient Pillar technology platform,
while enabling them to adjust their trading activity on the Exchange as
needed to transition to Pillar without incurring excess Ratio Threshold
Fees during the Waiver Period.
    To the extent the proposed rule change encourages OTP Holders to
migrate to the new platform while maintaining their level of trading
activity, the Exchange believes the proposed change would sustain the
Exchange's overall competitiveness and its market quality for all
market participants. In the backdrop of the competitive environment in
which the Exchange operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable
attempt by the Exchange to mitigate the expense of the migration
without affecting its competitiveness.
The Proposed Rule Change is an Equitable Allocation of Credits and Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is an equitable
allocation of its fees and credits because the waiver would be offered
to all OTP Holders. All OTP Holders would thus have the opportunity to
moderate their order flow as needed and familiarize themselves with the
new system during the Waiver Period without incurring Ratio Threshold
Fees. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would
facilitate a smooth transition to the Pillar technology platform for
OTP Holders and mitigate the impact of the migration process for all
market participants on the Exchange, thereby sustaining market-wide
quality.
The Proposed Rule Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes the proposed waiver of Ratio Threshold Fees
is not unfairly discriminatory because it would be available to all
similarly-situated market participants on an equal and non-
discriminatory basis.
    The proposed waiver would permit all OTP Holders to maintain the
same level of interaction or adjust their proprietary systems and order
submission to the Exchange as needed during the Waiver Period without
incurring additional fees based on their monthly order to execution
ratios, which could fluctuate as they adapt to the Pillar platform. The
Exchange thus believes that the proposed change would support continued
trading opportunities for all market participants, thereby promoting
just and equitable principles of trade, 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.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes that
the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting
Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which
promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Reg NMS Adopting Release, supra note 10, at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The Exchange does not believe the proposed
rule change would impose any burden on intramarket competition that is
not necessary or appropriate because it would apply equally to all OTP
Holders. All OTP Holders would be eligible for the waiver of their
Ratio Threshold Fees beginning in the month during which the Exchange
begins the Pillar migration, and the waiver would remain in effect for
three full months after the month during which the migration to Pillar
is completed.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly

competitive market in which market participants can readily favor one
of the 16 competing option exchanges if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. Based on publicly-
available information, and excluding index-based options, no single
exchange has more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\15\ Therefore, currently
no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of
multiply-listed equity & ETF options order flow. More specifically, in
December 2021, the Exchange had less than 14% market share of executed
volume of multiply-listed equity & ETF options trades.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra note 11.
    \16\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of ETF-based options, see
id., the Exchange's market share in equity-based options increased
from 9.65% for the month of December 2020 to 13.21% for the month of
December 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change would impose
any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate because the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily choose to send their
orders to other exchanges if they deem fee levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. The Exchange believes that fees to prevent
excessive use of Exchange systems are constrained by the robust
competition for order flow among exchanges. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change would continue to make the Exchange a
competitive venue for order execution by enabling OTP Holders to
maintain their current levels of interaction with the Exchange or make
adjustments as needed during the transition to Pillar platform, without
incurring fees based on their monthly order to execution ratios during
the Waiver Period, thus facilitating OTP Holders' migration to the
newer, more efficient Pillar technology platform.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \17\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \18\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 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) \19\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2022-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2022-04. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2022-04, and should be
submitted on or before February 24, 2022.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-02184 Filed 2-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


An equal opportunity employer July 30, 2004 Suzanne Rudzinski Director, Transportation and Regional Programs Division USEPA Headquarters 6406J Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20460 RE: Interim Progress Report # 10   Fuels and Fuel Additives Health Effects Testing Regulation; Pursuant to Section 211( b)( 2) and 211( e) of the Clean Air Act.

Dear Ms. Rudzinski:

The American Petroleum Institute ( API), on behalf of the Section 211( b) Research Group ( RG) is submitting this interim report describing the progress of the testing program set forth in the Alternative Tier 2 provisions of the testing regulation.

In the January 1, 2003   July 15, 2004 period since submitting Interim Progress Report # 9 to the Agency, the RG has accomplished the following:

1. Toxicology Testing1 Baseline Gasoline Vapor Condensate   Subchronic study ( with GFAP, genotoxicity and immunotoxicity)   Revisions to the first draft report in response to EPA and independent peer reviewers comments completed. These revisions included revised/ additional statistical evaluations as agreed between EPA and the RG. Second draft report submitted to the EPA for review and acceptance. Agency response to this second draft will be used to guide the RG actions on remaining subchronic reports which also required the same enhancement of statistical evaluation. The RG does not anticipate receiving any additional Agency or independent peer reviewer comments on the reports for the Gasoline/ MTBE, Gasoline/ Ethanol, Gasoline/ TAME, and Gasoline/ ETBE subchronic reports. Accordingly, they too will be finalized pending acceptance of the Baseline Gasoline report.   Two generation reproductive study   Revisions to draft report are in progress in response to EPA and independent peer reviewer comments.

1 All studies conducted in rats, unless otherwise noted 1220 L Street, Northwest Washington, DC 20005 4070 Tel 202 682 8344 Fax 202 682 8270 E mail twerdokl@ api. org Lorraine E. Twerdok, Ph. D., DABT Manager, Health Sciences Suzanne Rudzinski July 30, 2004 Page 2 of 6   Rat and mouse developmental toxicity studies ( 2)  Revisions to draft reports are in progress in response to EPA's and independent peer reviewer comments.   Chronic study   Preparation of draft report in progress.

Gasoline/ MTBE Vapor Condensate:   Subchronic study ( with GFAP, genotoxicity and immunotoxicity)  Revisions to draft report are in progress in response to EPA and independent peer reviewer comments.   Two generation reproductive study Independent peer reviewer comments, and RG response to those comments were submitted to the EPA. RG now awaiting EPA comments on draft report.   Rat and mouse developmental toxicity studies ( 2)  Independent peer reviewer comments, and RG response to those comments were submitted to the EPA. RG now awaiting EPA comments on draft report.   Chronic   Preparation of draft report in progress.

Gasoline/ Ethanol Vapor Condensate:   Subchronic study ( with GFAP, genotoxicity and immunotoxicity)  Revisions to draft report are in progress in response to EPA and independent peer reviewer comments.   One generation reproductive toxicity study  Independent peer reviewer comments, and RG response to those comments were submitted to the EPA. RG now awaiting EPA comments on draft report.   Developmental toxicity study  Independent peer reviewer comments, and RG response to those comments was submitted to the EPA. RG now awaiting EPA comments on draft report.

Gasoline/ TAME Vapor Condensate:   Subchronic study ( with GFAP, genotoxicity and immunotoxicity)  Revisions to draft report are in progress in response to EPA and independent peer reviewer comments.   One generation reproductive study  Independent peer reviewer comments, and RG response to those comments were submitted to the EPA. RG now awaiting EPA comments on draft report.   Developmental toxicity study  Independent peer reviewer comments, and RG response to those comments were submitted to the EPA. RG now awaiting EPA comments on draft report.

Gasoline/ ETBE Vapor Condensate:   Subchronic study ( with GFAP, genotoxicity and immunotoxicity)  Revisions to draft report are in progress in response to EPA and independent peer reviewer comments.   One generation reproductive study  Independent peer reviewer comments, and RG response to those comments were submitted to the EPA. RG now awaiting EPA comments on draft report.   Developmental toxicity study  Independent peer reviewer comments, and RG response to those comments were submitted to the EPA. RG now awaiting EPA comments on draft report. Suzanne Rudzinski July 30, 2004 Page 3 of 6 Gasoline/ DIPE Vapor Condensate:   Subchronic study ( with GFAP, genotoxicity and immunotoxicity)  Draft report was received and circulated to the EPA, RG Toxicology Committee and Independent Peer Reviewers for comments.   One generation reproductive study  Independent peer reviewer comments, and RG response to those comments were submitted to the EPA. RG now awaiting EPA comments on draft report.   Developmental toxicity study   Due to the planned closure of the laboratory ( ExxonMobil BioSciences, Inc.) that conducted the first ( flawed) study, a second laboratory ( Huntingdon Life Sciences) was selected to conduct the repeat study.

Gasoline/ TBA Vapor Condensate:   Subchronic study ( with GFAP, genotoxicity and immunotoxicity)  Preparation of draft report in progress.   One generation reproductive study  Independent peer reviewer comments, and RG response to those comments were submitted to the EPA. RG now awaiting EPA comments on draft report.   Developmental toxicity study  Independent peer reviewer comments, and RG response to those comments were submitted to the EPA. RG now awaiting EPA comments on draft report.   Pharmacokinetic Studies on DIPE, ETBE, and TBA:   The Research Triangle Institute contract to conduct the studies was completed.

2. Exposure Screening Studies Winter field sampling in the Atlanta and Chicago areas was concluded. Sexsmith Consulting Services, LLC, conducted a field audit of the Atlanta sampling effort.

As requested by ORD, an interim data report for the 2002 summer Houston and San Antonio sampling study was forwarded to EPA. An interim data report for the 2003 summer sampling study in Atlanta and Chicago was provided to EPA. A revised sampling schedule for summer Houston and San Antonio study and responses to ORD May, 2004 comments on the 2002 Houston and San Antonio report were sent to EPA.

In response to a recent ORD request, the RG agreed to expand the 2004 summer Houston resampling study to include all microenvironments. The expanded summer Houston resampling study should begin in July 2004. Responses to ORD comments on the 2003 summer Atlanta Chicago interim data report are being prepared. Suzanne Rudzinski July 30, 2004 Page 4 of 6 3. Miscellaneous Activities A schedule for toxicology draft reports due for submission over the next six months ( i. e., July   December 2004) is attached to this progress report. This schedule is organized by month draft reports are due, rather than by test material.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have regarding this information.

Sincerely,

Lorraine E. Twerdok, Ph. D., D. A. B. T. Manager, Health Sciences Cc: Joe Sopata, EPA ( via email) Monica Alvarez, EPA ( via email) Mike Davis, EPA ( via email) Stan Durkee, EPA ( via email) Tom Goldsworthy ( via email) Rich Schlesinger ( via email) 211b Oversight and Technical Committees 211b Consortium Members at Large Suzanne Rudzinski July 30, 2004 Page 5 of 6 API Staff Contacts for 211( b) Research Group Activities Program Manager Lorraine Twerdok 202/ 682 8344 twerdokl@ api. org Administrative Coordinator Paula Podhasky 202/ 682 8333 podhaskyp@ api. org Toxicology Report Coordinator Matt Todd 202/ 682 8319 toddm@ api. org Toxicologists Lorraine Twerdok 202/ 682 8344 twerdokl@ api. org Tom Gray 202/ 682 8480 grayt@ api. org Exposure Assessment Scientist Will Ollison 202/ 682 8262 ollisonw@ api. org Financials Elsie Barbaza 202/ 682 8329 barbaza@ api. org Legal Alice Crowe 202/ 682 8249 crowe@ api. org Suzanne Rudzinski July 30, 2004 Page 6 of 6 CAA   211( b) Alternative Tier II Toxicity Study Draft Report Schedule Draft Report Due to API Test Material Study August 2004 Gasoline/ TBA Vapor Condensate Subchronic August 2004 Gasoline/ MTBE Vapor Condensate Carcinogenicity September 2004 Baseline Gasoline Vapor Condensate Carcinogenicity


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 183 (Friday, September 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 53109]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20713]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4537-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

American Samoa; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the territory of American Samoa (FEMA-4537-DR), dated April 17,
2020, and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued August 5, 2021.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
dated April 17, 2020 for the territory of American Samoa is hereby
amended to include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    All areas within the territory of American Samoa are eligible
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-20713 Filed 9-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33251-33252]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12359]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0021; FRL-9946-40]

Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New
Active Ingredients

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received applications to register pesticide products
containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered
pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and
opportunity to comment on these applications.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 24, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the File Symbol of interest as shown in the body of
this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNally, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register pesticide products
containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered
pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4)
(7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and
opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of
these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these
applications.
    1. File Symbol: 91197-E. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0251.
Applicant: AFS009 Plant Protection,

Inc., 104 T.W. Alexander Drive, Building 18, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709. Product name: HowlerTM T&O. Active ingredient:
Fungicide--Pseudomonas chlororaphis subsp. aurantiaca strain AFS009 at
50.0%. Proposed use: Turf and ornamental plants. Contact: BPPD.
    2. File Symbol: 91197-G. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0251.
    Applicant: AFS009 Plant Protection, Inc., 104 T.W. Alexander Drive,
Building 18, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Product name:
HowlerTM. Active ingredient: Fungicide--Pseudomonas
chlororaphis subsp. aurantiaca strain AFS009 at 50.0%. Proposed use:
Turf and residential use sites and agricultural sites including:
Berries, citrus, cotton, cucurbits, flowers, fruiting vegetables,
herbs, leafy vegetables, cole crops, ornamentals, peanut, pome fruit,
shade house, soybean, stone fruit, tobacco, tree nuts, tubers, and
wheat. Contact: BPPD.
    3. File Symbol: 91197-R. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0251.
Applicant: AFS009 Plant Protection, Inc., 104 T.W. Alexander Drive,
Building 18, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Product name:
HowlerTM Technical. Active ingredient: Fungicide--
Pseudomonas chlororaphis subsp. aurantiaca strain AFS009 at 100.0%.
Proposed use: Manufacturing Use. Contact: BPPD.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: May 18, 2016.
Mark A. Hartman,
Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2016-12359 Filed 5-24-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17688-17689]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06019]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1561; Airspace Docket No. 22-ANM-58]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Escalante Municipal Airport,
Escalante, UT

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Escalante Municipal Airport, UT. This
action will support the airport's transition from visual flight rules
(VFR) to instrument flight rules (IFR).

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 15, 2023. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference under Title 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and publication of
conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11G, and subsequent amendments can be
viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further
information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan A. Chaffman, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority,
as it establishes Class E airspace to support IFR operations at
Escalante Municipal Airport, Escalante, UT.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Federal Register for FAA-2022-1561 (87 FR 77540; December 19, 2022) to
establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Escalante Municipal Airport, UT, in support of the airport's
transition from VFR to IFR. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September
15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace
beginning at 700 feet above the surface at Escalante Municipal Airport,
UT. This airspace area will contain departing aircraft until reaching
1,200 feet above the surface, arriving aircraft below 1,500 feet above
the surface, and circling maneuvers southwest of the airport. The
proposed airspace is described in relation to the airport reference
point and is approximately 7.5 nautical miles by 13.5 nautical miles in
size to fully contain IFR operations at the airport.
    The Class E5 airspace designation is published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September
15, 2022, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11, which is published annually and
becomes effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any
potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary
circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental
assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANM UT E5 Escalante, UT [New]

Escalante Municipal Airport, UT
    (Lat. 37[deg]44'43'' N, long. 111[deg]34'13'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
bounded by a line beginning at a point on the 124[deg] bearing, 7.3
miles from the airport, then to the 154[deg] bearing at 7.2 miles,
then to the 245[deg] bearing at 5.6 miles, then to the 281[deg]
bearing at 8.6 miles, then to the 335[deg] bearing at 7 miles,
thence to the point of beginning.
* * * * *

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on March 16, 2023.
B.G. Chew,
Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2023-06019 Filed 3-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


 1 2.2 New Larger Intake Structure for Decreasing Intake Velocities The efficacy of traveling screens can be affected by both through screen and approach velocities. Through screen velocity affects: the rate of debris accumulation; the potential for entrainment and impingement of swimming organisms; and the amount of injury that may occur when organisms become impinged and a fish return system is in use. Performance, with respect to impingement and entrainment, generally tends to deteriorate as intake velocities increase. For older intake structures, the primary function of the screen was to ensure downstream cooling system components continued to function without becoming plugged with debris. The design often did not take into consideration the effect of through screen velocity on entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms. For these older structures, the standard design value for through screen velocity was in the range of 2.0 to 2.5 fps ( Gathright 2002). These design velocities were based on the performance of coarse mesh traveling screens with respect to their ability to remove debris as quickly as it collected on the screen surface. As demonstrated in the Facility Questionnaire database, actual velocities may be even higher than standard design values. These higher velocities may result from cost saving, site specific designs or from an increased withdrawal rate compared to the original design.

As described previously, solutions considered for reducing entrainment on traveling screens are to replace the coarse mesh screens with finer mesh screens or to install fine mesh screen overlays. However, a potential problem with replacing the existing intake screens with finer mesh screens is that a finer mesh will accumulate larger quantities of debris. Thus, retrofitting existing coarse mesh screens with fine mesh may affect the ability of screens to remove debris quickly enough to function properly. Exacerbating this potentia problem is finer mesh may result in slightly higher throughscreen velocities ( Gathright 2002). If the debris problems associated with using fine mesh occur on a seasonal basis, then one possible solution ( see Section 2.1, above) is to use fine mesh overlays during the period when sensitive aquatic organisms are present. This solution is predicated on the assumption that the period of high debris loading does not substantially coincide with the period when sensitive aquatic organisms are most prevalent. When such an approach is not feasible, some means of decreasing the intake velocities may be necessary.

The primary intake attributes that determine intake through screen velocities are the flow volume, effective screen area, and percent open area of the screen. The primary intake attributes that determine approach velocity are flow volume and cross sectional area of the intake. In instances where flow volume cannot be reduced, a reduction in intake velocities can only be obtained in two ways: for through screen velocities, an increased screen area and/ or percent open area, or for approach velocity, an increased intake cross sectional area. In general, there are practical limits regarding screen materials and percent open area. These limits prevent significant modification of this attribute to reduce through screen velocities. Thus, an increase in the screen area and/ or intake cross sectional area generally must be accomplished in order to reduce intake velocities. For technology options that rely on the continued use of traveling screens, a means of increasing the effective area of the screens is warranted. EPA has researched this problem and has identified the following three approaches to increasing the screen size:  2 1. Replace existing through flow ( single entry single exit) traveling screens with dual flow ( double entry single exit) traveling screens. Dual flow screens can be placed in the same screen well as existing through flow screens. However, they are oriented perpendicular to the orientation of the original through flow screens and extend outward towards the front of the intake. Installation may require some demolition of the existing intake deck. This solution may work where screen velocities do not need to be reduced by a large amount. This technology has a much improved performance with respect to debris carry over and is often selected based on this attribute alone ( Gathright 2002; see also Section 2.1.4).

2. Replace the function of the existing intake screen wells with larger wells constructed in front of the existing intake and hydraulically connected to the intake front opening. This approach retains the use and function of the existing intake pumps and pump wells with little or no modification to the original structure. A concern with this approach ( besides construction costs) is whether the construction can be performed without significant downtime for the generating units.

3. Add a new intake structure adjacent to, or in close proximity to, the existing intake. The old intake remains functional, but with the drive system for the existing pumps modified to reduce the flow rate. The new structure will include new pumps sized to pump an additional flow. The new structure can be built without a significant shutdown of the existing intake. Shutdown would only be required at the final construction step, where the pipes from new pumps are connected to the existing piping and the pumps and/ or pump drives for the existing pumps are modified or replaced. In this case, generating downtime is minimized. However, the need for new pumps, and the modification to existing pumps that reduce their original flow, entail significant additional costs.

Option 3 is a seemingly simple solution where the addition of new intake bays adjacent or in close proximity to the existing intake would add to the total intake and screen cross sectional area. A problem with this approach is that the current pumping capacity needs to be distributed between the old and new intake bays. Utilizing the existing pump wells and pumps is desirable to help minimize costs. However, where the existing pumps utilize single speed drives, the distribution of flow to the new intake bays would require either an upstream hydraulic connection or a pump system modification. Where the existing intake has only one or two pump wells a hydraulic connection with a new adjacent intake bay could be created through demolition of a sidewall downstream of the traveling screen. While this approach is certainly feasible in certain instances, the limitations regarding intake configurations prevents EPA from considering this a viable regulatory compliance alternative for all but a few existing systems. A more widely applicable solution would be to reduce pump flow rate of the existing pumps either by modifying the pump drive to a multi speed or variable speed drive system, or by replacing the existing pumps with smaller ones. The new intake bays would be constructed with new smaller pumps that produce lower flow rates. The combined flows of the new and older, modified pumps satisfies the existing intake flow requirement. The costs of modifying existing pumps, plus the new pumps and pump wells, represents a substantial cost component.

Option 2 does not require modifications or additions to the existing pumping equipment. In this  3 approach a new intake structure to house more and/ or larger screen wells would be constructed in front of the existing intake. The old and new intake structures could then be hydraulically connected by closing off the ends with sheet pile walls or similar structures. EPA is not aware of any installations that have performed this retrofit but it was proposed as an option in the Demonstration Study for the Salem Nuclear Plant ( PSE& G 2001). In that proposal the new screens were to be dualflow screens but the driving factor for the new structure was a need to increase the intake size.

EPA initially developed rough estimates of the comparative costs of applying option 2 versus option 3 ( in the hypothetical case the intake area was doubled in size). The results indicated that adding a new screen well structure in front of the existing intake was less costly and therefore, this option was selected for consideration as a compliance technology option. This cost efficiency is primarily due to the reuse of the existing intake in a more cost efficient manner in option 2. However, option 2 has one important drawback: it may not be feasible where the sufficient space is not available in front of the existing intake. To minimize construction downtime, EPA assumes the new intake structure is placed far enough in front of the existing intake to allow the existing intake to continue functioning until construction of the structure is completed.

Scenario Description In this scenario, modeled on option 2 described above, a new reinforced concrete structure is designed for new through flow or dual flow intake screens. This structure will be built directly in front of the existing intake. The structure will be built inside a temporary sheet pile coffer dam. Upon completion of the concrete structure, the coffer dam will be removed. A permanent sheet pile wall will be installed at both ends, connecting the rear of the new structure to the front of the old intake structure hydraulically. Such a configuration has the advantage of providing for flow equalization between multiple new intake screens and multiple existing pumps. The construction includes costs for site development for equipment access. Capital costs were developed for the same set of screen widths ( 2 feet through 140 feet) and depths ( 10 feet through 100 feet) used in the traveling screen cost methodology. Bets fit, second order equations were used to estimated costs for each different screen well depth, using total screen width as the independent variable. Construction duration is estimated to be nine months.

Capital Costs Capital costs were derived for different well depths and total screen widths based on the following assumptions.

Design Assumptions  Onshore Activities ° Clearing and grabbing: this is based on clearing with a dozer, and clearing light to medium brush to 4" diameter; clearing assumes a 40 feet width for equipment maneuverability near the shore line and 500 feet accessibility lengthwise at $ 3,075/ acre ( RS Means 2001); surveying costs are estimated at $ 1,673/ acre ( R S Means 2001), covering twice the access area.  4 ° Earth work costs: these include mobilization, excavation, and hauling, etc., along a water front width, with a 500 foot inland length; backfill with structural sand and gravel ( backfill structural based on using a 200 HP bulldozer, 300 foot haul, sand and gravel; unit earthwork cost is $ 395/ cu yd ( R S Means 2001) ° Paving and surfacing, using concrete 10" thick; assuming a need for a 20 foot wide and 2 foot long equipment staging area at a unit cost of $ 33.5/ sq yd ( R S Means 2001)

$ Structural cost is calculated @ $ 1250/ CY ( R S Means 2001), assuming two wing walls 1.5 feet thick and 26 feet high, with 10 feet above ground level, and 36 feet long with 16 feet onshore ( these walls are for tying in the connecting sheet pile walls).

$ Sheet piling, steel, no wales, 38 psf, left in place; these are assumed to have a width twice the width of the screens + 20 feet, with onshore construction distance, and be 30 feet deep, at $ 24.5/ sq ft ( R S Means 2001).

Design Assumptions  Offshore Components ° Structure width is 20% greater than total screen width and 20 ft front to back ° Structural support consists of the equivalent of four 3 foot by 3 foot reinforced concrete columns at $ 935/ cu yd ( R S Means 2001) plus two additional columns for each additional screen well ( a 2 foot wide screen assumes an equivalent of 2 foot by 2 feet columns) ° Overall structure height is equal to the well depth plus 10% ° The elevated concrete deck is 1.5 ft thick at $ 42/ cu yd ( R S Means 2001) ° Dredging mobilization is $ 9,925 if total screen width is greater than 10 feet; is $ 25,890 if total screen width is 10 feet to 25 feet; and is $ 52,500 if total screen width is greater than 25 ft ( R S Means 2001) ° The cost of dredging in the offshore work area is $ 23/ cu yd to a depth of 10 feet ° The cost of the temporary coffer dam for the structure is $ 22.5/ sq ft ( R S Means 2001), with total length equal to the structure perimeter times a factor of 1.5 and the height equal to 1.3 times well depth.

Field Project Personnel Not Included in Unit Costs:

° Project Field Manager at $ 2,525 per week ( R S Means 2001) ° Project Field Superintendent at $ 2,375 per week ( R S Means 2001) ° Project Field Clerk at $ 440 per week ( R S Means 2001).

The above cost components were estimated and summed and the costs were expanded using the following cost factors.

Add on and Indirect Costs:

° Construction Management is 4.5% of direct costs ° Engineering and Architectural fees for new construction is 17% of direct costs ° Contingency is 10% of direct costs ° Overhead and profit is 15% of direct costs  5 Screen Width 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 84 98 112 126 140 Depth ( Ft) 10 $ 280,000 $ 320,000 $ 880,000 $ 1,010,000 $ 1,220,000 $ 1,370,000 $ 1,520,000 $ 1,680,000 $ 1,850,000 $ 2,080,000 $ 2,330,000 $ 2,590,000 $ 2,860,000 $ 3,140,000 25 $ 540,000 $ 600,000 $ 1,880,000 $ 2,090,000 $ 2,390,000 $ 2,620,000 $ 2,860,000 $ 3,100,000 $ 3,350,000 $ 3,700,000 $ 4,070,000 $ 4,440,000 $ 4,830,000 $ 5,230,000 50 $ 1,130,000 $ 1,240,000 $ 4,190,000 $ 4,570,000 $ 5,030,000 $ 5,420,000 $ 5,820,000 $ 6,230,000 $ 6,650,000 $ 7,240,000 $ 7,840,000 $ 8,640,000 $ 9,090,000 $ 9,740,000 75 $ 1,770,000 $ 1,920,000 $ 6,650,000 $ 7,190,000 $ 7,810,000 $ 8,370,000 $ 8,940,000 $ 9,510,000 $ 10,090,000 $ 10,920,000 $ 11,760,000 $ 12,610,000 $ 13,480,000 $ 14,360,000 100 $ 2,480,000 $ 2,690,000 $ 9,420,000 $ 10,130,000 $ 10,930,000 $ 11,660,000 $ 12,400,000 $ 13,150,000 $ 13,900,000 $ 14,970,000 $ 16,060,000 $ 17,160,000 $ 18,280,000 $ 19,410,000 ° Permits are 2% of direct costs ° Metalwork is 5% of direct costs ° Performance bond is 2.5% of direct costs ° Insurance is 1.5% of direct costs.

Table 2 30 presents the total capital costs for various screen well depths and total screen widths. No distinction was made between freshwater and brackish or saltwater environments. Figure 13 plots the data in Table 2 30 and presents the best fit cost equations. The shape of these curves indicates a need for separate equations for structures with widths less than and greater than 10 feet. In general, however, the Phase II compliance applications of this technology option included only new structures greater than 10 feet wide.

Table 2 30 Total Capital Costs for Adding New Larger Intake Screen Well Structure in Front of Existing Shoreline Intake O& M Costs No separate O& M costs were derived for the structure itself since the majority of the O& M activities are covered in the O& M costs for the traveling screens to be installed in the new structure.

Construction Downtime As described above, this scenario is modeled after an option described in a 316b Demonstration Study for the Salem Nuclear Plant ( PSE& G 2001). In that scenario which applies to a very large nuclear facility, the existing intake continues to operate during the construction of the offshore intake structure inside the sheet pile cofferdam. Upon completion of the offshore structure and removal of the cofferdam, the final phase on the construction requires the shut down of the generating units for the placement of the sheet pile end walls. The feasibility study states that units 1 and 2 would be required to shut down for one month each. Based on this estimate and the size of the Salem facility ( average daily flow of over 2 million gpm), EPA has concluded that a construction downtime estimate in the range of 6 to 8 weeks is reasonable. EPA did not select a single downtime for all facilities installing an offshore structure. Instead, EPA applied a six to eight week downtime duration based on variations in project size, using design flow as a measure of size. EPA assumed a downtime of six weeks for facilities with intake flow volumes of less than 400,000 gpm; seven weeks for facilities with intake flow volumes greater than 400,000 gpm but less than 800,000 gpm; and eight weeks for facilities with intake flow volumes greater than 800,000 gpm.  6 Application The input value for the cost equation is the screen well depth and the total screen width ( see Section 2.1 for a discussion of the methodology for determining the screen well depth). The width of the new larger screen well intake structure was based on the design flow, and an assumed through screen velocity of 1.0 fps and a percent open area of 68%. The same well depth and width values are used for estimating the costs of new screen equipment for the new structure. New screen equipment consisted of fine mesh traveling screens with fish handling and return system ( Scenario C).  7 Figure 13 Total Capital Costs of New Larger Intake Structure y = 21.95x 2 + 39599x + 4E+ 06 R 2 = 0.9993 y = 159500x 2  1E+ 06x + 4E+ 06 R 2 = 1 y = 29.323x 2 + 72303x + 9E+ 06 R 2 = 1 y = 26.224x 2 + 55249x + 6E+ 06 R 2 = 1 y = 112000x 2  734000x + 3E+ 06 R 2 = 1 y = 69167x 2  447500x + 2E+ 06 R 2 = 1 y = 29500x 2  186500x + 795000 R 2 = 1 y = 16.983x 2 + 23081x + 2E+ 06 R 2 = 0.9998 y = 12333x 2  73000x + 376667 R 2 = 1 y = 17.269x 2 + 14668x + 737544 R 2 = 0.9996 $

$ 5,000,000 $ 10,000,000 $ 15,000,000 $ 20,000,000 $ 25,000,000 1 10 100 1000 Total Effective Traveling Screen Width ( Ft)

Capital Cost 2002 Dollars well depth 10 ft well depth 25 ft wel ldepth 50 ft well depth 75 ft well depth 100 ft small screens well depth 10 ft Small screens well depth 25 small screens well depth 50 ft small screens well depth 75 small screens well depth 100 ft  8