Review of: Report on Potential Risks Associated with the Use of Chat from Tri State Area in Transportation Projects Response to Charge Questions:

1. Are you aware of any other data/ studies that are relevant, particularly with respect to air emissions from either transportation, construction projects, or demolition that could be included in the evaluation?

Overall, the report does a good job compiling and summarizing the available relevant information as well as identifying shortcomings and gaps in knowledge. With respect to emissions specifically related to transportation, construction projects or demolition, I have seen none that are specifically related to the Tar Creek area.

Several other documents may be of use with respect to the raw chat material:

K. D. Drake, 1999. Leachability of Size Fractionated Mine Tailings from the Kansas portion of the Tri State Mining Area. M. S. thesis, University of Missouri Kansas City.

This thesis presents total metal concentrations and TCLP results for size fractionated raw chat. There are also some results regarding the mineralogy of Zn in the chat using x ray diffraction.

S. Magoo and S. L. Yarbrough. 1996. Draft   Final Site Evaluation Findings Report, Tar Creek NPL Site, Oklahoma City Field Area.

This report contains analyses of size fractionated raw chat, including total metal concentrations and the results of SPLP ( synthetic precipitation leaching protocol) tests. The report also presents size fractionated Pb concentrations and mineralogical analyses in yard soils.

The following report contains an assessment of metals in runoff from chat piles:

OWRB. 1983. Water Quality Characteristics of Seepage and Runoff at Two Tailings Piles in the Picher Field, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. Tar Creek Field Investigation, Task 1.2.

This report presents total metal concentrations in the runoff from two chat piles, all of which are highly elevated compared to background concentrations, and thus provides a sense of in field mobility of metals in raw chat.

There are also two journal articles that assess the major routes of exposure to metals by children in the Picher area: 2 Lynch, RA, LH Malcoe, VJ Skaggs and MC Kegler. 2000. The relationship between residential lead exposures and elevated blood lead levels in a rural mining community. Journal of Environmental Health. 63( 3): 9 15.

Malcoe, LH, RA Lynch, MC Kegler and VJ Skaggs. 2002. Lead sources, behaviors, and socioeconomic factors in relation to blood lead of Native American and white children: A community based assessment of a former mining area. Environmental Health Perspectives. 110( Suppl. 2): 221 231.

In addition, there are two academic research groups conducting experiments applicable to this review. Dr. Bob Nairn at the University of Oklahoma has been conducting experiments on the use of chat in asphalt, including experiments of leaching rates into road side soils. The results of his studies would be particularly applicable for this document. At the Harvard School of Public Health, Dr. Jim Shine has an ongoing study on metal speciation, transport, and fate of metals in the Tar Creek area. Some of their data on total metal concentrations down into the respirable particle size range ( i. e., down to PM10 and PM2.5 sizes), as well as on the speciation of metals in chat and differences with changes in particle size, would have been helpful in this analysis. Unfortunately, data from both groups have not been published at this time, although I have seen them presented at national meetings.

2. Does the report present the available data, assumptions, and evaluation in a complete and unbiased manner?

Overall, the presentation of the material was fairly complete and presented in an unbiased manner. The authors seemed to be upfront with the limitations of their approach and were clear about their assumptions.

3. Are the conclusions concerning environmental release and potential environmental and public health impacts, including the limitations and uncertainties, supported by the available data? In particular, while the report findings relied on several studies that followed specific data quality objectives and methodologies, are the laboratory and field data of sufficient power to support the findings?

The authors discuss in depth the results of TCLP tests of raw chat and asphalt materials. While the TCLP tests do provide useful information and a starting point to consider metal mobility from chat containing materials, additional consideration should be given to predicting the fate of these materials in the field. I have several concerns with solely using TCLP data.

Short duration of experiments. TCLP tests only last 18 hours and are conducted in a laboratory. What happens over months and years, as the asphalt material chemically and physically breaks down, and at potentially higher temperatures, that could accelerate weathering reactions? I realize that no data are readily available on these issues, but could the authors speculate about 3 how these results might extrapolate to the field? I believe, however, that the group at the University of Oklahoma are currently conducting these types of experiments.

Long term fate of metals. The TCLP results suggest that the concentration of metals in leachate from the asphalt will not be harmful. But where do these metals end up over time? If year after year, runoff from roads passes over the soils along the sides of the roads, is there the potential to accumulate high metal concentrations in the surface of soils? Again, these data probably are not available, but can a worst case scenario of accumulation of mobilized metals be provided? Alternatively, can one examine the results from the U of OK group?

Other pathways of metal mobility. Leaching of metals into water may not be the only mechanism through which particles are released to the environment. Factors such as physical abrasion by road traffic may also be important.

In the discussion and the conceptual model, the authors seem to downplay the importance of inhalation of respirable chat particles during the processing ( e. g., dry sieving) of the chat. In the first paragraph of section 3.1, the authors assert that " raw chat particle sizes are generally not considered in the respirable range," but the work of ODEQ ( 2002) shows the significant enhancement of metal concentrations in the smallest particles, which are most likely the ones to be mobilized offsite. According to their graphs, around 3 9% of chat passed through the # 200 sieve (< 74 µ m). These particles are small enough to be transported by wind ( total suspended particles are defined as 100 µ m or smaller). A subset of these particles will be in the respirable range (< 10 µ m).

In general, the potential pathway of inhaled fine particles to residents should be considered for chat processing as well as the transportation and storage phases. Figure 2 maps out many of the potential pathways associated with the lifetime of chat containing asphalt. Missing from this diagram are the effects on residents living adjacent to piles undergoing reworking. From the " Dry sieving, washing, recycling" box, there should be a box that goes directly to particle emission, follows an inhalation pathway, and ends up at a resident receptor. In addition, for particle emission from embankment or fill, these particles also may follow an inhalation pathway to a resident receptor. The piles are collocated in residential areas, so activities such as dry sieving are likely to mobilize fine particles, and small respirable particles remain in the atmosphere long enough to be transported to homes. Size fractionated data that I have seen from the Harvard group show concentrations in the fine fractions can be as high as 30% for Zn ( 300,000 ppm) and 2% for Pb. Even though these particles represent a small fraction of the overall mass of the chat, they can be mobilized off site by windborne transport. Given their high metal concentrations, even low exposures to either airborne particles or soil onto which the particles have landed may lead to high metal exposures.

Another factor that wasn't considered is the generation of fine particle wastes. If for certain applications only a coarser chat fraction is required, a separation step ( washing or physical sieving) will generate fine chat as a waste product to dispose. Given the relatively high concentrations ( and potentially very different leachability relative to large particles), this may 4 create a larger problem to the local environment. The human and ecological health implications of fine chat disposal were not examined in this assessment.

4. As with any risk assessment, there are various sources of uncertainty associated with data limitations that we believe are identified in the report. Other than conducting model simulations or performing additional sampling, can you recommend alternate approaches or changes to our methodology that could provide a more thorough characterization of those uncertainties?

Suggested changes to the methodology have been provided in response to question 3. The site conceptual model should be altered to include other pathways of exposure. Furthermore, the uncertainties of extrapolating from short term laboratory based TCLP experiments to long term fate should be considered.

5. The Agency was directed to establish criteria for the safe and environmentally protective use of chat for cement or concrete projects and transportation construction projects. There were significant data limitations as well as resource and time constraints placed on the evaluation. Does this type of analysis lend technical support to the nature of the decision to establish criteria for the use of chat? Can you propose alternative approaches that can be used to support this type of decision in situations where there are significant data or time limitations?

Overall, the approach used in the report seems reasonable, given the constraints of available data. However, there are several areas where additional estimates or interpretation would be useful.

Estimating health risks from particle inhalation. In the health screening criteria, only soil screening levels are included in Table 20 as a guideline for residential exposure. Is there a way that exposure from direct inhalation by residents of particles mobilized during chat reworking can be estimated? This type of estimate would require total metal concentrations in small respirable particles, as well as estimated concentrations of respirable particles in the ambient air resulting from chat reworking. While the metal concentrations in wind mobilizable and respirable particles are available from the work of ODEQ ( 2002) and from the Harvard group, the actual concentration of metals on windborne particles in the air is less straightforward. Can realistic concentrations be obtained from the literature of other sites where material is transported and sieved? Ambient concentrations of metals in the air during the reworking of chat can be used to estimate a dose of inhaled metal compared to acceptable daily doses.

Worker exposure. The authors assert in the Summary that the EPA determined that worker health is sufficiently protected by the States and by OSHA. Do the authors feel their results support the EPA's conclusion? Given the recommendation to avoid unencapsulated chat uses, it seems special workplace precautions should be in place. 5 Appropriate uses of flowable fill. The report makes a strong case that unencapsulated uses of raw chat should be avoided, while encapsulated uses were found to pose acceptably low risk. While avoiding the use of unencapsulated chat seems well justified in light of the available data, there is potential concern over the use of chat in flowable fill, which is an encapsulated use and generally contains particles < 75 µ m ( Section 3.2.3). Given that particles in this size range were shown to have up to 9 times higher Pb concentrations than raw bulk chat ( ODEQ 2002), there seems to be the potential for much greater metal leaching from this material than from chatbased asphalt that uses larger sized particles. Furthermore, data that I have seen from the Harvard group suggest that the metals contained in smaller sized particles have greater lability and potential environmental mobility. Consequently, the results of leaching experiments on bulk particles may not be representative of the mobility of particles in smaller size fractions. Before the use of flowable fill that contains chat can be deemed acceptable, there should be additional research to directly assess leaching of metals from flowable fill. In the absence of such data, perhaps greater caution is warranted. The authors were not clear in the conclusions as to whether the use of flowable fill is an acceptable encapsulated use.

Provisions for chain of information. The authors describe the milling of spent asphalt and mention " the recycling process involves removal and subsequent milling operations intended to produce the gradation properties of virgin materials. We assume that these activities are subject to environmental standards for air emissions that greatly reduce or eliminate offsite contamination." Is there any way to notify workers before they dig up a road to recycle the asphalt that the asphalt contains chat? Presumably, precautions are always taken to minimize exposure during any road rebuilding operation, but perhaps special precautions, especially to protect the health of nearby residents, should be taken when chat containing asphalt is to be replaced.

Additional data for household exposure to encapsulated chat uses. Another alternate approach to study this issue is to examine cases where chat has already been used in encapsulated purposes. There are a number of homes in the Tar Creek area that have used chat in the construction of their home foundation. Are there any data on household measures of Zn, Pb, and Cd at these homes that will inform us as to the long term integrity of metals in encapsulated uses? Again, this type of study would go beyond the reliance on TCLP tests, which represent only one pathway through which metals in chat may come off of encapsulated material.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47145-47148]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19004]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1030]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Food Allergen Labeling and Reporting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on our proposed collection of certain
information. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA),
Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register
concerning each proposed collection of information and to allow 60 days
for public comment in response to the notice. This notice invites
comments on the information collection provisions of the labeling
requirements for major food allergens in the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) and the information collection provisions
of the draft guidance entitled, ``Draft Guidance for Industry: Food
Allergen Labeling Exemption Petitions and Notifications.''

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by October 14, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information before
submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this
requirement, we are publishing notice of the proposed collection of
information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, we invite
comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of our functions,
including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the
accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on respondents, including through the use of
automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of
information technology.

Food Allergen Labeling and Reporting--(OMB Control Number 0910-NEW)

I. Background

    The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004
(FALCPA) (Title II, Pub. L. 108-282) amended the FD&C Act by defining
the term ``major food allergen'' and stating that foods regulated under
the FD&C Act are misbranded unless they declare the presence of each
major food allergen on the product label using the name of the food
source from which the major food allergen is derived. Section 403(w)(1)
of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343(w)(1)) sets forth the requirements for
declaring the presence of each major food allergen on the product
label. Section 201(qq) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(qq)) defines a
major food allergen as ``[m]ilk, egg, fish (e.g., bass, flounder, or
cod), Crustacean shellfish (e.g., crab, lobster, or shrimp), tree nuts
(e.g., almonds, pecans, or walnuts), wheat, peanuts, and soybeans'' and
also as a food ingredient that contains protein derived from such
foods. The definition excludes any highly refined oil derived from a
major food allergen and any ingredient derived from such highly refined
oil.
    In some cases, the production of an ingredient derived from a major
food allergen may alter or eliminate the allergenic proteins in that
derived ingredient to such an extent that it does not contain
allergenic protein. In addition, a major food allergen may be used as
an ingredient or as a component of an ingredient such that the level of
allergenic protein in finished food products does not cause an allergic
response that poses a risk to human health. Therefore, FALCPA provides
two mechanisms through which such ingredients may become exempt from
the labeling requirement of section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act. An
ingredient may obtain an exemption through submission and approval of a
petition containing scientific evidence that demonstrates that the
ingredient ``does not cause an allergic response that poses a risk to
human health'' (section 403(w)(6) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
343(w)(6)). Alternately, an ingredient may become exempt through
submission of a notification containing scientific evidence showing
that the ingredient ``does not contain allergenic protein'' or that
there has been a previous determination through a premarket approval
process under section 409 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 348) that the
ingredient ``does not cause an allergic response that poses a risk to
human health'' (section 403(w)(7) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
343(w)(7)).

    In the Federal Register of May 8, 2014 (79 FR 26435), we published
a notice of availability for the draft guidance document entitled,
``Draft Guidance for Industry: Food Allergen Labeling Exemption
Petitions and Notifications.'' This draft guidance is intended to help
industry prepare petitions and notifications seeking exemptions from
the labeling requirements for ingredients derived from major food
allergens. Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance
at http://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances.

II. Analysis of the Proposed Information Collection

    The proposed information collection seeks OMB approval of the third
party disclosure requirements of food allergen labeling under section
403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act, as well as OMB approval of the reporting
associated with the submission of petitions and notifications seeking
exemptions from the labeling requirements for ingredients derived from
major food allergens under section 403(w)(6) and (7) of the FD&C Act.
A. Third Party Disclosure
    The labeling requirements of section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act
apply to all packaged foods sold in the United States that are
regulated under the FD&C Act, including both domestically manufactured
and imported foods. As noted, section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act
requires that the label of a food product declare the presence of each
major food allergen. We estimate the information collection burden of
the third party disclosure associated with food allergen labeling under
section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act as the time needed for a manufacturer
to review the labels of new or reformulated products for compliance
with the requirements of section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act and the time
needed to make any needed modifications to the labels of those
products.
    The primary user of the allergen information disclosed on the label
or labeling of food products is the consumer that purchases the food
product. Consumers will use the information to help them make choices
concerning their purchase of a food product, including choices related
to substances that the consumer wishes to avoid due to their potential
to cause adverse reactions. Additionally, we intend to use the
information to determine whether a manufacturer or other supplier of
food products is meeting its statutory obligations. Failure of a
manufacturer or other supplier of food products to label its products
in compliance with section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act may result in a
product being misbranded under the FD&C Act and the manufacturer or
packer and the product subject to regulatory action.
    Description of respondents: The respondents to this collection of
information are manufacturers and packers of packaged foods sold in the
United States.
    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                               Table 1--Estimated Annual Third Party Disclosure Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Number of
                    FD&C Act section                         Number of      disclosures    Total annual     Avg. burden     Total hours    Total capital
                                                            respondents   per respondent    disclosures   per disclosure                       costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
403(w)(1); review labels for compliance with food                 77,500               1          77,500               1          77,500               0
 allergen labeling requirements.........................
403(w)(1); redesign labels to comply with food allergen            3,875               1           3,875              16          62,000      $7,071,875
 labeling requirements..................................
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         139,500      $7,071,875
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    We used our labeling cost model (Ref. 1) to estimate the number of
new or reformulated products sold in the United States, annually, that
are affected by the requirements of section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We estimate that there are approximately 690,000 Universal Product
Codes (UPCs) of FDA-regulated foods and approximately 85,000 UPCs of
FDA-regulated dietary supplements for a total of 775,000 UPCs (Ref. 1).
Using our labeling cost model, we estimate the entry rate of new UPCs
to be approximately 8 percent per year. Based on the approximate entry
rate of new UPCs, we estimate the rate of new or reformulated UPCs to
be approximately 10 percent per year, or 77,500 products (775,000 x 10
percent). Thus, we estimate that, annually, 77,500 new or reformulated
products are sold in the United States. Assuming an association of one
respondent to each of the 77,500 new or reformulated products, we
estimate that 77,500 respondents will each review the label of one of
the 77,500 new or reformulated products, as reported in table 1, row 1.
We have no data on how many label reviews would identify the need to
redesign the label. Therefore, we further estimate, for the purposes of
this analysis, that 5 percent of the reviewed labels of new or
reformulated products, or 3,875 labels (77,500 x 5 percent) would need
to be redesigned to comply with the requirements of section 403(w)(1)
of the FD&C Act. Assuming an association of one respondent to each of
the 3,875 labels, we estimate that 3,875 respondents will each redesign
one label, as reported in table 1, row 2.
    Our estimate of the average burdens per disclosure reported in
table 1 is based on our experience with food labeling and our labeling
cost model. We estimate the average burden for the review of labels for
compliance with the food allergen labeling requirements under section
403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act to be 1 hour. Consequently, the burden of
reviewing the labels of new or reformulated products is 77,500 hours,
as reported in table 1. Using our labeling cost model, we estimate that
it takes an average of 16 hours to complete the administration and
internal design work for the redesign of a label to comply with the
food allergen labeling requirements under section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C
Act. Consequently, the burden of redesigning the 3,875 labels of new or
reformulated products is 62,000 hours, as reported in table 1.
    Using our labeling cost model, we estimate the capital cost to be
$1,825 per label for external design services for the redesign of a
label. Consequently for 3,875 labels, the total capital costs are
$7,071,875 (3,875 labels x $1,825 per label), as reported in table 1.
B. Reporting
    Under sections 403(w)(6) and (7) of the FD&C Act, interested
parties may

request from us a determination that an ingredient is exempt from the
labeling requirement of section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act. An
ingredient may obtain an exemption through submission and approval of a
petition containing scientific evidence that demonstrates that the
ingredient ``does not cause an allergic response that poses a risk to
human health'' (section 403(w)(6) of the FD&C Act). This section also
states that ``the burden shall be on the petitioner to provide
scientific evidence (including the analytical method used to produce
the evidence) that demonstrates that such food ingredient, as derived
by the method specified in the petition, does not cause an allergic
response that poses a risk to human health.'' Alternately, an
ingredient may become exempt through submission of a notification
containing scientific evidence showing that the ingredient ``does not
contain allergenic protein'' or that there has been a previous
determination through a premarket approval process under section 409 of
the FD&C Act that the ingredient ``does not cause an allergic response
that poses a risk to human health'' (section 403(w)(7) of the FD&C
Act).
    Our draft guidance document entitled, ``Draft Guidance for
Industry: Food Allergen Labeling Exemption Petitions and
Notifications,'' sets forth our recommendations with regard to the
information that an interested party should submit in such a petition
or notification. The draft guidance states that to evaluate these
petitions and notifications, we will consider scientific evidence that
describes:
    1. The identity or composition of the ingredient;
    2. The methods used to produce the ingredient;
    3. The methods used to characterize the ingredient;
    4. The intended use of the ingredient in food; and either
    5. a. For a petition, data and information, including the expected
level of consumer exposure to the ingredient, that demonstrate that the
ingredient when manufactured and used as described does not cause an
allergic response that poses a risk to human health; or
    5. b. For a notification, data and information that demonstrate
that the ingredient when manufactured as described does not contain
allergenic protein, or documentation of a previous determination under
a process under section 409 of the FD&C Act that the ingredient does
not cause an allergic response that poses a risk to human health.
    We will use the information submitted in the petition or
notification to determine whether the ingredient satisfies the criteria
of sections 403(w)(6) and (7) of the FD&C Act for granting the
exemption.
    Description of respondents: The respondents to this collection of
information are manufacturers and packers of packaged foods sold in the
United States that seek an exemption from the labeling requirement of
section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act.
    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 2--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of
        FD&C Act section             Number of     responses per   Total annual   Average burden    Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses     per response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
403(w)(6); petition for                        5               1               5             100             500
 exemption......................
403(w)(7); notification.........               5               1               5              68             340
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             840
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Based on the number of petitions and notifications received in
recent years, we estimate that we will receive an average of five
petitions and five notifications annually, over the next 3 years.
Assuming an association of one respondent to each petition or
notification, we estimate that five respondents will each submit one
petition and five respondents will each submit one notification, as
reported in table 2, rows 1 and 2.
    We base our estimate of the average burdens per response reported
in table 2 on our experience with other petition processes. We estimate
that a petition would take, on average, 100 hours to develop and submit
(Ref. 2). Therefore, we estimate that the burden associated with
petitions will be 500 hours annually (5 petitions x 100 hours per
petition).
    The burden of a notification involves collecting documentation that
a food ingredient does not pose an allergen risk. Either we can make a
determination that the ingredient does not cause an allergic response
that poses a risk to human health under a premarket approval or
notification program under section 409 of the FD&C Act, or the
respondent would submit scientific evidence demonstrating that the
ingredient when manufactured as described does not contain allergenic
protein. We estimate that it would take a respondent 20 hours to
prepare and submit a notification based on our determination under a
process under section 409 of the FD&C Act that the ingredient does not
cause an allergic response. We estimate that it would take a respondent
approximately 100 hours to prepare a notification submitting scientific
evidence (including the analytical method used) that demonstrates that
the food ingredient (as derived by the method specified in the
notification, where applicable) does not contain allergenic protein. We
have no data on how many notifications would be based on our
determination that the ingredient does not cause an allergic response
or based on scientific evidence that demonstrates that the food
ingredient does not contain allergenic protein. Therefore, we estimate
that three of the five notifications would be based on scientific
evidence, and two of the five notifications would be based on our
determination. The average time per notification is then estimated to
be 68 hours (2 x 20 hours + 3 x 100 hours)/5). Therefore, we estimate
that the burden associated with notifications will be 340 hours
annually (5 notifications x 68 hours per notification), as reported in
table 2.

III. References

    The following references have been placed on display in the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    1. RTI International. ``Model to Estimate Costs of Using
Labeling as a Risk Reduction Strategy for Consumer Products
Regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, Final

Report.'' Prepared for Andrew Stivers, FDA/CFSAN. Prepared by Muth,
M., M. Ball, M. Coglaiti, and S. Karns. RTI Project Number
0211460.005. March, 2011.
    2. Gendel, Steven M. ``Food Allergen Petitions and
Notifications,'' Memorandum to File. August 8, 2011.

    Dated: August 6, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-19004 Filed 8-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 2 (Thursday, January 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 332-333]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31570]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68542; File No. SR-ICEEU-2012-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related
to SPAN Margin Methodology Enhancements to Inter-Contract Credits and
Average Option Pricing Model for Energy Clearing Members

December 27, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 19, 2012, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared primarily by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear
Europe filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the
Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) thereunder,\4\ so that the proposal
was effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The purpose of the change is to implement changes to the
SPAN[supreg] for ICE Margining algorithm employed to calculate Original
Margin (``Margin'') on Clearing Member positions. All capitalized terms
not defined herein are defined in the ICE Clear Europe Rules.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe included
statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule
change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule
change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places
specified in Item IV below. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of these statements.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by ICE Clear Europe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In addition to providing clearing services for credit default
swaps, ICE Clear Europe also provides clearing services for non-
securities contracts in energy and emissions markets (``Energy Futures
Products''). Position Allocation Methodology is an enhancement to the
SPAN[supreg] \6\ for the ICE Margining algorithm employed to calculate
Original Margin for certain Energy Futures Products. This feature is
applied for certain Energy Futures Products where the position in such
a product can be better represented as one or more positions in
alternate products for the purposes of calculating Original Margin.
This Position Allocation Methodology will result in new enhanced
positions, but the SPAN margin calculation algorithm itself has not
been changed. These changes will impact both the algorithm employed and
the format of SPAN for ICE Array Files (``SPAN Array Files'') published
by ICE Clear Europe and will necessitate changes to the applications
used by Energy Clearing Members to calculate margin on their
Proprietary and Customer positions. ICE Clear Europe has updated the
original technical specification, at the request of Clearing Members,
in order to provide further clarification and examples relating to
implementation of Volatility Credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ SPAN is a registered trademark of Chicago Mercantile
Exchange Inc., used herein under license. Chicago Mercantile
Exchange Inc. assumes no responsibility in connection with the use
of SPAN by any person or entity. SPAN is a risk evaluation and
margin framework algorithm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As of April 2, 2012, a change to the calculation of the inter-
contract credit that implements an additional credit, the Volatility
Credit, was made. The change to the Inter-Contract Credit algorithm
yields an additional credit that is included in the existing inter-
contract credit. Since April 2, 2012, the SPAN Arrays published by ICE
Clear Europe include the Volatility Risk Credit Rate (the Offset Rate)
within the type 14 records.
    Since March 30 2012, the Volatility Credit is introduced in respect
of the following SPAN Combined Contract pairings:
     BRN/BSP, Brent Futures/Brent Option vs. Brent First Line
Swap/Brent Average Price Option.
     GAS/GSP, Gas Oil Futures/Gas Oil Option vs. Gas Oil Front
Line Swap/Gas Oil Average Price Option.
     ULS/ULA, Low-Sulphur Gas Oil Futures/Low Sulphur Gas Oil
Option vs. Low Sulphur Gas Oil Front Line Swap/Low-Sulphur Gas Oil
Average Price Option.
     WBS/WSP, WTI Future/WTI Option vs. WTI First Line Swap/WTI
Average Price Option.
    Going forward, ICE Clear Europe will notify Clearing Members of the
applicable Volatility Credit rates in due course. Inter-contract
spreads in respect of all other products are unaffected.
    At end of day on April 6, 2012, the Clearing House enabled the
Average Price Option model for Options on Brent, Gas Oil, Low-Sulphur
Gas Oil and WTI First Line Swaps (Commodity Codes I, GSP, ULA and R).
    As of April 9, 2012, a modified Black 76 pricing model has been
used to determine scanning losses in respect of Average Price Options.
This model reflects the risk reduction inherent within these options
during the averaging period prior to final settlement. This change has
no impact on Clearing Member systems as this change is reflected within
the SPAN Array Files and requires no changes to any software or
algorithms within the SPAN methodology.
    All updated SPAN[supreg] margin parameters can be found at: https://www.theice.com/clear_europe_span_parameters.jhtml.
    ICE Clear Europe has also published test SPAN Array Files
conforming to the new SPAN Array File Format, v2.5, which incorporates
credit rates in respect of the product pairings identified above. The
test files are available from the file download service (AFTS) and are
located in the ``/test'' sub-directory of the standard SPAN Array
download location on AFTS.
    These files are named according to the test file naming convention
below:
    IPEmmddT.csv.zip or IPEmmddT.sp5.zip, where,
     mmdd represents the business month and day;
     The sp5 file is of the same format as the pa5 format file
that Members might download from the CME ftp site.
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \7\ 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. ICE
Clear Europe believes that the proposed change with respect to Energy
Futures Products is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to ICE Clear Europe, in
particular, with Section 17A(b)(3)(F),\8\ because improved margining
protects investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed change would have
any impact, or impose any burden, on competition.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed change have not been
solicited or received. ICE Clear Europe will notify the Commission of
any written comments received by ICE Clear Europe.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii)
\10\ thereunder because it primarily affects the futures clearing
operations of the clearing agency with respect to futures that are not
security futures, and does not significantly affect any securities
clearing operations of the clearing agency or any related rights or
obligations of the clearing agency or persons using such service. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICEEU-2012-20 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-ICEEU-2012-20. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Europe
and on ICE Clear Europe's Web site at https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/regulatory_filings/ICEU_SEC_121912_2012-20.pdf.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2012-20
and should be submitted on or before January 24, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-31570 Filed 1-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 184 (Friday, September 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47917-47918]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20553]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2883-009]

Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions
To Intervene and Protests: Aquenergy Systems, LLC

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2883-009.
    c. Date filed: May 30, 2018.
    d. Applicant: Aquenergy Systems, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Fries Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the New River in the Town of Fries, Grayson County,
Virginia. No federal lands are occupied by the project works or located
within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Beth E. Harris, P.E., Southeast Regional
Manager, Enel Green Power North America, Inc., 11 Anderson Street,
Piedmont, SC 29673, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 100, Email:

[email protected], or Mr. Kevin Webb, Hydro Licensing Manager, Enel
Green Power North America, Inc., 100 Brickstone Square, Suite 300,
Andover, MA 01810, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email: [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Brandi Sangunett, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests: November
13, 2018.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and protests using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-
3676 (toll free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic
filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The
first page of any filing should include docket number P-2883-009.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted, but is not ready for
environmental analysis at this time.
    l. The existing Fries Hydroelectric Project (Fries Project)
consists of: (1) A 41-foot-high, 610-foot-long rock masonry dam with a
500-foot-long spillway; (2) an 88-acre impoundment at the normal pool
elevation (spillway crest elevation) of 2,188.27 feet National Geodetic
Vertical Datum of 1929; (3) an approximately 750-foot-long, 110- foot-
wide intake canal with four 15.5-foot-high, 6.5-foot-wide headgates;
(4) a canal spillway consisting of 10 stoplog bays totaling 47 feet in
length; (5) two 12.5-foot-high, 5.0-foot-wide canal gates; (6) a steel
powerhouse that contains a single vertical Kaplan turbine with a
capacity of 2.1 megawatts (MW) that discharges into a 180-foot-long,
75-foot-wide, 12-foot-deep tailrace; (7) a masonry powerhouse that
contains one vertical and two horizontal Francis turbines with a total
capacity of 3.0 MW that discharges into a 180-foot-long, 120-foot-wide,
12-foot-deep tailrace; (8) a 500-foot-long, 450-foot-wide bypassed
reach that extends from the toe of the dam to the confluence with the
tailraces; (9) a 567-foot-long, 13.2-kilovolt (kV) transmission line
that runs from the steel powerhouse to the interconnection point with
the grid; (10) a 130-foot-long transmission line that connects the
masonry powerhouse to a 5,000 kilovolt-amp step-up transformer and an
additional 323-foot-long, 13.2-kV transmission line leading from the
transformer to the interconnection point; and (11) appurtenant
facilities.
    The Fries Project is operated in a run-of-river mode. For the
period 2003 through 2016, the average annual generation at the Fries
Project was 26,150 megawatt-hours.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of the Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the
appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified deadline date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title PROTEST
or MOTION TO INTERVENE; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain
copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any
protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative
of the applicant specified in the particular application.

    Dated: September 14, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-20553 Filed 9-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


" Otis, Lee" < Lee. Otis@ hq. doe. gov> 08/ 25/ 2003 12: 44 AM To: Bill Wehrum/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: "' Paul_ R._ Noe@ omb. eop. gov '" < Paul_ R._ Noe@ omb. eop. gov> Subject: legal analysis 2 files attached  legal theory2. wpd and legal theory 2 redlined. wpd ( 2 attached files are local in 2 separate docket entries)


[Federal Register: August 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 164)]
[Notices]
[Page 49667]
[DOCID:fr22au08-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR08-15-002]

Energy Transfer Fuel, LP; Notice of Compliance Filing

August 14, 2008.
    Take notice that on August 11, 2008, Energy Transfer Fuel, LP filed
a Statement of Operating Conditions pursuant to section 284.123(e) of
the Commission's regulations and to comply with the July 11, 2008,
order issued in Docket Nos. PR08-15-000 and PR08-15-001.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment date is: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 22, 2008.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-19469 Filed 8-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 141 (Friday, July 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44030-44031]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18462]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1988-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Oklahoma; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-1988-DR), dated May 27, 2011,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 27, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, 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, in a letter
dated May 27, 2011, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Oklahoma resulting from severe storms and flooding during the
period of April 21-28, 2011, is of sufficient severity and magnitude
to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the State of Oklahoma.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, William J. Doran III, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Oklahoma have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Adair, Cherokee, Delaware, Haskell, Le Flore, McIntosh,
Muskogee, Okmulgee, Pittsburg, and Sequoyah Counties for Public
Assistance.

    All counties within the State of Oklahoma are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA);

97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing
Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared
Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and
Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,
Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-18462 Filed 7-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60937-60939]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24019]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70530; File No. 4-631]

Joint Industry Plan; Order Approving the Fifth Amendment to the
National Market System Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility
by BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange,
Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, The Nasdaq Stock Market
LLC, National Stock Exchange, Inc., New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE
MKT LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc.

September 26, 2013.

1. Introduction

    On July 18, 2013, NYSE Euronext, on behalf of New York Stock
Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT''), and NYSE Arca,
Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), and the following parties to the National Market
System Plan: BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA
Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, the Nasdaq
Stock Market LLC, and National Stock Exchange, Inc. (collectively with
NYSE, NYSE MKT, and NYSE Arca, the ``Participants''), filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') pursuant to Section
11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 608
thereunder,\2\ a proposal to amend the Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility (``Plan'').\3\ The proposal represents the fifth
amendment to the Plan (``Fifth Amendment''), and reflects changes
unanimously approved by the Participants. The Fifth Amendment to the
Plan: (i) Provides that, if a Trading Pause is triggered in the last
ten minutes of trading before the end of Regular Trading Hours, then
the NMS Stock shall not reopen for continuous trading and shall close
pursuant to established closing procedures of the Primary Listing
Exchange; and (ii) revises the definition of which Exchange Traded
Products (``ETPs'') are eligible to be included in the list of Tier 1
NMS Stocks under the Plan. The Fifth Amendment was published for
comment in the Federal Register on September 3, 2013.\4\ The Commission
received no comments letter in response to the Notice. This order
approves the Fifth Amendment to the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ See Letter from Janet M. McGinness, Executive Vice President
& Corporate Secretary, NYSE Euronext, to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Commission, dated July 18, 2013 (``Transmittal Letter'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70274 (August 27,
2013), 78 FR 54305 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

A. Purpose of the Plan

    The Participants filed the Plan in order to create a market-wide
limit up-limit down mechanism that is intended to address extraordinary
market volatility in ``NMS Stocks,'' as defined in Rule 600(b)(47) of
Regulation NMS under the Act.\5\ The Plan sets forth procedures that
provide for market-wide limit up-limit down requirements that would be
designed to prevent trades in individual NMS Stocks from occurring
outside of the specified price bands.\6\ These limit up-limit down
requirements would be coupled with Trading Pauses, as defined in
Section I(Y) of the Plan, to accommodate more fundamental price moves
(as opposed to erroneous trades or momentary gaps in liquidity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47). See also Section I(H) of the Plan.
    \6\ See Section V of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As set forth in Section V of the Plan, the price bands would
consist of a Lower Price Band and an Upper Price Band for each NMS
Stock.\7\ The price bands would be calculated by the Securities
Information Processors (``SIPs'' or ``Processors'') responsible for
consolidation of information for an NMS Stock pursuant to Rule 603(b)
of Regulation NMS under the Act.\8\ Those price bands would be based on
a Reference Price \9\ for each NMS Stock that equals the arithmetic
mean price of Eligible Reported Transactions for the NMS Stock over the
immediately preceding five-minute period. The price bands for an NMS
Stock would be calculated by applying the Percentage Parameter for such
NMS Stock to the Reference Price, with the Lower Price Band being a
Percentage Parameter \10\ below the Reference Price, and the Upper
Price Band being a Percentage Parameter above the Reference Price.
Between 9:30 a.m. and 9:45 a.m. ET and 3:35 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. ET, the
price bands would be calculated by applying double the Percentage
Parameters as set forth in Appendix A of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined
shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Plan.
    \8\ 17 CFR 242.603(b). The Plan refers to this entity as the
Processor.
    \9\ See Section I(T) of the Plan.
    \10\ As initially proposed by the Participants, the Percentage
Parameters for Tier 1 NMS Stocks (i.e., stocks in the S&P 500 Index
or Russell 1000 Index and certain ETPs) with a Reference Price of
$1.00 or more would be five percent and less than $1.00 would be the
lesser of (a) $0.15 or (b) 75 percent. The Percentage Parameters for
Tier 2 NMS Stocks (i.e., all NMS Stocks other than those in Tier 1)
with a Reference Price of $1.00 or more would be 10 percent and less
than $1.00 would be the lesser of (a) $0.15 or (b) 75 percent. The
Percentage Parameters for a Tier 2 NMS Stock that is a leveraged ETP
would be the applicable Percentage Parameter set forth above
multiplied by the leverage ratio of such product. On May 24, 2012,
the Participants amended the Plan to create a 20% price band for
Tier 1 and Tier 2 stocks with a Reference Price of $0.75 or more and
up to and including $3.00. The Percentage Parameter for stocks with
a Reference Price below $0.75 would be the lesser of (a) $0.15 or
(b) 75 percent. See Letter from Janet M. McGinness, Senior Vice
President, Legal and Corporate Secretary, NYSE Euronext, to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated May 24, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Processors would also calculate a Pro-Forma Reference Price for
each NMS Stock on a continuous basis during Regular Trading Hours. If a
Pro-Forma Reference Price did not move by one percent or more from the
Reference Price in effect, no new price bands would be disseminated,
and the current Reference Price would remain the effective Reference
Price. If the Pro-Forma Reference Price moved by one percent or more
from the Reference Price in effect, the Pro-Forma Reference Price would
become the Reference Price, and the Processors would disseminate new
price bands based on

the new Reference Price. Each new Reference Price would remain in
effect for at least 30 seconds.
    When one side of the market for an individual security is outside
the applicable price band, the Processors would be required to
disseminate such National Best Bid \11\ or National Best Offer \12\
with an appropriate flag identifying it as non-executable. When the
other side of the market reaches the applicable price band, the market
for an individual security would enter a Limit State,\13\ and the
Processors would be required to disseminate such National Best Offer or
National Best Bid with an appropriate flag identifying it as a Limit
State Quotation.\14\ All trading would immediately enter a Limit State
if the National Best Offer equals the Lower Limit Band and does not
cross the National Best Bid, or the National Best Bid equals the Upper
Limit Band and does not cross the National Best Offer. Trading for an
NMS Stock would exit a Limit State if, within 15 seconds of entering
the Limit State, all Limit State Quotations were executed or canceled
in their entirety. If the market did not exit a Limit State within 15
seconds, then the Primary Listing Exchange would declare a five-minute
Trading Pause, which would be applicable to all markets trading the
security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 242.600(b)(42). See also Section I(G) of the Plan.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ A stock enters the Limit State if the National Best Offer
equals the Lower Price Band and does not cross the National Best
Bid, or the National Best Bid equals the Upper Price Band and does
not cross the National Best Offer. See Section VI(B) of the Plan.
    \14\ See Section I(D) of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These limit up-limit down requirements would be coupled with
Trading Pauses \15\ to accommodate more fundamental price moves (as
opposed to erroneous trades or momentary gaps in liquidity). As set
forth in more detail in the Plan, all trading centers \16\ in NMS
Stocks, including both those operated by Participants and those
operated by members of Participants, would be required to establish,
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to comply with the limit up-limit down and Trading
Pause requirements specified in the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The primary listing market would declare a Trading Pause in
an NMS Stock; upon notification by the primary listing market, the
Processor would disseminate this information to the public. No
trades in that NMS Stock could occur during the Trading Pause, but
all bids and offers may be displayed. See Section VII(A) of the
Plan.
    \16\ As defined in Section I(X) of the Plan, a trading center
shall have the meaning provided in Rule 600(b)(78) of Regulation NMS
under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Plan, all trading centers would be required to establish,
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to prevent the display of offers below the Lower Price Band
and bids above the Upper Price Band for an NMS Stock. The Processors
would disseminate an offer below the Lower Price Band or bid above the
Upper Price Band that nevertheless inadvertently may be submitted
despite such reasonable policies and procedures, but with an
appropriate flag identifying it as non-executable; such bid or offer
would not be included in National Best Bid or National Best Offer
calculations. In addition, all trading centers would be required to
develop, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures reasonably
designed to prevent trades at prices outside the price bands, with the
exception of single-priced opening, reopening, and closing transactions
on the Primary Listing Exchange.
    As stated by the Participants in the Plan, the limit up-limit down
mechanism is intended to reduce the negative impacts of sudden,
unanticipated price movements in NMS Stocks,\17\ thereby protecting
investors and promoting a fair and orderly market.\18\ In particular,
the Plan is designed to address the type of sudden price movements that
the market experienced on the afternoon of May 6, 2010.\19\ The initial
date of Plan operations was April 8, 2013.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47).
    \18\ See Transmittal Letter, supra note 3.
    \19\ The limit up-limit down mechanism set forth in the Plan
would replace the existing single-stock circuit breaker pilot. See
e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62251 (June 10, 2010), 75
FR 34183 (June 16, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-025); 62883 (September 10,
2010), 75 FR 56608 (September 16, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-033).
    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68953 (February 20,
2013), 78 FR 13113 (February 26, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Fifth Amendment to the Plan

    The Fifth Amendment proposes two changes to the Plan. First, the
Participants propose to amend Section VII(C)(1) of the Plan to provide
that if a Trading Pause is declared for an NMS Stock in the last ten
minutes of trading before the end of Regular Trading Hours, the Primary
Listing Exchange shall not reopen for trading and shall attempt to
execute a closing transaction using its established closing procedures.
Second, the Participants propose to amend Section I of Appendix A of
the Plan to revise the definition of which ETPs are eligible to be
included in the list of Tier 1 NMS Stocks under the Plan. The
Commission received no comment letters in response to the Notice.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Participants noted that they developed the proposal to
amend Section VII(C)(1) of the Plan based on feedback from SIFMA and
other market participants. The Participants also noted that SIFMA
raised issues concerning how the Plan operates at the close in its
comment letter on the initial filing of the Plan. See Letter from
Ann L. Vlcek, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel,
SIFMA, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission dated June 22,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the Fifth Amendment
is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder.\22\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the
Fifth Amendment is consistent with Section 11A of the Act \23\ and Rule
608 thereunder \24\ in that it is appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets, removes impediments to, and perfects the mechanism of, a
national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In approving the Fifth Amendment, the Commission has
considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \24\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Participants proposed to amend Section VII(C)(1) of the
Plan to provide that if a Trading Pause is declared for an NMS Stock in
the last ten minutes of trading before the end of Regular Trading
Hours, the Primary Listing Exchange shall not reopen for trading and
shall attempt to execute a closing transaction using its established
closing procedures.\25\ The Participants believe that reopening trading
in a security within five minutes of the closing transaction could
introduce additional volatility into trading for that particular
symbol. The Participants stated that it would be more prudent to use
the time during the Trading Pause and the period preceding the end of
Regular Trading Hours for interest to be entered for the closing
auction, rather than to hold a reopening auction that would be followed
shortly by a closing auction. According to the Participants, holding
two auctions so near in time may introduce additional uncertainty into
the market as market participants may not want to enter interest for a

reopening auction if the security is going to close shortly thereafter.
This may cause price dislocations, uncertainty of executions, and added
confusion during an already volatile period.\26\ Based on the
Participants' statements, the Commission believes the proposal to amend
Section VII(C)(1) of the Plan is consistent with with Section 11A of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Section VII(C) of the Plan currently addresses only the
situation of when a Trading Pause is declared less than five minutes
before the end of Regular Trading Hours. In such case, because a
Trading Pause is a minimum of five minutes and trading would not
reopen, the Plan contemplates that the Primary Listing Exchange
shall attempt a closing transaction using its established closing
procedures.
    \26\ The Participants noted that Primary Listing Exchanges will
be filing proposed rule changes with the Commission to update their
respective closing procedures to address the ability to permit
additional interest to be entered for the purpose of a closing
auction if there is a Trading Pause declared near the end of Regular
Trading Hours. See Notice, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Participants propose to amend Section I of Appendix A
of the Plan to revise the definition of which ETPs are eligible to be
included in the list of Tier 1 NMS Stocks under the Plan by deleting
the following language: ``To ensure that ETPs that track similar
benchmarks but that do not meet this volume criterion do not become
subject to pricing volatility when a component security is the subject
of a Trading Pause, non-leveraged ETPs that have traded below this
volume criterion, but that track the same benchmark as an ETP that does
meet the volume criterion, will be deemed eligible to be included as a
Tier 1 NMS Stock.'' The Participants note that based on experience thus
far with the Plan, certain thinly traded ETPs with wide quotes that are
included as Tier 1 NMS Stocks because they track an index of an ETP
that meets the volume criterion are triggering Trading Pauses.\27\
These Trading Pauses are triggered because of bids or offers that cross
the Price Band rather than because of an execution of a trade in the
underlying security. This results in certain ETPs that have not traded
during the day triggering Trading Pauses and requiring a reopening
auction process, despite the lack of trading in that security.\28\ The
amendment to Section I of Appendix A will reduce the potential for
certain thinly-traded NMS Stock in Tier 1 that have not experienced any
trading volatility to be halted and then have to go through a reopening
auction process. Based on the Participants' statements, the Commission
believes that the proposal to amend Section I of Appendix A of the Plan
is consistent with Section 11A of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The Participants noted that since the initial date of Plan
operations through to July 8, 2013, there have been 32 Trading
Pauses in NYSE Arca-listed securities triggered pursuant to the
Plan. These Trading Pauses have been in only ten NMS Stocks, some
more than once a day, and all are ETPs with less than $2,000,000
notional ADV. The symbols are BXDB, BDG, GIY, VIOO, BOS, SAGG, IELG,
IESM, HUSE, and GMTB. See id.
    \28\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission reiterates its expectation that the Participants
will continue to monitor the scope and operation of the Plan and study
the data produced during that time with respect to such issues, and
will propose any modifications to the Plan that may be necessary or
appropriate.\29\ Similarly, the Commission expects that the
Participants will propose any modifications to the Plan that may be
necessary or appropriate in response to the data being gathered by the
Participants during the pilot period, including any proposed changes to
thinly-traded NMS Stocks in Tier 2 that have not experienced any
trading volatility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that the Fifth Amendment to the
Plan is consistent with Section 11A of the Act \30\ and Rule 608
thereunder.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \31\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act \32\
and Rule 608 thereunder, \33\ that the Fifth Amendment to the Plan
(File No. 4-631) be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \33\ 17 CFR 242.608.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. 2013-24019 Filed 10-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19336-19337]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08321]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2015-0009; OMB No. 1660-0083]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Application for Community Disaster Loan (CDL) Program.

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved
information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the Community Disaster
Loan (CDL) Program. This collection allows the government to make loans
to communities that have suffered economic problems due to disasters.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 9, 2015.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2015-0009. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 8NE, Washington, DC
20472-3100.
    (3) Facsimile. Submit comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Polanco, Assistant Program
Manager, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Public Assistance Division,
(202) 212-5761. You may contact the Records Management Division for
copies of the proposed collection of information at facsimile number
(202) 212-4701 or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Community Disaster Loan (CDL) Program is
authorized by Section 417 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
5184, and implementing regulations at 44 CFR subpart K. The Assistant
Administrator may make a CDL to any local government which has suffered
a substantial loss of tax or other revenues as a result of a major
disaster or emergency and which demonstrates a need for Federal
financial assistance in order to perform its governmental functions.
Local governments may indicate interest in acquiring a Community
Disaster Loan by contacting their Governor's Authorized Representative.
The Governor's Authorized Representative submits a letter to FEMA
requesting the Community Disaster Loan Program for their State.

Collection of Information

    Title: Application for Community Disaster Loan (CDL) Program.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0083.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 090-0-1, Certification of
Eligibility for Community Disaster Loans; FEMA Form 116-0-1, Promissory
Note; FEMA Form 085-0-1, Local Government Resolution--Collateral
Security; FEMA Form 090-0-2, Application for Community Disaster Loan.
    Abstract: The loan package for the CDL Program provides Local and
Tribal governments that have suffered substantial loss of tax or other
revenues as a result of a major disaster or emergency, the opportunity
to obtain financial assistance in order to perform their governmental
functions. The loan must be justified on the basis of need and actual
expenses.
    Affected Public: State, local or Tribal Government.
    Number of Respondents: 50.
    Number of Responses: 300.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 975 hours.

                                                                           Estimated Annualized Burden Hours and Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average
                                                                                Number of       Number of     Total number     burden per     Total annual      Avgerage      Total annual
              Type of respondent                      Form name/form number         respondents    responses per   of responses    response  (in    burden  (in     hourly wage     respondent
                                                                                respondent                        hours)          hours)           rate            cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Local or Tribal Government.............  Certification of Eligibility for              50               1              50           2.5 *             125          $64.34       $8,042.50
                                                 Community Disaster Loans/FEMA
                                                 Form 090-0-1.
State, Local or Tribal Government.............  Promissory Note/FEMA Form 116-0-              50               1              50               4             200           64.34       12,868.00
                                                 1.

State, Local or Tribal Government.............  Local Government Resolution--                 50               1              50              10             500           64.34       32,170.00
                                                 Collateral Security/FEMA Form
                                                 085-0-1.
State, Local or Tribal Government.............  Application for Community                     50               1              50               1              50           64.34        3,217.00
                                                 Disaster Loan/FEMA Form 090-0-2.
State, Local or Tribal Government.............  Annual Financial Report.........              50               1              50               1              50          43. 81        2,190.50
State, Local or Tribal Government.............  Letter of Application...........              50               1              50               1              50           64.34        3,217.00
                                                                                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................  ................................              50  ..............             300  ..............             975  ..............       61,705.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Note: The ``Avg. Hourly Wage Rate'' for each respondent includes a 1.4 multiplier to reflect a fully-loaded wage rate.
* (150 Mins.)

    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $61,705.00. There are no annual costs to respondents'
operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There are no
annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is
$1,010,692.92.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: April 3, 2015.
Janice Waller,
Acting Director, Records Management Division, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mission
Support.
[FR Doc. 2015-08321 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P