          Appendix A
          Draft National Fish Advisory Program Evaluation

                                                            OMB Control Number 2040-0226 Approval Expires XX/XX/XX

                      United States Environmental Protection Agency
                        Voluntary Information Collection for the
                        National Fish Advisory Program Evaluation

       EPA is collecting the following information from states and tribes on a voluntary basis, once during the three-year period of this ICR. Specifically, EPA is interested in fish program information for the National Fish Advisory Program Evaluation, from state or tribal agencies responsible for issuing noncommercial (sportfishing/subsistence) fish/shellfish advisories or closures for chemical contamination in fish and shellfish.

       EPA aims to advance efforts to support equity and environmental justice in fish advisory programs by ensuring that recreational and subsistence fishers and other underserved populations are protected from consumption of contaminated fish. EPA will analyze the collected information to determine what science, guidance, technical assistance, and nationwide information are needed to help state and tribes have equitable and effective fish advisory programs. In addition, EPA will also use the information provided to facilitate information sharing and to ensure guidance documents are useful and technically accurate.

       EPA greatly appreciates your assistance and thanks you for your continued support of USEPA's National Fish Program. For questions regarding this program evaluation, please contact CDR Samantha Fontenelle at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

      Sara Hisel-McCoy
      Director, Standards and Health Protection Division
      Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

       Respondent's Agency name
 Respondent's Agency address
 Respondent's Agency fish advisory contact
  Respondent's Contact's e-mail address
  Respondent's Contact's phone number

 Fish Tissue Monitoring Program

 Did your state or tribal agency conduct routine monitoring in the last three years to obtain information about the concentrations of contaminants in fish tissue for assessing human health risks?
           __ Yes	__ No	__Not applicable

            What kind of data does your state or tribal agency collect to evaluate contaminant levels in fish? (Please check all that apply.)
       __	Captures fish and sends tissues to a lab to determine contaminant concentrations
       __	Monitors water quality and uses data to estimate contaminant concentrations in fish
       __	Monitors sediments and uses data to estimate contaminant concentrations in fish
       __	Other methods (please specify)
       __	Not applicable

            How does your state or tribe conduct monitoring of contaminants in fish tissue for fish advisories? (Please check all that apply)
       __	Conducts one-time, nonrecurring or special surveys in particular fishing areas, watersheds, or basins
       __	Monitors the same fishing areas, watersheds, or basins at regular intervals
       __	Other methods (please specify)
       __	Not applicable

            In the last three years, please estimate the number of stations from which your state or tribal agency collected fish tissue that was analyzed for contaminants and/or was used for the fish advisory program.
       __	0 stations	__ 31-50 stations
       __	1-10 stations	__ 51-100 stations
       __	11-20 stations	__ >100 stations
       __	21-30 stations	__ Not applicable
            How frequently does your state or tribe typically resample fish from waterbodies where advisories are in effect?
       __	Every year
       __	Every 2 years
       __	Every 3 years
       __	Every 4 years
       __	Every 5 years
       __	Every 6 to 10 years
       __	On an as-needed basis (no set schedule)
       __	Other (please specify)
       __	Not applicable
             In approximately how many waterbodies was fish tissue monitoring conducted within your state or tribe in the last three years?
       __	1-10 waterbodies	__	21-30 waterbodies
       __	11-20 waterbodies	__	31-40 waterbodies
       __	>40 (specify number) (please specify)
       __	Not applicable

            Please check how your state or tribe determines which sites to monitor contaminants in fish tissue (Please check all that apply)
__
  Accessibility of site
                                                                             __
 Fixed-station sites
__
  Area of concern
                                                                             __
 High pollution potential at the site
__
  Citizen or Agency request
                                                                             __
 Major fishery resource
__ __

  Degree of angling pressure the site receives
  Other method (please specify)
                                                                             __
 Randomly selected sites
__  Not Applicable

__
  Accessibility of site
                                                                             __
 Fixed-station sites
__
  Area of concern
                                                                             __
 High pollution potential at the site
__
  Citizen or Agency request
                                                                             __
 Major fishery resource
__ __

  Degree of angling pressure the site receives
  Other method (please specify)
                                                                             __
 Randomly selected sites
__  Not Applicable

       Answers to questions 8 through 11 should be based on your Agency's evaluation of fish tissue monitoring data. Sediment analysis or water quality monitoring data may be included in your evaluation only if they are used as the basis for determining when an advisory is needed. Note: For these questions, you may need to consult with other individuals in your state or tribal organization.

             How many river, stream, or canal miles were monitored  at least once during the last 3 years specifically for the fish advisory program?
                     miles

            How many lake or reservoir acres were monitored at least once during the past 3 years specifically for the fish advisory program?
             	 acres

            How many square miles of estuarine waters were monitored at least once during the past 3 years specifically for the fish advisory program?
                     square miles

             How many miles of marine coastline (coastal waters) were monitored at least once during the past 3 years specifically for the fish advisory program?
             	 miles

       Types of Fish Advisories
             Does your state or tribe issue fish consumption advisories advising individuals to restrict fish consumption for a particular waterbody?
           __ Yes	__  No	__	Not applicable

             Does your state or tribe issue fish consumption advisories advising individuals not to consume any fish or any fish of a particular species from a particular waterbody?
            __ Yes	__  No	__	Not applicable

            Fish consumption advisories issued in your state or tribe pertain to: (Please check all that apply)
       __	Specific fish species analyzed by the state (e.g., largemouth bass)
       __	Specified size class(es) for the given species analyzed (e.g., largemouth bass 15-20 inches)
       __	Selected trophic groups (e.g., game fish, bottom feeders, or panfish)
       __	The entire fish community (e.g., all fish)
       __	Certain fish species purchased in stores and restaurants
       __	Other (please specify)
       __	Not applicable

            Does your state or tribe issue statewide or regionwide or tribal area-wide "blanket" advisories based on your sampling effort? (A region-wide advisory may be issued for an individual HUC, river drainage basin or portion of the state.)
State or tribe wide:
 __ Yes
  __ No
                                                              __ Not applicable
Regionwide:
 __ Yes
  __ No
                                                              __ Not applicable
            Are there enforceable advisories or bans within your state or tribe (e.g., are fines or citations given for fishing in posted waters)?
           __	Yes	__ No

            Does your state or tribe issue fish and/or shellfish advisories (closures) for microbial contamination (e.g., bacteria or viruses) of a waterbody?
            __ Yes 	__ No  	__ Not applicable

 Does your state or tribe also issue fish and/or shellfish advisories (closures) for algal toxin contamination (e.g., cyanotoxins) of a waterbody?
     __ Yes 	__ No  	__ Not applicable

       Sample Preparation and Analyses Procedures
            Fish consumption advisories ("no" consumption and/or restricted consumption advisories) issued in your state or tribe are based on the analysis of : (Please check all that apply)
       __  	Fillet samples (skin on)
       __ 	Fillet samples (skin off)
       __ 	Muscle plug samples
       __	Whole-fish samples (skin on)
       __	Whole-fish samples (skin off)
       __	Other sample types (please specify)
       __	Not applicable

            Does your state or tribe target the collection of particular indicator fish/shellfish species, and on what is this decision based? (Please check all that apply)
       __	State/Tribe does not target collection of indicator species
       __	State/Tribes targets collection of indicator species based on:
           __	Angler survey data
           __	Availability of the species
           __	Desire to maintain consistency with past collections
           __	EPA target species recommendations based on bioaccumulation potential/trophic groups
           __	Citizen requests
           __	Other reasons (please specify)
           __	Not applicable

 Which particular indicator fish species does your state or tribe target for monitoring?
           (Please specify)____________________________________________________________________________

            Does your state or tribe collect multiple size classes, by species, and submit these individual size classes for contaminant analyses?
           __	Yes	__  No	__ Not applicable

        Are individual fish samples or composite samples submitted for contaminant analyses in your state or tribe?
       __	Individual fish samples only
       __	Composite samples only
       __	Both individual and composite samples are used
       __	Not applicable

 If individual fish samples are used, how many "individual fish" typically are needed to support an advisory determination in a waterbody?
       __	1 fish
       __	3 fish
       __	5 fish
       __	6 to 10 fish
       __	11 to 20 fish
       __	> 20 fish
       __	Other number (please specify)
       __	Not applicable; state uses only composite fish samples
 If composite samples are used, how many "individual fish" typically are combined in each of  state or tribal composite samples for contaminant analysis?
       __	2 fish
       __	3 fish
       __	4 fish
       __	5 fish
       __	Other number (please specify)
       __	Not applicable; state uses only individual fish samples
 If composite samples are used, how many composite samples are needed to support an advisory determination in a waterbody?
       __	1 composite sample __	2 composite samples __	3 composite samples
       __	Variable; no set number
       __	Other number (please specify)
       __	Not applicable; state uses only individual fish samples

 Assuming your state or tribe finds contaminant levels in fish/shellfish in exceedance of its benchmark or screening level, how many years of sampling are required at a given waterbody before a fish consumption advisory can be issued?
       __	1 year
       __	2 years
       __	3 or more years
       __	Site-specific decision; no set time period established
       __	Other (please specify)
       __	Not applicable
            Once an advisory is issued for a specific waterbody, what must occur for the state or tribe to rescind the advisory?
           __	Contaminant levels of the chemical must decline below the benchmark or screening level for at least 1 year
           __	Contaminant levels of the chemical must decline below the benchmark or screening level for at least 2 years
            __	Contaminant levels of the pollutant must decline below the benchmark or screening level for at least 3 years
       __	Site-specific decision; no set time period established
       __	Other schedule or procedure (please specify)
       __	Not applicable

 In the last three years, please estimate the number of fish tissue samples that were submitted for chemical analyses by your state or tribal agency?
       __	<20 samples	__   41-50 samples
       __	21-30 samples	__   51-60 samples
       __	31-40 samples	__ >60 samples (please specify number)
       __	Not applicable

 What pollutants did your state or tribe screen for in fish tissue samples in the last three years? (Please check all that apply)

       __	Aldrin
       __	Arsenic
       __	Cadmium
       __	Chlordane __	Chlorpyrifos __	Chromium __	DDT and its
           metabolites
       __	Diazinon
    __	Dicofol
    __	Dieldrin
    __	Dioxins/Furans
    __  	Disulfoton
    __	Endosulfan
    __ 	Endrin
    __	Ethion
    __	Heptachlor or Heptachlor epoxide
     __	Hexachlorobenzene
     __	Lead
     __	Lindane
     __	Mercury
     __	Methoxychlor
     __	Mirex
     __	Nonachlor __	Oxyfluorfen __	PAHs
  __	PCBs
  __	PFAS
  __	Pentachloroanisole
  __	Selenium
  __	Terbufos __	Toxaphene __	Tributyltin __	Trifluralin
  __	Other (please specify)

 Of the pollutants listed, which ones are of primary human health concern in your state or tribal waters (specify up to 5 pollutants).

       __	Aldrin
       __	Arsenic
       __	Cadmium
       __	Chlordane __	Chlorpyrifos __	Chromium __	DDT and its
           metabolites
       __	Diazinon
    __	Dicofol
    __	Dieldrin
    __	Dioxins/Furans
    __  	Disulfoton
    __	Endosulfan
    __ 	Endrin
    __	Ethion
    __	Heptachlor or Heptachlor epoxide
     __	Hexachlorobenzene
     __	Lead
     __	Lindane
     __	Mercury
     __	Methoxychlor
     __	Mirex
     __	Nonachlor __	Oxyfluorfen __	PAHs
  __	PCBs
  __	PFAS
  __	Pentachloroanisole
  __	Selenium
  __	Terbufos __	Toxaphene __	Tributyltin __	Trifluralin
  __	Other (please specify)

        If your state or tribe analyzes for PCBs, what specifically is analyzed? (Please check all that apply)
       __	Individual congeners
       __	All 209 congeners
       __	All Aroclor groups
       __	Selected Aroclor groups
       __	A combination of both Aroclors and congeners
       __	Others (please specify)
       __	Not applicable

 If your state or tribe analyzes for PFAS, which PFAS compound specifically is
           analyzed? Check all that apply.
	__	Perfluorobutyric acid (PFBA)
	__	Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)
    __	Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
   __		Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
   __		Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS)
   __		Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
   __		Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
   __		Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)
   __		Perfluorooctanesulfonamide (PFOSA)
   __		Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
   __		Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
   __		Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA)
   __		Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)
       __	Other (please specify)_____________________________________________________________

       State or Tribal Fish Advisory Program Funding
        How many dollars are spent annually in your state or tribe on routine fish tissue field collection activities?
       __	<$1,000	__   $10,000 to $24,999
       __	$1,000 to $4,999	__   $25,000 to $50,000
       __	$5,000 to $9,999	__ >$50,000 (please specify)
       __	Not applicable

 What was the funding source for your state or tribal fish tissue collection activities in the last three years ? (Please check all that apply)
       __	State or tribal general funds
       __	State or tribal fishing license revenues
       __	State or tribal sales tax
       __	EPA Section 106 funds
       __	EPA Section 205j funds
       __	EPA Region funds
       __	EPA Grant funds
       __	Other (please specify)
       __	Not applicable
        How many dollars are spent annually in your state or tribe on laboratory analyses of fish tissue samples?
       __	<$1,000	__   $10,000 to $24,999
       __	$1,000 to $4,999	__   $25,000 to $50,000
       __	$5,000 to $9,999	__ >$50,000 (please specify)
       __	Not applicable

 What was the funding source for your state or tribal laboratory analyses of fish tissue samples in the last three years? (Please check all that apply)
       __	State or tribal general funds
       __	State or tribal fishing license revenues
       __	State or tribal sales tax
       __	EPA Section 106 funds
       __ 	EPA Section 205j funds
       __ 	EPA Region funds
       __   EPA Grant funds
       __	Other (please specify)
       __	Not applicable
 If no funding is currently available, is your state or tribe seeking funding to conduct a fish tissue monitoring and assessment program?
           __ Yes	__  No	__	Not applicable

       Other Uses of State or Tribal Advisory Data
 For your state or tribal biennial 305(b) water quality report, what assignment is made for a waterbody with a fish consumption advisory?
__
 Fully supporting
                                                                             __
  Threatened
__
 Partially supporting
                                                                             __
  Not supporting
__
 No assessments were made
                                                                             __
  Not applicable
 If fish consumption advisories have been issued for waterbodies in your state or tribe, does your state or tribe place these waterbodies on the 303(d) list of impaired waters?
           __ Yes	__	No	__	Not applicable

        Is "fish consumption" an assigned designated use for waters in your state or tribe?
           __ Yes	__ No

       Risk Assessment Methodology
 What method(s) does your state or tribe currently use to calculate "carcinogenic" health risks and issue advisories for individuals who consume fish harvested from state or tribal waters?
           (Please specify all current methods used)
       __	EPA Fish Advisory Guidance Document
       __	State or Tribal developed risk assessment methodology
       __	Great Lakes Consortium Protocols and Best Practices for Uniform Fish Advisories
       __	Food and Drug Administration (FDA) action levels
       __	None
       __	Other approach (please specify)
       __	Not applicable

 What carcinogenic risk level (i.e., individual risk within an exposed population) does your state or tribe use to issue advisories?
       __	1:10,000 (10-4)
       __	1:100,000 (10[-5])
       __	1:1,000,000(10[-6])
       __	Other (please specify)
       __	Not applicable

            What source(s) does your state or tribe use to obtain cancer potency factors to help calculate "carcinogenic" health risks? (Please check all that apply)
       __	ATSDR Toxicological Profiles
       __	EPA Fish Advisory Guidance Document
       __	EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Table (HEAST)
       __	EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
       __	Great Lakes Consortium Protocols and Best Practices for Uniform Fish Advisories
       __	Hazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB)/PubChem
       __	International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs
       __	Other sources (please specify)
       __	Not applicable

 What method(s) does your state or tribe currently use to calculate "noncarcinogenic" benchmarks or screening levels for issuing fish advisories for individuals who consume fish harvested from state or tribal waters? (Please specify all current methods used)
       __	EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
       __	EPA Fish Advisory Guidance Document
       __	ATSDR Toxicological Profiles
       __	FDA Action Levels
       __	Great Lakes Consortium Protocols and Best Practices for Uniform Fish Advisories
       __	Other approach (please specify)
       __	Not applicable
       __	None
 If the state or tribe does not calculate its own benchmark or screening levels, what noncarcinogenic benchmark or screening level (i.e., individual risk within an exposed population) does your state use to issue advisories?
       __	Hazard index (please specify if hazard index is >, =, or < 1)
       __	FDA action levels
       __	Other (please specify)
       __	Not applicable
 What source(s) does your state or tribe use to obtain reference dose to help calculate noncarcinogenic health benchmark or screening level? (Please check all that apply)
       __	ATSDR Toxicological Profiles
       __	EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
       __	EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Table (HEAST)
       __	EPA Fish Advisory Guidance Document
       __	Great Lakes Consortium Protocols and Best Practices for Uniform Fish Advisories
       __	Hazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB)/PubChem
       __	Other sources (please specify)
       __	Not applicable

            Of all the fish advisories currently in effect in your jurisdiction, including those issued last year and in earlier years, what percentage were issued based on each of these methods?
           (Please write down your best estimate of the percentage for each method)
       ___	% of advisories now in effect were issued using EPA Fish Advisory Guidance document
       __ 	% of advisories now in effect were issued using FDA action levels.
       ___   % of advisories now in effect were issued using state or tribal methods specified in question 42
       ___	% of advisories now in effect were issued using other methods specified in question 42 and 44
       __ 	Not applicable

           What default value does your state or tribe use in the risk assessments as a daily fish consumption rate for recreational fishers?
       __	6.5 g/day
       __	17.5 g/day
       __	22 g/day
          __	32 g/day (a nutritionally y focused fish consumption rate consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, equivalent to one eight-ounce meal of fish and shellfish per week)
          __	142 g/day  (fish consumption rate for "high consumers" described in the EPA 2000 Human Health Methodology)
       __	175 g/day (fish consumption rate used by EPA and some states for high frequency consumers or subsistence fishers in the Pacific Northwest)
       __ 	Other consumption rates (please specify value in g/day)
       __ 	Not applicable

           What default value does your state or tribe use in the risk assessments as a daily fish consumption rate for subsistence or high frequency fish consumers?
       __ 	6.5 g/day
       __ 	17.5 g/day
       __ 	22 g/day
       __ 	32 g/day (a nutritionally focused fish consumption rate consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, equivalent to one eight-ounce meal of fish and shellfish per week)
       __	142 g/day  (fish consumption rate for "high consumers" described in the EPA 2000 Human Health Methodology)
       __ 	175 g/day (fish consumption rate used by EPA and some states/tribes for high frequency consumers or subsistence fishers in the Pacific Northwest in the Water Quality Standards Program)
       __ 	Other consumption rates (please specify value in g/day)
       __ 	Not applicable
           What default value does your state or tribe use in the risk assessments as a daily fish consumption rate for children?
       __   2.0 g/day
       __   4.0 g/day
       __   6.5 g/day
       __ 	Other consumption rates (please specify value in g/day)
       __ 	Not applicable
        What default value does your state or tribe use for exposure duration in its cancer risk assessments?
       __   30 years
       __   70 years
       __	75 years
       __ 	Other exposure duration (please specify value in years)
       __ 	Not applicable
        What default value does your state or tribe use to estimate life expectancy in its risk assessments?
       __   70 years
       __   75 years
       __   80 years
       __ 	Other life expectancy (please specify value in years)
       __ 	Not applicable
           Does your state or tribe recommend a meal frequency format or number of meals over time in its advisories (e.g., number of meals per month or meals per week)?
          __	Yes	__  No	__   Not applicable

           What number of meals over time (e.g., per month) does your state or tribe use in its advisories?
	__ 	1 meals per week
	__ 	4 meals per month
	__ 	Other (please specify)_________________
           If the response to question 54 is yes, what assumption does your state or tribe make in its risk assessments about meal size or portion for adults? (Please specify all that apply)
       __  4 oz (114 g)
       __  8 oz (227 g)
       __  12 oz (341 g)
       __  16 oz (454 g)
       __ 	Other (please specify value in grams)
       __ 	Not applicable
           If the response to question 54 is yes, what assumption does your state or tribe make in its risk assessments about meal size or portion for children? (Please specify all that apply)
       __  4 oz (114 g)
       __  8 oz (227 g)
       __  12 oz (341 g)
       __  16 oz (454 g)
       __ 	Other (please specify value in grams)
       __ 	Not applicable

           What default value does your state or tribe use for body weight of an average adult consumer in its risk assessments?
       __   80 kg
       __   71 kg
       __   70 kg
       __   71 kg
       __	65 kg
       __   Other weight (please specify value in kg)
       __   Not applicable
           What default value does your state or tribe use for body weight of a pregnant person and nursing mothers in its risk assessments?
       __	80 kg
       __   75 kg
       __  70 kg
       __   65 kg
       __   62 kg
       __ 	Other weight (please specify value in kg)
       __ 	Not applicable
        What default value does your state or tribe use for body weight of a child in its risk assessments?
       __   10 kg
       __   14.5 kg
       __   15.5 kg
       __ Other weight (please specify value in kg)
       __ Risk assessments not conducted for children
       __ Not applicable

           Please specify what age range or ranges your state or tribe uses to calculate risk with respect to children. (Please specify all age ranges used in your state's risk assessments for children.)
       __   <1 year
       __   <6 years
       __	<7 years
       __   <12 years
       __   <15 years
       __	<18 years
       __ Other age ranges (please specify)
       __ Risk assessments not conducted for children
       __ Not applicable
           Does your state or tribal agency have a plan to reevaluate data from sites where outdated assessment methods were used to issue fish advisories?
          __ Yes	__  No	__ Not applicable

           Is your state or tribe currently re-evaluating the overall method or approach used to establish fish advisories?
       	__ Yes	__  No	__ Not applicable
           What assumption does your state make in its risk assessments about the amount of the pollutant absorbed by the body after ingestion (percent absorption by the gut) (e.g., in pharmacokinetic modeling)?
       __ 100% for all pollutants
       __ 75% for all pollutants
       __ 50% for all pollutants
       __ Chemical-specific % based on available data
       __ Other (please specify)
       __ Not applicable
           Does your state or tribe use "contaminant reduction factors" in its risk calculations to account for contaminant losses of PCBs and other organochlorine pollutants from fish tissues during cleaning, preparation, and cooking of the fish?
          __ Yes	__  No	__ Not applicable

           If yes, what are the pollutants and their associated contaminant reduction factors (% reduction in pollutant level resulting from cleaning, preparing, and cooking of fish) assumed by your state or tribe?

       __	% chlordane
       __	% DDE
       __	% DDT
       __	% dieldrin
       __	% heptachlor epoxide
       __ 	Not applicable
       __	% mercury
       __	% mirex
       __	% total PCBs
       __	% toxaphene
       __	% other (please specify)___________________

        If contaminant reduction factors are used, what are their basis?
       __ EPA Fish Advisory Guidance Documents
       __ Great Lakes Consortium Protocols and Best Practices for Uniform Fish Advisories
       __ Scientific literature review
       __ Conducted own research
       __ Other (please specify)
       __ Not applicable

 Is relative source contribution (RSC) used to account for other sources or pathways of exposure (e.g., drinking water, other foods) used in fish advisories?
       __ Yes	__  No

 If the response to question 68 is yes, specify the RSC used for the following contaminants:
        ______Hg 			______PCBs 			______PFAS
           How does your state or tribe evaluate health risks for fish samples contaminated with multiple chemicals with the same human health endpoints (e.g., two organochlorine pesticides)?
       __ Cumulative risk (add individual contaminant risks from each chemical together)
       __ Calculate single contaminant risk based on the most conservative carcinogenic risk or noncancer benchmark value
       __ Either cumulative risk or single contaminant risk depending on the chemicals involved
       __ Other method (please specify)
       __ State or tribe does not evaluate health risks for multiple contaminants
       __ Not applicable
           Regarding mercury, does your state or tribe use the EPA RfD (0.1 ug/kg/day) for different populations (i.e., for women of child-bearing age, children and adults in the general population)?
       __ Yes	__  No (specify, women of child-bearing age)_____________________
          		(specify, children)_____________________
          		(specify, adults in the general population)_____________________

 Regarding PFOS, does your state or tribe use the EPA RfD (0.02 ug/kg/day)?
	__ Yes	__  No (specify)_____________________

 Does your state or tribe use the cancer or non-cancer value for PCBs in fish advisories?
       __ Cancer		__ Non-cancer		__ Other(please specify)_____________ 	__ Not applicable

           When your state or tribe receives method detection limits (MDLs) as the reportable concentration for contaminants from the laboratory, what value are used for non-detects in your risk assessment?
       __ Zero
       __ Pollutant's MDL
       __ Half the pollutant's MDL
       __ Other value (please specify)
       __ Maximum likelihood indicator
       __ Not applicable
        Does your state or tribe screen for some or all of the PFAS compounds in question 33 (excluding PFOS and PFOA) in its fish tissue samples?
	__ Yes		__ No

           What risk assessment method does your state or tribe use for these PFAS compounds since there are no associated reference doses developed by EPA? (Please specify assessment method used)

       __ Not applicable

       Targeting Fish Consumers
           Are health risks being assessed by your state or tribe for target groups of people who may consume higher amounts of fish or prepare fish differently than the general population ?
        __ Yes	__ No	__ Not applicable

        Has your state or tribe identified the primary waterbodies fished by these target population(s)?
        __ Yes	__ No	__ Not applicable

           Has your state or tribe made efforts to identify the fish species and the sizes of fish consumed by these target populations?
        __ Yes	__ No	__ Not applicable

           If yes, has your state or tribe used any of the following procedures to obtain information from these target populations? (Please check all that apply)
       __ Local fish consumption surveys (creel surveys)
       __ Fishing license surveys
       __ Anecdotal information from populations of interest
       __ Behavioral risk surveillance surveys funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
       __ Other (please specify)_______________________________
       __ Not applicable
        Has your state or tribe altered its monitoring approach to address the needs of these target populations?
       __ Yes	__ No	__ Not applicable

           If your state or tribe has altered its monitoring approach to address the needs of these target populations, what actions have been taken? (Please check all that apply)
       __ Added stations in waterbodies where the targeted populations frequently fish
       __ Collected species consumed by the target populations for contaminant analyses
       __ Other actions (please specify)
       __ Not applicable
           If your state or tribe is not currently addressing the concerns of populations with a perceived higher risk, is there a plan to do so in the future?
       __ Yes	__ No	__ Not applicable

       Risk Management
           Who prepares risk assessments on behalf of your state or tribal fish advisory program? (Please check all that apply)
       __ State or Tribal Environmental Agency/Department
       __ State or Tribal Public Health Agency/Department
       __ State or Tribal Fisheries Agency/Department
       __ Consultant
       __ University
       __ Other (please specify)
       __ Not applicable

           Does your state or tribe have written procedures for evaluating the health risks associated with consumption of contaminated fish?
          __ Yes	__ No	__ Not applicable

           Does your state or tribe have a group or committee that oversees the fish advisory program/processes?
          __ Yes	__ No	__   Not applicable

           If the answer to question 86 is yes, what professional disciplines are represented on that committee? (Please check all that apply)
       __ Toxicology/epidemiology
       __ Fisheries biologist
       __ Water pollution assessment/control
       __ Hazardous waste management
       __ Analytical chemist
       __ Risk communication
       __ Other disciplines (please specify)
       __ Not applicable

           Who in your state or tribe makes the ultimate risk management decision to issue, modify, or rescind fish advisories?
       __ Head of Environmental Agency/Department
       __ Head of Public Health Agency/Department
       __ Head of Fisheries Agency/Department
       __ Governor's Office or Tribal Chief's/President's Office
       __ Other (please specify)
       __ Not applicable

       Risk Communication Procedures
           Is your state or tribe aware of recently released update to EPA's Risk Communication Guidance (Volume 4) ?
 	__ Yes	__ No

           If your response to question 89 is yes, is the guidance useful?
          __ Yes	__ No
 		Provide Comments:_______________________________________________________________		________________________________________________________________
           How often does your Agency revise the fish consumption advisory listings and release the information to the public? (Please check all that apply)
       __ Annually; released on	(specify date: Day/Month)
       __ Whenever data become available (on an as-needed basis)
       __ Other schedules (please specify)
       __ Not applicable

           How are your Agency's fish advisories communicated to the public? (Please check all that apply)
       __	Social Media (specify)________________________
       __ Mailed to public upon request
       __ Press releases distributed to media sources
       __ Targeted newspaper stories
       __ Published articles in ethnic newspapers
       __ Videos for ethnic groups
       __ Radio announcements
       __ Television announcements __ Radio/television talk shows
       __Podcasts
       __ Internet site
       __ Agency telephone information service (i.e., hotlines)
       __ Agency magazine
       __ Posted signs (at boat launches, stream access points, public docks, etc.)
       __ Posted information where fishing licenses issued __ Posters in public places (libraries, town halls, etc) __ Annual fishing regulations booklet
       __ Generic statewide listing booklet separate from fishing regulations
       __ Printed pamphlets or fact sheets
       __ Information presented at public meetings
       __ Publication of articles in state medical journal
       __ Publication of articles in agency annual monitoring report
       __ Publication of information in state 305(b) report
       __ Flyers distributed with trout and salmon stamps
       __ GIS maps posted
       __ Other methods (please specify)
       __ Not applicable

           Where can the public obtain copies of your agency's printed advisory materials? (Please check all that apply)
       __ Local public health departments
       __ State or tribal public health departments
       __ State or tribal Internet site
       __ Other State agencies
       __ Doctors' offices
       __ Local businesses (e.g., hair styling salons)
       __ Businesses that issue fishing licenses (e.g., bait and tackle shops)
       __ WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) clinics
       __ Welfare offices
       __ Organizations (e.g., sporting or women's clubs)
       __ Tourist offices
       __ State or tribal  fisheries offices
       __  Town halls
       __ Law enforcement officers
       __ Other sources (please specify)
       __ Not applicable
           Does your state or tribal fish advisory outreach or communication plan specifically target some populations to receive advisory information?
          __ Yes	__	No	__ Not applicable

        If yes, please identify all targeted populations.	(Please check all that apply)
       __ Sport fishers
       __ Subsistence fishers
       __ Specific racial/ethnic groups (please specify)
       __ Women of child-bearing age
       __ Pregnant or nursing women
       __ New parents
       __ Tourists
       __ Members of the general population
       __ Others (please specify)
       __ Not applicable

           Are your state or tribal fish consumption advisories available to the public in languages other than English?
          __ Yes	__ No	__ Not applicable

 If yes, please specify all languages that apply.
__
Alaskan native languages
                                                                             __
 Llacano
__
Bosnian
                                                                             __
 Ojibwa
__
Cambodian
                                                                             __
 Portugese
__
Chinese
                                                                             __
 Russian
__
Creole
                                                                             __
 Spanish
__
Hmong
                                                                             __
 Tagalog
__
Japanese
                                                                             __
 Thai
__
Korean
                                                                             __
 Vietnamese
__
Laotian
                                                                             __
 Others (please specify)

                                                                             __
 Not applicable

       98. Does your state or tribe evaluate the effectiveness of the fish consumption advisories?
          __	Yes	__	No	__ Not applicable

 99. If yes, how is their effectiveness determined? (Please check all that apply)
       __ Feedback form/postcard in regulation pamphlet
       __ Questions included in creel census program
       __ Questions included in state BRFS (Behavior Risk Factor Survey)
       __ Focus groups
       __ Mailed questionnaires (to whom?)
       __ Telephone surveys (of whom?)
       __ Other methods (please specify)
       __ Not applicable

       100. To your knowledge, have there been any studies in your state (including federal, tribal, and university-based studies) to evaluate the effectiveness of fish consumption advisories?
       __ Don't know
       __ No
       __ Yes (please specify)

       101. To your knowledge, have there been any studies in your state (including federal, tribal, and university-based studies) to evaluate human tissue contaminant levels (e.g., in blood, urine, breast milk, or adipose tissues) or adverse human health effects related to fish consumption?
       __ Don't know
       __ No
       __ Yes (please specify organization or agency)


2005 CUE process are utilized prior to authorizing the production of new
volumes.  In this context, the commenter cites the Section 114 “data
call-in” [information request] issued by EPA. [0132.1]

ƒ

ž

!

"

#

$

(

)

G

H

I

c

d

€

‚

ƒ

„

…

¡

¢

£

¤

¦

¦

§

Ý

Þ

ß

ù

ú

û

ý

þ

ÿ

-

:

;

<

=

?

@

`

`

i

{

|

}

—

˜

™

›

œ

ž

Ÿ

¼

½

¾

¿

Ã

Ä

×

à

é

ê

ë

j¸

j;

kd/

ˆ

kdª

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

  h

ˆ

€

ô

ˆ

€

ô

ˆ

€

ô

ˆ

€

ô

ˆ

€

ô

  h :

  h

ˆ

ˆ

kd

ˆ

  h

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

  hª

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

 ਀&䘋

옍ćː栁؁萏Ũ葞Ũ摧外¿ ਀&䘋

 ਀&䘋

÷ì÷äÜØÏÃ»°»°ªŸ»°»°ªŸ»°»°˜Ø»°»°˜Ø»°»°
˜Ø»°»°˜Ø»˜Ø»˜Ø»˜Ø»˜Ø»˜Ø»

  h

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

 hOt

ˆ

ˆ

"

#

¹

º

਀&䘋

º

Ã

Ä

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ꐓdꐔd⑛封Ĥ摧˓«

  h

 hµ=

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

  h

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

  h

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

  hº

 hº

ˆ

ˆ

  h

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

☊଀نഀ׆ĀŨༀ梄㜁$␸䠀$葞Ũ摧外¿

ˆ

hU!

hU!

葞ː葠ﻠ摧˓«

hU!

☊଀୆ഀ߆퀁ĂŨༀ梄㜁$␸䠀$葞Ũ摧外¿

  h

hU!

hU!

ˆ

ˆ

hU!

  h

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

摧⅕

ˆ

  h

hU!

ˆ

摧⅕

ˆ

  h

hU!

ˆ

€

ô

ˆ

€

ô

  h

ˆ

€

ô

ˆ

€

ô

ˆ

€

ô

ˆ

€

ô

ˆ

€

ô

ˆ

€

ô

ˆ

€

ô

ˆ

€

ô

ˆ

€

ô

ˆ

€

ô

ˆ

€

ô

ˆ

€

ô

ˆ

€

ô

ˆ

€

ô

hU!

ˆ

€

ô

ˆ

€

ô

ˆ

€

ô

摧⅕

ˆ

€

ô

hU!

hU!

hU!

摧⅕

hU!

hU!

  for the Framework and 2006 CUE rules, in prior Federal Register
notices, and in the Preamble of the Final Rule.  EPA is deducting 2005
carryover amounts in the 2007 allocation.

One commenter requests that EPA be more transparent in its calculation
processes.  The commenter states last year’s miscalculation of
critical use allowances for post-harvest uses by 20% as a basis for the
request. [0150]

Response:   Consistent with previous years, EPA has made its
calculations available on the docket in a spreadsheet entitled Allowance
Allocations Docket Final (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/custom/jsp/search/searchresult/do
cketDetail.jsp" \l "#" \o "EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0538-0054"
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0538-0054 ).

 Methyl Bromide Industry/Government Working Group, “Canada’s Process
and Criteria for the Evaluation of Exemptions for Critical and Emergency
Uses of Methyl Bromide,”
http://www.ec.gc.ca/ozone/DOCs/SandS/mbr/EN/EX/index.cfm#FN2, Accessed
November 13, 2006

-  PAGE  36 -


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 244 (Friday, December 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 82571]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27940]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. 2020-0409]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Commercial
Air Tour Operator Reports

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on May 8, 2020. The collection involves information from
commercial air tour operators on the numbers and types of air tours
over national park units. The information to be collected will be used
by the FAA and the National Park Service to track air tour operations
over national parks and as background information in the development of
air tour management plans and voluntary agreements for purposes of
addressing any potential significant impacts from commercial air tour
operations on the natural or cultural resources or visitor experience
at the parks.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by January 19, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Lusk by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0750.
    Title: Commercial Air Tour Operator Reports.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection of information.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on May 8, 2020 (85 FR 27506). The FAA Modernization and
Reform Act of 2012 included amendments to the National Parks Air Tour
Management Act (NPATMA) of 2000, which applies to commercial air tour
operators who conduct tours over or within a half mile of a national
park unit. One of these amendments requires commercial air tour
operators conducting tours over national park units to provide the FAA
and National Park Service with certain information on these operations.
The information collected includes the date and time of day of the tour
operation, the make and model of aircraft the tour was taken in, and
the name of tour route flown. The information allows the agencies to
track air tour activity over national park units and provides
background information that the agencies can utilize when developing an
air tour management plan or voluntary agreement for a national park
unit. Respondents are the commercial air tour operators currently
authorized to conduct tours over national parks. Operators provide the
information on a reporting template and either email it or mail it in
to the agencies.
    Respondents: 48 commercial air tour operators nationwide.
    Frequency: Information is collected semi-annually (twice a year),
or annually for park units with 50 or fewer tours per year.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 11.83 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1,136 hours.

    Issued in El Segundo, CA, on December 15, 2020.
Keith Lusk,
Program Manager,Special Programs Office, FAA Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2020-27940 Filed 12-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 65542-65545]
[DOCID:fr25oc10-140]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63130; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Commentary
.02 of Rule 903G To Permit Certain FLEX Options To Trade Under the FLEX
Trading Procedures for a Limited Time

October 19, 2010.
    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 October 5, 2010, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Amex'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .02 of Rule 903G, Terms
of FLEX Options, to permit certain FLEX Options to trade under the FLEX
Trading Procedures for a limited time. The text of the proposed rule
change is available at the Exchange's Web site at http://www.nyse.com,
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, at the Exchange's
principal office, 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to allow certain FLEX options, which
are identical in all terms to a Non-FLEX option, to trade using FLEX
Trading Procedures for the balance of the trading day on which the Non-
FLEX Option is added as an intra-day add.
    The Exchange recently adopted rule changes to allow FLEX options to
expire within two business days of a third-Friday-of-the-month
expiration, including expiration Friday (``expiration FLEX'').\4\ Such
FLEX Options could have either an American Style exercise or a European
Style exercise. The same rule change also allowed for FLEX Index
Options to expire on or within two business days of a third-Friday-of-
the-month expiration, provided they only have an exercise settlement
value on the expiration date determined by reference to the reported
level of the index as derived from the opening prices of the component
securities (``a.m. settlement'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Act Release No. 60548, SR-NYSEAmex-2009-44
(August 20, 2009), 74 FR 43191 (August 26, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule change provided that expiration FLEX options will be
permitted before (but not after) Non-FLEX Options with identical terms
are listed. Once and if an option series is listed for trading as a
Non-FLEX Option series, (i) all existing open positions established
under the FLEX Trading procedures shall be fully fungible with
transactions in the respective Non-FLEX Options series, and (ii) any
further trading in the series would be as Non-FLEX Options subject to
the Non-FLEX trading procedures and rules.
    The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') became concerned that,
in certain circumstances, in the event a Non-FLEX Option is listed with
identical terms to an existing FLEX option, OCC could not net the
positions in the contracts until the next business day. If the Non-FLEX
Option were listed intra-day, and the holder of a position in the FLEX
option attempted to close the position using the Non-FLEX Option, the
holder would be technically long in one contract and short in the other
contract. This would expose the holder to assignment risk until the
next day despite having offsetting positions.
    The limited circumstances are:
     The Non-Flex Option is listed intra-day.
     The FLEX contract is for American style exercise.
     All other terms are identical and the contracts are
otherwise fungible.
    The risk does not occur in expiration Friday FLEX option positions
during the five days prior to expiration, as no new Non-FLEX Option
series may be listed within five days of expiration. It also does not
exist for FLEX option positions that will be identical to Non-FLEX
series to be added after expiration, as those new series are added
``overnight'' and OCC will convert the FLEX position to the Non-FLEX
Options series at the time the Non-FLEX series is created.
    As an example, suppose underlying issue XYZ, trading around $25 per
share, has options listed on the March cycle, and in February an
investor wishes to buy just-out-of-the-money call options that will
expire in May. Since the Non-FLEX May Options will not be listed until
after the March expiration, the investor enters a FLEX Option order in
February to buy 250 Call 30 options expiring on the third Friday of
May. If, as expected, the Non-FLEX May 30 call options are listed on
the Monday after March expiration, the investor's open FLEX position
will be converted by OCC over the weekend following March expiration to
the Non-FLEX series.
    However, if XYZ stock should decline between the time of the FLEX
transaction and March expiration, the May 30 calls may not be added
after March Expiration. If that were to occur, the May 30 calls may be
added sometime later. Suppose the Exchange receives a request to add
the May 30 calls on the morning of the Wednesday after expiration, and
the Exchange lists them immediately. The investor with the FLEX
position may then decide it is an opportune time to close his position.
    Under current rules, the investor would be required to close the
position by entering a sell order in the new Non-FLEX Option series.
However, when the Non-FLEX transaction is reported to OCC, the investor
is considered short in the Non-FLEX Option series, and is still long in
the FLEX Option. OCC cannot aggregate the FLEX positions into the Non-
FLEX series until after exercise and assignment processing. If a buyer
in the new Non-FLEX series were to exercise the options, the original
investor who had attempted to close the FLEX position with an
offsetting Non-FLEX trade would be at risk of being assigned on the
technically short Non-FLEX position.
    Because of this risk, OCC will not clear an American style
expiration Friday FLEX option. The Exchange has spoken to OCC, and OCC
has agreed that allowing the holder of an open position in a FLEX
contract to close the position using a FLEX option in such
circumstances will mitigate the risk.
    The assignment risk does not exist if the Non-FLEX option is to be
added the next trading day. In situations where OCC is aware that a
series will be added overnight, they can convert the FLEX Position to a
Non-FLEX position before the next trading day. However, OCC cannot
guarantee that an identical Non-FLEX series will not be added intra-
day, and thus will not clear such American style FLEX options.
    NYSE Amex is proposing a limited exception to the requirement that
the trading in such options be under the Non-FLEX Trading Procedures.
The Exchange proposes that, in the event a Non-FLEX Option is listed
intra-day, the holder of a FLEX Option with identical terms could close
the FLEX position under the FLEX Trading procedures, but only for the
balance of the trading day on which the series is added. Under the
proposed rule change, both sides of the FLEX transaction would have to
be closing only positions.
    This change will allow the holder of a FLEX position to trade in
such a manner to mitigate the assignment risk.
    A Trading Official \5\ has the regulatory responsibility for
reviewing the conformity of FLEX trades to the terms and specifications
contained in Rule 903G. In the event a Non-FLEX series, having the same
terms as an existing expiration Friday FLEX option, is listed intra-
day, the Trading Official will review any subsequent FLEX transactions
in that series and verify that the order is being executed for the
purpose of closing out an existing FLEX position. The Trading Official
will not disseminate a FLEX Request for Quote for any order
representing a FLEX series having the same terms as a Non-FLEX series,
unless such FLEX order is a closing order (and it is the day the Non-
FLEX series has been added). In addition, if the Trading Official were
to disseminate a FLEX Request for Quotes for a closing order
representing a FLEX series having the same terms as a Non-FLEX series,
the Trading Official would only accept response quotes and orders from
Amex Trading Permit (``ATP'') Holders that were closing out an existing
FLEX position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Trading Officials are Exchange employees designated pursuant
to Rule 900.2NY(82).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NYSE Regulatory Department reviews FLEX trading activity, and,
in the event a non-FLEX series with the same terms as an expiration
Friday FLEX option is listed intra-day, will review any subsequent FLEX

transactions in the series to verify that they are closing a
position.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Through a Regulatory Services Agreement (``RSA'') between
NYSE Regulation, Inc. (``NYSE Regulation'') and NYSE Amex, staff of
NYSE Regulation conducts, among other things, surveillances of the
NYSE Amex options trading platform for purposes of monitoring
compliance with the relevant trading rules by NYSE Amex
participants. NYSE Amex represents that, through this RSA, there is
appropriate surveillances in place to monitor transactions in FLEX
options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) \7\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),
in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \8\ in
particular in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to
remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest, by giving ATP Holders and investors
with additional tools to trade customized options in an exchange
environment while allowing the holder of a FLEX position to trade in
such a manner as to mitigate inadvertent assignment risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    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

    Because the foregoing rule does not (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization
has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of
filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated
by the Commission, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Commission notes that the Exchange has satisfied
this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\11\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the proposed rule change is substantially
similar to a proposed rule change previously submitted by NYSE Arca
which was published for notice and comment in the Federal Register.\12\
The Commission notes that it did not receive any comments on the NYSE
Arca proposal, and does not believe the Exchange's proposal raises any
new or novel issues. Further, as noted above, because of the
inadvertent assignment risk, market participants could not trade
previously approved American style FLEX Options expiring on Expiration
Friday. The proposal seeks to mitigate such assignment risks by
limiting certain FLEX transactions to closing only, thereby allowing
the trading of previously approved FLEX Options. For these reasons, the
Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest and
therefore, designates the proposed rule change operative upon
filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62321 (June 17,
2010), 75 FR 36130 (June 24, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-46).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2010-52 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2010-52. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-
NYSEAmex-2010-52 and should be submitted on or before November 15,
2010.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-26826 Filed 10-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19335-19336]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08341]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4201-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002]

Hawaii; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Hawaii (FEMA-4201-DR), dated November 3, 2014, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: March 25, 2015.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this disaster is closed effective March 25, 2015.

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.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-08341 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55045-55048]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19348]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95654; File No. SR-ICC-2022-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Clearing Rules

September 1, 2022.

I. Introduction

    On July 19, 2022, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICE Clear Credit'' or
``ICC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend its Rules to permit it to take advantage
of certain settlement finality protections under applicable United
Kingdom (``UK'') and European Union (``EU'') law. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on July 29,
2022.\3\ The Commission did not receive comments regarding the proposed
rule change. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is
approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Clearing Rules;
Exchange Act Release No. 95357 (July 25, 2022); 87 FR 45840 (July
29, 2022) (File No. SR-ICC-2022-012) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

A. Background

    The EU Settlement Finality Directive \4\ introduced various
insolvency-related protections in relation to ``designated systems''
used by EU participants to transfer financial instruments and payments,
and participation in those systems. The Settlement Finality Directive
aims to ensure that as a matter of EU member state laws, transfer
orders which enter into such systems are finally settled, regardless of
whether the sending participant has gone into an insolvency process.
Transfer orders for this purpose include instructions to make cash
payments (including margin payments) and instructions to transfer
securities (including as margin or in physical settlement of a cleared
transaction, if applicable). Under the Settlement Finality Directive,
transfer orders and related netting arrangements are enforceable, even
in the event of insolvency proceedings against a participant, provided
that the transfer

order was entered into the system before the opening of the insolvency
proceeding. Further, under the Settlement Finality Directive, the right
of the operator of a designated system to realize and apply collateral
security provided by a participant would not be affected by insolvency
proceedings against the participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EU Directive 98/26/EC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``Designated systems'' are defined as formal arrangements, governed
by the law of an EU member state, between three or more participants
with common rules and standard arrangements for clearing or execution
of transfer orders between participants, and have been designated as a
system and notified to the European Securities and Markets Authority
(``ESMA''). Although the Settlement Finality Directive itself does not
establish an equivalent regime for systems operated under the laws of a
non-EU member state (``third-country systems''), such as United States
(``US'') clearing houses, Recital 7 of the Settlement Finality
Directive provides that member states may choose to apply the
provisions of the Settlement Finality Directive to their domestic
institutions that participate directly in third country systems, and to
collateral security provided in connection with participation in such
systems. As a result, in some EU member states it is possible for a
third country system such as ICC to receive national designation or be
otherwise protected as a designated system for the purposes of that
member state's national law.
    The UK has implemented similar settlement finality regulations that
continue to apply following the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, and
which are also potentially applicable to UK institutions that
participate in third country systems (such as a US clearing house).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Financial Markets and Insolvency (Settlement Finality)
Regulations 1999. As used herein, the EU Settlement Finality
Directive, national implementing legislation and the UK Settlement
Finality Regulations are collectively referred to as ``Settlement
Finality Laws.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Rule Change

    The purpose of the proposed rule changes is to modify certain of
ICC's Rules to introduce explicit provisions relating to the settlement
finality of transfer orders in order to permit ICC to take advantage of
certain protections for default rights and remedies under applicable
Settlement Finality Laws.\6\ The proposed amendments are expected to be
principally relevant in the case of an insolvency of an ICC Clearing
Participant domiciled in the UK or an EU member state. The proposed
amendments would rely on certain protections in such Settlement
Finality Laws and regulations that provide additional support (on top
of existing protections in applicable law) for the enforceability of
the ICC's default rights and remedies under the Rules without
interference in such an insolvency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The description that follows is substantially excerpted from
the Notice. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the
meanings assigned to them in ICC's Rules, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the amendments would address which ``transfer
orders'' arise in ICC's system, when they become irrevocable, who is
bound by them, and when they terminate. ICC believes that the
amendments would facilitate obtaining the relevant protections of the
Settlement Finality Laws, which would principally be relevant in the
case of an insolvency of a Participant domiciled in an EU member state
or in the UK. The amendments would not otherwise affect ICC's rights
and obligations under the Rules, including default rights and remedies,
and would not be expected to be relevant to an insolvency proceeding
involving a Participant organized in the US or otherwise outside of the
EU or the UK.
    In the Rules, ICE Clear Credit would adopt a new Chapter 10
addressing Settlement Finality Laws. Rule 1000 would add a number of
related definitions, including definitions for relevant legislation and
regulations, such as ``EMIR,'' ``Financial Collateral Directive,''
``Financial Collateral Regulations,'' ``FSMA,'' ``Settlement Finality
Directive,'' ``Settlement Finality Regulations,'' and ``UK EMIR.'' The
rule would also adopt key definitions relating to the settlement
finality provisions, including ``ICE Systems'' (referencing ICE Clear
Credit's trade registration, clearing processing and finance systems),
``SFD System'' (referencing the third country system operated by ICE
Clear Credit for purposes of the Settlement Finality Laws), ``Payment
Transfer Order,'' ``Securities Transfer Order'' and ``Transfer Order''
(representing the types of transfer orders used in the ICE system and
covered by the Settlement Finality Laws), ``SFD Participant''
(referencing ICE Clear Credit itself, its Participants organized in the
European Economic Area (``EEA'') or in the UK, among certain other
relevant persons), ``SFD Custodian'' (referencing a custodian located
in the EEA or the UK used by ICE Clear Credit or a Participant for the
holding or transfer of Non-Cash Collateral), ``SFD Financial
Institution'' (referencing a financial institution located in the EEA
or UK used by ICE Clear Credit or a Participant for purpose of the
deposit or transfer of cash), ``SFD Security'' (referencing a security
as defined in the Settlement Finality Laws), ``Indirect Participant''
(referencing Non-Participant Parties that fall within the definition of
indirect participant under the Settlement Finality Laws), and ``Non-
Cash Collateral'' (referencing Margin or Collateral in the form of a
security).
    New Rule 1001 would set out general principles relevant to
implementation of the EU and UK settlement finality arrangements.
Subsection (a) would provide that ICC is the operator of a third
country system for purposes of relevant Settlement Finality Laws, and
that Chapter 10 of the Rules would apply to ICE Clear Credit and SFD
Participants to the extent that the Settlement Finality Laws are
applicable to such persons. Subsection (b) would require SFD
Participants to comply with actions taken by ICC pursuant to Chapter 10
and the relevant Settlement Finality Laws, and to acknowledge that the
Settlement Finality Laws modify certain otherwise applicable provisions
of insolvency laws. Subsection (c) would provide that each SFD
Participant is on notice of the provisions of Chapter 10, and by virtue
of participating in the SFD System, is deemed to agree to the
application of Chapter 10 (including in the event of any conflict with
any other agreement or obligation). Subsection (d) would provide an
additional acknowledgment that Margin and Collateral transferred to ICC
under the Rules fall within certain protections for collateral
arrangements under the Settlement Finality Laws.
    New Rule 1002 would address the timing and circumstances in which
various types of Transfer Orders would arise for purposes of the ICC
SFD System, specifically Payment Transfer Orders and Securities
Transfer Orders in various circumstances, including for transfer of
positions (``Position Transfer Orders''), transfer of non-cash
collateral (``Collateral Transfer Orders''), submission of new trades
for clearing (``New Transaction Clearing Orders''), backloading trades
for clearing (``Backloaded Transaction Clearing Orders, and together
with New Transaction Clearing Orders, ``Transaction Clearing Orders''),
and physical settlement under cleared CDS contracts (``CDS Physical
Settlement Orders''). The rule would also specify the subject matter of
each type of Transfer Order (e.g., a payment in respect of a Payment
Transfer Order) and the parties in respect of which each type of
Transfer Order would apply and have effect (e.g., in the case of a
Payment Transfer Order, the affected Participant (if it is an SFD
Participant), ICE Clear Credit, and any affected SFD

Financial Institution). Rule 1002 would also address the possibility of
multiple Transfer Orders existing in respect of the same obligation
(which may exist, but would not result in the duplication of any
obligation), and the fact that netting or close out of Contracts would
not affect the status of Transfer Orders. The rule also states,
consistent with the general approach of the Rules, that where a
Transfer Order applies to an Indirect Participant, it would not affect
the liability of any SFD Participant pursuant to the same Transfer
Order.
    Rule 1003 would specify the time at which each type of Transfer
Order (specifically, Payment Transfer Orders, Position Transfer Orders,
Collateral Transfer Orders, Transaction Clearing Orders, and CDS
Physical Settlement Orders) becomes irrevocable for purposes of the
relevant Settlement Finality Laws. Payment Transfer Orders would become
irrevocable at the earlier of the time payment is received or at the
time the relevant financial institution used by ICC for this purpose
sends a SWIFT or other confirmation that payment has been made.
Collateral Transfer Orders similarly would become irrevocable at the
earlier of the time the transfer is received or a related securities
transfer order in a relevant securities transfer system becomes
irrevocable. Position Transfer Orders would become irrevocable at the
time the position transfer is recorded in the ICC systems, and
Transaction Clearing Orders would become irrevocable at the applicable
Novation Time under the Rules. CDS Physical Settlement Orders would
become irrevocable at the earliest of (1) the time the Matched Delivery
Buyer has irrevocably instructed its custodian to transfer the relevant
securities to the Matched Delivery Seller, (2) the time the relevant
instrument is delivered or assigned, or (3) the time notice is
otherwise given under the Rules that the Matched Delivery Pair have
settled the relevant Matched Delivery Contracts. Under the Rule, as
from the time when the Transfer Order becomes irrevocable, it could not
be revoked or purported to be revoked by any SFD Participant or ICE
Clear Credit and would be binding on all SFD Participants.
    Rule 1004 would address variations or cancellations of Transfers
Orders prior to the time they become irrevocable, in specified
circumstances. These circumstances include, for any Transfer Order,
cases where the order is affected by manifest or proven error or an
error agreed to by all affected SFD Participants. Additional grounds
for variation or cancellation apply for particular types of Transfer
Order. In the case of a Payment Transfer Order or Collateral Transfer
Order, these would include where the underlying Contract is void or
avoided under the Rules or applicable law, or amended as a result of
ICC exercising its discretion under the Rules. Transaction Clearing
Orders may be subject to variation or cancellation where the underlying
trade is not eligible for clearing or otherwise not accepted for
clearing, and Backloaded Transaction Clearing Orders may be subject to
variation or cancellation if an error or omission is noted to ICC prior
to the Novation Time. Similarly, variation or cancellation of a CDS
Physical Settlement Order may be made if a NOPS Amendment Notice is
validly delivered under the Rules or ICE Clear Credit Procedures. Under
Rule 1004, in these circumstances, ICC would be permitted to make
appropriate modifications to the relevant Transfer Order, or in the
alternative to cancel the relevant Transfer Order. Rule 1004 also would
not preclude ICC from taking steps to give rise to a new Transfer Order
with opposite effect to an existing Transfer Order or part thereof.
Rule 1004 also would provide for notice of any modification or
cancellation of a Transfer Order to affected SFD Participants.
    Rule 1005 would specify the circumstances under which Transfer
Orders are deemed satisfied. Specifically, Payment Transfer Orders are
satisfied upon all required payments being received in immediately
available funds or full satisfaction of the underlying obligation is
otherwise made and recorded in ICC's systems, free of any encumbrances.
Position Transfer Orders would be deemed satisfied upon becoming
irrevocable (at which time the relevant positions have been transferred
under the Rules). Collateral Transfer Orders would be deemed satisfied
upon ICC or the Participant, as applicable, receiving the Non-Cash
Collateral in its account or upon the definitive record of the assets
transferred by the Participant being updated to reflect the successful
transfer of the relevant collateral. Transaction Clearing Orders would
be deemed satisfied at the time the relevant cleared contracts arise
under the Rules. A CDS Physical Settlement Order would be deemed
satisfied at the time ICC updates its records to reflect that physical
delivery of the relevant security has been completed or the delivery
obligations of the parties are otherwise discharged or settled.
    Rule 1006 would set out certain acknowledgements of ICC,
Participants, and Non-Participant Parties with respect to matters
relating to Margin or Collateral to the extent they fall to be
determined under the laws of an EEA member state or the UK. The
amendments would clarify that such arrangements are subject to the EU
Financial Collateral Directive or UK Financial Collateral Regulations,
as applicable, and would provide that Participants and Non-Participant
Parties would not dispute that characterization. The amendments would
further provide that arrangements for the provision of cash Margin and
Collateral constitute ``title transfer financial collateral
arrangements'' and arrangements for the provision of Pledged Items
constitute ``security financial collateral arrangements,'' in each case
for purposes of the EU Financial Collateral Directive or UK Financial
Collateral Arrangements, that all such Margin and Collateral constitute
``financial collateral'' for purposes of such laws, and that ICC has
possession or control of such Margin and Collateral for purposes of
such laws. The amendments would also state that for purposes of UK law,
the security arrangements under the Rules constitute a ``market
charge'' for purposes of the Companies Act 1989, which provides certain
protections for the enforceability of such arrangements in the event of
the insolvency of a clearing participant.
    ICC also proposes to make certain amendments to Rule 611, which
currently addresses the treatment of certain Rules under various
insolvency laws and other protections for the enforceability of default
remedies in the event of the insolvency of a clearing participant. The
amendments would add a new subsection (f), which would provide that
specified Rules providing for default rights and remedies would
constitute default rules, procedures and similar arrangements as
defined for purposes of relevant EU and UK law, including EMIR, UK
EMIR, and the Settlement Finality Laws.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\7\ For the reasons discussed below, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section

17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \8\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to
the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the proposed rule changes would introduce
provisions that support the operation of the settlement finality
provisions of EU and UK law. These provisions ensure that transfer
orders by a Clearing Participant that is domiciled in an EU member
state or in the UK will be cleared even if that Clearing Participant
enters into insolvency proceedings after the transfer order was entered
into the system. As noted in more detail above, the proposed rule
change would accomplish this by adopting key definitions relating to
the Settlement Finality Laws, set out general principles relevant to
implementation of the EU and UK settlement finality arrangements (such
as participant acknowledgement of the applicability of the settlement
finality rules to margin and collateral), specify timing that each
transfer order becomes irrevocable for purposes of the relevant
Settlement Finality Laws, circumstances under which transfer orders are
deemed satisfied, and specify that Rules providing for default rights
and remedies would constitute default rules, procedures and similar
arrangements as defined for purposes of relevant EU and UK law,
including EMIR, UK EMIR, and the Settlement Finality Laws.
    The Commission believes that these proposed rule changes, while not
changing any of the existing default rights or remedies of ICC but
rather by adopting explicit provisions relating to settlement finality
of transfer orders of Clearing Participants in insolvency, will help
support the payment and transfer of margin and collateral and thus the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions
by ensuring that its rules facilitate explicit reference and
participant awareness and acknowledgement of the applicability of EU
and UK Settlement Finality Laws.
    For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) requires that each covered clearing agency
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed, as applicable, to provide for a well-
founded, clear, transparent and enforceable legal basis for each aspect
of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, ICC proposes to rely on provisions of the
Settlement Finality Laws regulations that provide additional support
for the enforceability of the ICC's default rights and remedies. For
example, under the Settlement Finality Directive, transfer orders and
related netting arrangements are enforceable, even in the event of
insolvency proceedings against a participant. The Commission believes
that by proposing to align key definitions and rules to the Settlement
Finality Laws as noted above and by requiring relevant Clearing
Participants to comply with and acknowledge the settlement finality
provisions, the proposed rule changes would provide a well-founded and
clear legal basis for ICC to enforce its clearing rules during an
insolvency of a Clearing Participant domiciled in the EU or the UK.
    For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
changes are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \14\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) hereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\16\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2022-012), be, and hereby
is, approved.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \17\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-19348 Filed 9-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 189 (Friday, September 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 49091]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20853]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9984-31-Region 9]

Public Water System Supervision Program Revision for the State of
Hawaii

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of tentative approval.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the State of Hawaii revised its
approved Public Water System Supervision Program (PWSSP) under the
federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) by adopting the Stage 1
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule, Stage 2 Disinfectants
and Disinfection Byproducts Rule, Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule, Lead and Copper Rule Short-Term Regulatory Revisions
and Clarifications, Revised Total Coliform Rule, and the expanded
Public Water System definition. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has determined that these revisions by the State of Hawaii are no
less stringent than the corresponding Federal regulations and otherwise
meet applicable SDWA primacy requirements. Therefore, EPA intends to
approve these revisions to the State of Hawaii's PWSSP.

DATES: Request for a public hearing must be received on or before
October 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: All documents relating to this determination are available
for inspection between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except official State holidays (for the Hawaii
location) and official Federal holidays (for the two EPA locations), at
the following offices: Hawaii Department of Health, Safe Drinking Water
Branch, 2385 Waimano Home Road, Uluakupu Building 4, Pearl City, Hawaii
96782; United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Pacific
Islands Office, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 5124, Honolulu, Hawaii 96850;
and United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Drinking
Water Management Section, 75 Hawthorne Street (WTR-3-1), San Francisco,
California 94105. Documents relating to this determination are also
available online at http://health.hawaii.gov/sdwb/public-notices/ for
inspection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anna Yen, EPA Region 9, Drinking Water
Management Section, at the address given above; telephone number: (415)
972-3976; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background. EPA approved the State of
Hawaii's original application for PWSSP primary enforcement authority
which, following the public notice period, became effective on October
20, 1977 (42 FR 47244, no request for public hearing received). EPA
subsequently approved and finalized revisions to the State of Hawaii's
PWSSP on the following dates: May 6, 1993 (58 FR 17892); July 19, 1993
(58 FR 33442); September 29, 1993 (58 FR 45491); March 13, 1995 (60 FR
7962); May 23, 1996 (61 FR 17892); July 31, 2015 (80 FR 45656), and
December 8, 2017 (82 FR 57981).
    Public process. Any interested party may request a public hearing
on this determination. A request for a public hearing must be submitted
by October 29, 2018, to the Regional Administrator at the EPA Region 9
address shown above. The Regional Administrator may deny frivolous or
insubstantial requests for a hearing. If a substantial request for a
public hearing is made by October 29, 2018, EPA Region 9 will hold a
public hearing. Any request for a public hearing shall include the
following information: 1. The name, address, and telephone number of
the individual, organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; 2.
A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional
Administrator's determination and a brief statement of the information
that the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; and 3.
The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request
is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of
a responsible official of the organization or other entity.
    If EPA Region 9 does not receive a timely and appropriate request
for a hearing and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a
hearing on his own motion, this determination shall become final and
effective on October 29, 2018, and no further public notice will be
issued.

    Authority: Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 300g-2 (1996), and 40 CFR part 142 of the
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.

    Dated: August 24, 2018.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2018-20853 Filed 9-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P