[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49040-49044]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19984]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67633; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-104]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Pricing in Select Symbols and Multiply Listed Options

August 9, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that, on August 1, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section I of the Exchange's Pricing
Schedule titled ``Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in
Select Symbols,'' to amend various Select Symbols,\3\ increase certain
Complex Order \4\ Rebates for Adding Liquidity, eliminate the Complex
Order

Fees for Adding Liquidity, increase certain Complex Order Fees for
Removing Liquidity, and eliminate a discount applicable to Customer
Complex Order Rebates, and make technical corrections to ``Part B.
Complex Order'' in Section I. The Exchange also proposes to amend
Section II of the Pricing Schedule titled ``Multiply Listed Options
Fees'' to decrease the threshold amount which entitles members to a
reduced Firm Electronic Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot and
non-Penny Pilot Options and amend the Customer Rebate Program.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The rebates and fees in Section I apply to certain Select
Symbols which are listed in Section I of the Pricing Schedule.
    \4\ A Complex Order is any order involving the simultaneous
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options series in the
same underlying security, priced at a net debit or credit based on
the relative prices of the individual components, for the same
account, for the purpose of executing a particular investment
strategy. Furthermore, a Complex Order can also be a stock-option
order, which is an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of
an underlying stock or exchange-traded fund (``ETF'') coupled with
the purchase or sale of options contract(s). See Exchange Rule 1080,
Commentary .08(a)(i).
    \5\ Section II includes options overlying equities, ETFs, ETNs,
indexes, and HOLDRs which are Multiply Listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Sections I and
II of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange is
proposing to amend Section I of the Pricing Schedule to amend the
Select Symbols, increase certain Complex Order Rebates for Adding
Liquidity, eliminate Complex Order Fees for Adding Liquidity, increase
certain Complex Order Fees for Removing Liquidity, eliminate a discount
applicable to options overlying SPDR S&P 500 (``SPY''),\6\ and to make
other technical amendments. The Exchange is proposing to amend Section
II of the Pricing Schedule to decrease the threshold to receive the
reduced Firm Electronic Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot and
non-Penny Pilot Options and to amend the Customer Rebates Program. Each
amendment will be described in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ SPY is one of the Select Symbols subject to the rebates and
fees in Section I. A complete list of Select Symbols is included in
Section I of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section I Amendments
Select Symbols
    The Exchange displays a list of Select Symbols in its Pricing
Schedule at Section I, which symbols are subject to the rebates and
fees in that section. The Exchange is proposing to add the following
symbol to the list of Select Symbols in Section I of the Pricing
Schedule: Arena Pharmaceuticals Inc. (``ARNA''). The Exchange is also
proposing to delete the following symbols from the list of Select
Symbols in Section I of the Pricing Schedule: Dell Inc. (``DELL''), and
Newmont Mining Corp. (``NEM'' (collectively, ``Proposed Deleted
Symbols''). These Proposed Deleted Symbols would be subject to the
rebates and fees in Section II of the Pricing Schedule entitled
``Multiply Listed Options Fees.'' The Exchange believes that by adding
and removing the above-referenced symbols in Section I of the Pricing
Schedule the Exchange will continue to attract order flow to the
Exchange.
Complex Order Fees
    The Exchange is proposing to increase the Complex Order Rebates for
Adding Liquidity from $0.00 to $0.10 for Specialists,\7\ Market
Makers,\8\ Firms, Broker-Dealers and Professionals.\9\ Additionally,
the Exchange is proposing to eliminate Complex Order Fees for Adding
Liquidity. The Exchange believes that these fees are no longer
necessary and proposes to uniformly eliminate them for all market
participants. The Exchange believes that the increase to the Complex
Order Rebates for Adding Liquidity coupled with the elimination of the
Complex Order Fees for Adding Liquidity will incentivize market
participants to transact additional Complex Order flow on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A Specialist is an Exchange member who is registered as an
options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
    \8\ A ``Market Maker'' includes Registered Options Traders
(``ROTs'') (Rule 1014(b)(i) and (ii), which includes Streaming Quote
Traders (``SQTs'') (See Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A)) and Remote Streaming
Quote Traders (``RSQTs'') (See Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B)).
    \9\ The term ``professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Rule
1000(b)(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also is proposing to increase the Complex Order Fees
for Removing Liquidity from $0.36 to $0.39 per contract for Specialists
and Market Makers, and to increase the Complex Order Fees for Removing
Liquidity from $0.38 to $0.39 per contract for Firms, Broker-Dealers,
and Professionals in Select Symbols. The Exchange is proposing to
increase these fees in order that it may offer additional rebates for
Customer Complex Orders as described below.
Eliminating SPY Discount
    The Exchange is proposing to remove the additional incentive for
Customers who transact Complex Orders in SPY. The Exchange currently
pays a Customer Complex Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity of $0.32 per
contract and a Customer Complex Order Rebate for Removing Liquidity of
$0.06 per contract, but specifies that the Exchange will increase the
Customer Complex Order Rebates for Adding and Removing Liquidity by
$0.01 per contract for transactions in SPY. Therefore, with this
change, Customer Complex Orders that add liquidity in SPY would receive
a rebate of $0.32 per contract and Customer Complex Orders that remove
liquidity in SPY receive a rebate of $0.06 per contract. The Exchange
is eliminating the discount in lieu of offering a higher rebate for
Customer Complex Orders as described below.
Technical Amendments
    The Exchange also is proposing to make technical corrections in
Section I, Parts A and B, by replacing ``$0.00'' with ``N/A'' for
several categories. This is not a change to these fees, but a technical
amendment since in these instances ``N/A'' better reflects that a fee
is not relevant for this category rather than ``$0.00'' which simply
reflects that no fee is currently being charged for this category.
Section II Amendments
Firm Volume Discount
    The Exchange desires to continue to incentivize Firms to transact
electronic orders, by providing Firms with an opportunity to pay lower
fees in Section II of the Pricing Schedule by offering a lower
threshold in order for Firms to receive a reduction of electronic
Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot and non-Penny Pilot Options.
Currently, Firms must have a volume greater than 750,000 electronically
delivered contracts in a month to obtain

the lower fees.\10\ The Exchange proposes to lower the threshold volume
from 750,000 to 600,000 electronically delivered contracts in a month.
The Exchange believes that the lower threshold would enable a greater
number of Firms to take advantage of lower fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Firm electronic Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot
and non-Penny Pilot Options will be reduced to $0.13 per contract
for a given month provided that a Firm has volume greater than
600,000 electronically delivered contracts in a month (``Electronic
Firm Fee Discount'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customer Rebate Program
    The Exchange recently adopted a Customer Rebate Program to
incentivize members to transact Customer orders on the Exchange. Such
liquidity benefits all market participants through increased liquidity.
At this time, the Exchange proposes to expand its Customer Rebate
Program by adding another Category of orders eligible for rebates,
``Category D.'' This new category will pay rebates to members executing
electronically delivered Customer Complex Orders in Select Symbols that
add liquidity.\11\ The Exchange proposes to pay the following rebates:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This rebate will be in addition to any rebate that the
member receives in Section I of the Pricing Schedule.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Rebate per contract categories
         Average daily volume threshold          ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Category A      Category B      Category C      Category D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 to 49,999 contracts in a month................           $0.00           $0.00           $0.00           $0.00
50,000 to 99,999 contracts in a month...........            0.07            0.10            0.10            0.00
Over 100,000 contracts in a month...............            0.09            0.12            0.10            0.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Customer Rebate Program consists of three tiers. The first tier
(0 to 49,999 contracts in a month) and the second tier (50,000 to
99,999 contracts in a month) do not earn any rebates defined in
Category D. The third tier (over 100,000 contracts in a month) pays a
rebate as an additional incentive for member organizations to route
Customer Complex Order flow to the Exchange for execution ($0.05 per
contract). The $0.05 will be in addition to the Customer Complex Order
Rebate for Adding Liquidity (currently $0.32 per contract) for a total
rebate of $0.37 for Category D.
    As is currently the case with Category A, B, and C, each tier or
``Threshold'' is calculated by totaling all applicable Multiply-Listed
Options electronically delivered Customer Orders, except electronic
Qualified Contingent Cross Orders (eQCC Orders). The Exchange proposes
to amend the calculation of the Average Daily Volume Threshold by
totaling Customer volume in Multiply Listed Options that are
electronically delivered and executed, except QCC Orders as defined in
Exchange Rule 1080(o), and including electronically delivered and
executed Customer Complex Orders in Select Symbols (``Threshold
Volume'').\12\ The Exchange is proposing to add the word ``executed''
for clarity and account for the Category D rebates in the Threshold
Volume Calculation. The Exchange believes that the addition of Category
D will attract additional Customer order flow to the Exchange for the
benefit of all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Rebates will be paid on Threshold Volume in a given month,
excluding electronically delivered Customer volume associated with
PIXL as is the case today and Customer Complex Orders that remove
liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \13\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \14\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Select Symbols
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to remove and add the
proposed symbols from its list of Select Symbols to attract additional
order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the fees and
rebates in Section I will attract order flow for the newly added Select
Symbol ARNA. Also, the Exchange believes that applying the fees in
Section II of the Pricing Schedule to the Proposed Deleted Symbols,
including the opportunity to receive payment for order flow, will
attract order flow to the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to amend its list of Select Symbols to remove and add
the proposed symbols because the list of Select Symbols would apply
uniformly to all categories of participants in the same manner. All
market participants who trade the Select Symbols would be subject to
the rebates and fees in Section I of the Pricing Schedule, which would
not include the proposed deleted symbols, but would include the
proposed added symbol. Also, all market participants would be uniformly
subject to the fees in Section II, which would include the Proposed
Deleted Symbols, but would not include the proposed added symbol.
Complex Order Fees
    The Exchange believes its proposal to increase the Complex Order
Rebates for Adding Liquidity from $0.00 to $0.10 for Specialists,\15\
Market Makers, Firms, Broker-Dealers, and Professionals is reasonable
because the Exchange is proposing to incentivize market participants to
transact additional order flow on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ A Specialist is an Exchange member who is registered as an
options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the Complex
Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange is proposing to uniformly increase
the rebates among market participants, except Customers. Today,
Customers receive a Complex Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity of $0.32
per contract. Customers would continue to receive a higher rebate
already because Customer order flow brings unique benefits to the
market which benefits all participants through increased liquidity.
    The Exchange believes its proposal to eliminate Complex Order Fees
for Adding Liquidity is reasonable because market participants would be
incentivized to transact additional orders on the Exchange at no cost
when adding liquidity. The Exchange believes its proposal to eliminate
Complex Order Fees for Adding Liquidity is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because no market participant would be assessed a
Complex Order Fee for Adding Liquidity.
    The Exchange believes its proposal to increase the Complex Order
Fees for Removing Liquidity from $0.36 to $0.39 per contract for
Specialists and Market

Makers, and to increase it from $0.38 to $0.39 per contract for Firms,
Broker-Dealers, and Professionals in Select Symbols is reasonable
because the Exchange is proposing to utilize these increased fees to
fund the proposed new rebates in the Customer Rebate Program. The
Exchange believes that the increased Complex Order Fees for Removing
Liquidity are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all
market participants, except Customers will be assessed a uniform fee to
remove liquidity. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable,
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to not assess Customers a
Complex Order Fee to Remove Liquidity because Customer order flow
brings unique benefits to the market. Also, Customers are not assessed
a Complex Order Fee for Removing Liquidity, as is the case on competing
exchanges.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See the Chicago Board Options Exchange Incorporated's
(``CBOE'') Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eliminating SPY Discount
    In addition, the Exchange believes that removing the additional
$0.01 per contract incentive, when transacting electronically delivered
SPY orders, in addition to the Customer Complex Order Rebates for
Adding and Removing Liquidity in SPY is reasonable because the Exchange
is proposing to incentivize members to transact Customer Complex Orders
by offering an incentive in the Customer Rebate Program. The Exchange
believes that the elimination of the SPY discount is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because no market participants would be
entitled to this discount.
Technical Amendments
    The Exchange's proposal to make technical corrections in Section I,
Parts A and B, by replacing ``$0.00'' with ``N/A'' for several
categories is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory
because this is not a change to these fees, but a clarification that in
these instances ``N/A'' better reflects that a fee is not relevant for
this category rather than using ``$0.00'' which simply reflects that no
fee is currently being charged for this category.
Firm Volume Discount
    The Exchange's amendment to the volume threshold applicable to the
Electronic Firm Fee Discount in Section II of the Pricing Schedule is
reasonable because the Exchange believes that the lower threshold would
allow a greater number of Firms to obtain the lower pricing when they
meet the volume threshold.
    The Exchange's amendment to the volume threshold applicable to the
Electronic Firm Fee Discount in Section II of the Pricing Schedule is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it provides all Firms
with an opportunity to pay lower fees through the lower volume
threshold of 600,000 electronically delivered contracts in a month
rather than the current threshold of 750,000. Today Firms that transact
750,000 electronically delivered contracts in a month are entitled to
reduce their Firm electronic Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot
($0.40 per contract) and non-Penny Pilot ($0.45 per contract) in a
given month to $0.13 per contract.\17\ The reduction of the volume
threshold from 750,000 electronically delivered contracts in a month to
600,000 electronically delivered contracts in a month would enable
firms to obtain the reduction of fees by transacting a lower number of
contracts in a month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Electronic Firm Fee Discount applies per member
organization when such members are trading in their own proprietary
account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customer Rebate Program
    The Exchange's amendment to the Customer Rebate Program is
reasonable because it will provide members another manner in which to
earn a rebate on the Exchange. This rebate will be in addition to any
rebate that the member receives in Section I of the Pricing Schedule.
The Exchange believes that offering the Category D rebate and including
Customer Complex Order volume in Select Symbols in the Threshold
Volume, will attract additional Customer order flow to the Exchange and
benefit all market participants. The Exchange believes that
incentivizing members executing electronically delivered Customer
Complex Orders in Select Symbols to direct Customer order flow to the
Exchange will benefit all market participants.
    The Exchange's amendment to the Customer Rebate Program is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all market
participants are eligible to receive the new rebate provided they meet
both the volume and order type requirement of Category D. Also, the
Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
base rebates not only on volume but on the type of orders because the
Exchange would uniformly apply the rebates to all market participants
by order type. The Exchange currently offers no rebate under Category D
for the first tier (between 0 and 49,999 contracts in a month) and the
second tier (between 50,000 and 99,000 contracts in a month). It is
only in the third tier (over 100,000 contracts in a month) that there
is a rebate and it is $0.05 per contract to members that execute
electronically delivered Customer Complex Orders in any Select Symbol
that adds liquidity. Further, the concept of volume tiers and rebates
based on tiers is not novel. Market participants entitled to Category
A, B, or C rebates are subject to Section II of the Pricing Schedule,
which has no rebates. Market participants entitled to Category D
rebates are subject to Section I of the Pricing Schedule and also
receive the Rebate for Adding Liquidity in Section I.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
ten exchanges, in which market participants can easily and readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee and rebate
levels at a particular venue to be excessive. Accordingly, the fees
that are assessed and the rebates paid by the Exchange must remain
competitive with fees charged and rebates paid by other venues and
therefore must continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated to
those members that opt to direct orders to the Exchange rather than
competing venues.

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\18\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine

whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-Phlx-2012-104 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-Phlx-2012-104. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-Phlx-2012-104 and should be
submitted on or before September 5, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-19984 Filed 8-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35752-35753]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14677]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9912-77-OA]

Notification of a Public Teleconference of the Science Advisory
Board Environmental Justice Technical Guidance Review Panel

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory
Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a teleconference of the
Environmental Justice Technical Guidance (EJTG) Review Panel. A public
teleconference will be held to discuss the draft report of the panel.

DATES: A public teleconference to discuss the draft report of the EJTG
review panel will be held on July 22, 2014 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
(Eastern Time).

ADDRESSES: The public teleconference will be conducted by telephone
only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wants
further information concerning this public meeting may contact Dr. Sue
Shallal, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), via telephone at (202) 564-
2057 or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>General information concerning
the SAB can be found on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SAB was established pursuant to the
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization
Act (ERDDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent
scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical
basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal
Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The SAB will comply with the provisions of
FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant
to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the SAB EJTG Review
Panel will hold a public teleconference. The purpose of the
teleconference is to discuss the panel's draft report. This SAB panel
will provide advice to the Administrator through the chartered SAB.
    Background: The EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics
along with the Office of Environmental Justice has requested that the
SAB peer review their Draft Technical Guidance for Assessing
Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis (May 1, 2013). The

SAB EJTG Review Panel met on January 30-31, 2014 to conduct a peer
review of the draft technical guidance (78 FR 77673-77674). Additional
information about this advisory activity, including the formation of
the SAB EJTG Review Panel, can be found at the following URL: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/EJ%20Technical%20Guidance?OpenDocument. The July 22, 2014
teleconference is being held for the EJTG Review Panel to discuss its
draft peer review report.
    Technical Contacts: Any technical questions concerning EPA's draft
technical document should be directed to Dr. Kelly Maguire at (202)
566-2273 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Availability of Meeting Materials: Prior to the meeting, the review
documents, agenda and other materials will be accessible through the
calendar link on the blue navigation bar at http://www.epa.gov/sab/.
Materials may also be accessed at the following SAB Web page http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/EJ%20Technical%20Guidance?OpenDocument.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a
different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices.
Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory
committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an
EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including
scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA.
Interested members of the public may submit relevant information on the
topic of this advisory activity, and/or the group conducting the
activity, for the SAB to consider during the advisory process. Input
from the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it provides
specific scientific or technical information or analysis for SAB
committees and panels to consider or if it relates to the clarity or
accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to
provide comment should contact the DFO directly. Oral Statements: In
general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation on a
teleconference will be limited to 3 minutes and oral presentation at a
face-to-face meeting will be limited to five minutes. Interested
parties should contact Dr. Sue Shallal, DFO, in writing (preferably via
email) at the contact information noted above by July 11, 2014 to be
placed on the list of public speakers for the teleconference. Written
Statements: Written statements will be accepted throughout the advisory
process; however, for timely consideration by Committee/Panel members,
statements should be supplied to the DFO via email at the contact
information noted above at least one week prior to a public meeting.
Written statements should be supplied in one of the following
electronic formats: Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or Rich
Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format. It is the SAB Staff
Office general policy to post written comments on the Web page for the
advisory meeting or teleconference. Submitters are requested to provide
an unsigned version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does
not publish documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the
public should be aware that their personal contact information, if
included in any written comments, may be posted to the SAB Web site.
Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of
the copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Sue Shallal at (202)
564-2057 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a
disability, please contact Dr. Shallal preferably at least ten days
prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process
your request.

    Dated: June 13, 2014.
Thomas H. Brennan,
Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2014-14677 Filed 6-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 32 (Friday, February 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11081-11083]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03178]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80025; File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2017-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt Option Regulatory Fees as They Relate to the Equity Options
Platform

February 13, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 30, 2017, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-Members of the Exchange pursuant to Exchange
Rules 15.1(a) and (c) to adopt an Options Regulatory Fee (``ORF'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule applicable to its
equity options platform (``EDGX Options'') to adopt an ORF in the
amount of $0.0004 per contract side.\6\ The per-contract ORF will be
assessed by the Exchange to each Member for all options transactions
executed and cleared, or simply cleared, by the Member, that are
cleared by OCC in the ``customer'' range, regardless of the exchange on
which the transaction occurs.\7\ The ORF will be collected indirectly
from Members through their clearing firms by OCC on behalf of the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange notes that it previously proposed to adopt an
ORF of $0.0002 per contract in August 2016 which would have been
assessed to each Member and non-Member for all options transactions
cleared by OCC in the ``customer'' range, regardless of the exchange
on which the transaction occurred. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 78452 (August 1, 2016), 81 FR 51951 (August 5, 2016)
(SR-BatsEDGX-2016-33). The Exchange then filed to delay the
implementation of SR-BatsEDGX-2016-33 until February 1, 2017. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78745 (September 1, 2016), 81 FR
62185 (September 8, 2016) (SR-BatsEDGX-2016-48). The Commission
later issued an order suspending and [sic] SR-BatsEDGX-2016-33 and
instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove
the proposed rule change asking whether the [sic] ``a sufficient
regulatory nexus exists between the Exchange and a non-Member to
justify imposition of the ORF on such non-Member.'' See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 78850 (September 15, 2016), 81 FR 64963
(September 21, 2016). On January 10, 2017, the Exchange withdrew SR-
Bats-EDGX-2016-33. The Exchange also proposes in this filing to
remove text from its fee schedule adopted in SR-BatsEDGX-2016-48
which delayed the implementation of SR-Bats-EDGX-2016-33 until
February 1, 2017.
    \7\ The Exchange also proposes to insert a colon after the title
``Options Regulatory Fee''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ORF also will be charged for transactions that are not executed
by a Member but are ultimately cleared by a Member. In the case where a
non-Member executes a transaction and a Member clears the transaction,
the ORF will be assessed to the Member who clears the transaction. In
the case where a Member executes a transaction and another Member
clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to the Member who
clears the transaction.
    Clearing members, however, are distinguished from executing
participants because they remain identified to the Exchange regardless
of the identity of the initiating executing participant, their
location, and the market center on which they execute transactions.
Therefore, the Exchange believes it is more efficient for the operation
of the Exchange and for the marketplace as a whole to assess the ORF to
clearing members.
    The Exchange believes it is appropriate to charge the ORF only to
transactions that clear as customer at the OCC. The Exchange believes
that its broad regulatory responsibilities with respect to a Member's
activities supports applying the ORF to transactions cleared but not
executed by a Member. The Exchange's regulatory responsibilities are
the same regardless of whether a Member executes a transaction or
clears a transaction executed on its behalf. The Exchange regularly
reviews all such activities, including performing surveillance for
position limit violations, manipulation, front-running, contrary
exercise advice

violations and insider trading. These activities span across multiple
exchanges.
    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to
the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of Members' customer
options business, including performing routine surveillances and
investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive and
enforcement activities. The Exchange believes that revenue generated
from the ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory
fees and fines, will cover a material portion, but not all, of the
Exchange's regulatory costs. The Exchange notes that its regulatory
responsibilities with respect to Member compliance with options sales
practice rules have been allocated to the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') under a 17d-2 Agreement. The ORF is not
designed to cover the cost of options sales practice regulation.
    The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue
collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other
regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total
regulatory costs. The Exchange expects to monitor its regulatory costs
and revenues at a minimum on a semi-annual basis. If the Exchange
determines regulatory revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a
material portion of its regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the
ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The Exchange
will notify Members of adjustments to the ORF at least 30 calendar days
prior to the effective date of the change.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange announced its intent to charge an ORF on
December 30, 2016. See Bats Options Exchange Regulatory Fee Schedule
Update Effective February 1, 2017, available at http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/fee_schedule/2017/Bats-Options-Exchange-Regulatory-Fee-Schedule-Update-Effective-February-1-2017.pdf. The semi-annual review and notice provisions are similar
to those adopted by NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''). See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 70500 (September 25, 2013), 78 FR 60361
(October 1, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-91).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and appropriate for the
Exchange to charge the ORF for options transactions regardless of the
exchange on which the transactions occur. The Exchange has a statutory
obligation to enforce compliance by Members and their associated
persons under the Act and the rules of the Exchange and to surveil for
other manipulative conduct by market participants (including non-
Members) trading on the Exchange. The Exchange cannot effectively
surveil for such conduct without looking at and evaluating activity
across all options markets. Many of the Exchange's market surveillance
programs require the Exchange to look at and evaluate activity across
all options markets, such as surveillance for position limit
violations, manipulation, front-running and contrary exercise advice
violations/expiring exercise declarations. Also, the Exchange and the
other options exchanges are required to populate a consolidated options
audit trail (``COATS'') \9\ system in order to surveil a Member's
activities across markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ COATS effectively enhances intermarket options surveillance
by enabling the options exchanges to reconstruct the market promptly
to effectively surveil certain rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to its own surveillance programs, the Exchange works
with other SROs and exchanges on intermarket surveillance related
issues. Through its participation in the Intermarket Surveillance Group
(``ISG''),\10\ the Exchange shares information and coordinates
inquiries and investigations with other exchanges designed to address
potential intermarket manipulation and trading abuses. The Exchange's
participation in ISG helps it to satisfy the requirement that it has
coordinated surveillance with markets on which security futures are
traded and markets on which any security underlying security futures
are traded to detect manipulation and insider trading.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ISG is an industry organization formed in 1983 to
coordinate intermarket surveillance among the SROs by co-operatively
sharing regulatory information pursuant to a written agreement
between the parties. The goal of the ISG's information sharing is to
coordinate regulatory efforts to address potential intermarket
trading abuses and manipulations.
    \11\ See Section 6(h)(3)(I) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that charging the ORF across markets will
avoid having Members direct their trades to other markets in order to
avoid the fee and to thereby avoid paying for their fair share for
regulation. If the ORF did not apply to activity across markets then a
Member would send their orders to the least cost, least regulated
exchange. Other exchanges do impose a similar fee on their member's
activity, including the activity of those members on the Exchange.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Similar regulatory fees have been instituted by PHLX, ISE,
and MIAX. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 61133 (December
9, 2009), 74 FR 66715 (December 16, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-100); 61154
(December 11, 2009), 74 FR 67278 (December 18, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-
105); and 68711 (January 23, 2013), 78 FR 6155 (January 29, 2013)
(SR-MIAX-2013-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that there is established precedent for an SRO
charging a fee across markets, namely, FINRAs Trading Activity Fee \13\
and the MIAX, NYSE Amex, NYSE Arca, CBOE, PHLX, ISE and BOX ORFs. While
the Exchange does not have all of the same regulatory responsibilities
as FINRA, the Exchange believes that, like other exchanges that have
adopted an ORF, its broad regulatory responsibilities with respect to a
Member's activities, irrespective of where their transactions take
place, support a regulatory fee applicable to transactions on other
markets. Unlike FINRA's Trading Activity Fee, the ORF would apply only
to a Member's customer options transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47946 (May 30,
2003), 68 FR 34021 (June 6, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement the ORF on February 1, 2017.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\14\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\15\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange
notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues or
providers of routing services if they deem fee levels to be excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the ORF is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it would be objectively allocated to Members in
that it would be charged to all Members on all their transactions that
clear as customer transactions at the OCC. Moreover, the Exchange
believes the ORF ensures fairness by assessing fees to those Members
that are directly based on the amount of customer options business they
conduct. Regulating customer trading activity is much more labor
intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical
resources than regulating non-customer trading activity, which tends to
be more automated and less labor-intensive. As a result, the costs
associated with administering the customer component of the Exchange's
overall regulatory program are materially higher than the

costs associated with administering the non-customer component (e.g.,
Member proprietary transactions) of its regulatory program. In
addition, the Exchange believes the amount of the ORF is reasonable as
it is lower than ORFs charged by other exchanges. By way of comparison,
MIAX charges an ORF of $0.0045 per contract side,\16\ and both NYSE
Arca and NYSE Amex charge an ORF of $0.0055 per contract side.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See MIAX fee schedule available at http://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/MIAX_Options_Fee_Schedule_01012017.pdf (last visited January 10,
2017).
    \17\ See NYSE Arca Options fee schedule available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf (last visited January 10, 2017);
and NYSE Amex fee schedule available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/amex-options/NYSE_Amex_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf (last visited January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs of
supervising and regulating Members' customer options business including
performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations,
financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and
enforcement activities. The Exchange will monitor, on at least a semi-
annual basis the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure
that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does
not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. If the Exchange
determines regulatory revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a
material portion of its regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the
ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The Exchange
will notify Members of adjustments to the ORF via regulatory circular.
    The Exchange has designed the ORF to generate revenues that, when
combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees, will be less
than or equal to the Exchange's regulatory costs, which is consistent
with the Commission's view that regulatory fees be used for regulatory
purposes and not to support the Exchange's business side. In this
regard, the Exchange believes that the initial level of the fee is
reasonable.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The ORF is not intended to have
any impact on competition. Rather, it is designed to enable the
Exchange to recover a material portion of the Exchange's cost related
to its regulatory activities. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that
the amount of regulatory revenue collected from the ORF, in combination
with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory
costs.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate
opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such
an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain
competitive with other exchanges. Because competitors are free to
modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may
readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes
that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any
burden on competition is extremely limited. The proposed ORF is also
comparable to ORF charged by other options exchanges for the same or
similar service.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \18\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\19\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2017-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2017-04. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet 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 the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-BatsEDGX-2017-04, and should be
submitted on or before March 10, 2017.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03178 Filed 2-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46797-46800]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19109]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Notice of Fiscal Year 2013 Safety Grants and Solicitation for
Applications

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; change in application due dates.

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

SUMMARY: This notice informs the public of FMCSA's Fiscal Year (FY)
2013 safety grant opportunities and FMCSA's projected application due
dates. FMCSA announces these grant opportunities based on authorities
provided for in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Public Law
109-59, as amended by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Act (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141, (2012). The Agency's safety grant
programs in FY 2013 include the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program
(MCSAP) Basic and Incentive grants; New Entrant Safety Audit grants;
MCSAP High Priority grants; Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) Operator
Safety Training grants; Border Enforcement grants (BEG); Commercial
Driver's License Program Improvement (CDLPI) grants; Performance and
Registration Information Systems Management (PRISM) grants; Safety Data
Improvement Program (SaDIP) grants; and the Commercial Vehicle
Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) grants. The Commercial
Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) Modernization grants were
not continued in the MAP-21 authorization and, therefore, FMCSA will
not be soliciting applications for this grant program in FY 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact the following FMCSA
staff with questions or needed information on the Agency's grant
programs:

MCSAP Basic/Incentive Grants--Jack Kostelnik<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
202-366-5721.
New Entrant Safety Audits Grants--Jack Kostelnik,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-366-5721.
MCSAP High Priority Grants--Cim Weiss<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-366-0275.
CMV Operator Safety Training Grants--Crystal Polk,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-366-0734.
BEG--Jackie Cambridge<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-366-1351.
CDLPI Grants--James Ross<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-366-0133.
SaDIP Grants--Jackie Cambridge<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-366-1351.
PRISM Grants--Julie Otto<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-366-0710.
CVISN Grants--Julie Otto<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-366-0710.

    All staff may be reached at FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    For each grant program, FMCSA will post a notice of funding
availability (NOFA) at www.grants.gov. The NOFA will provide specific
information on the application process; national funding priorities for
FY 2013; evaluation criteria; required documents and certifications;
grantee matching share and maintenance of expenditure requirements; and
additional information related to the availability of funds. General
information is provided below for each individual grant program.
    To ensure the timely review and award of all grants, applications
must be submitted in accordance with the instructions provided in each
NOFA and contain all required information and attachments. FMCSA
strongly encourages applicants to dedicate the resources necessary to
submit timely and complete applications. Applications will be returned
if required documents are missing or incomplete or additional
information is needed.

MCSAP Basic and Incentive Grants

    The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users, Public Law 109-59, Sec. Sec.  4101(a), 4106,
119 Stat. 1144, 1714, 1717-19 (2005), as amended by Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act, Public Law 112-141 Sec. Sec.  32601,
32603(a), (2012) authorizes FMCSA's Motor Carrier Safety Grants. MCSAP
Basic and Incentive formula grants are governed by 49 U.S.C. 31102-
31104 and 49 CFR Part 350. Under the Basic and Incentive grant
programs, a State lead MCSAP agency, as designated by its Governor, is
eligible to apply for MCSAP Basic and Incentive grant funding by
submitting a commercial vehicle safety plan (CVSP). See 49 CFR 350.201,
350.205, and 350.213. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31103 and 49 CFR 350.303,
FMCSA will reimburse each lead State MCSAP agency no more than 80
percent of eligible costs incurred in a fiscal year. Each State will
provide a 20 percent match to qualify for the program. The FMCSA
Administrator waives the requirement for matching funds for the Virgin
Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (49 CFR 350.305). In accordance with 49 CFR 350.323,
the MCSAP Basic grant funds will be distributed proportionally to each
State's lead MCSAP agency using the following four, equally weighted
(25 percent) factors:
    (1) 1997 road miles (all highways) as defined by the FMCSA;
    (2) All vehicle miles traveled as defined by the FMCSA;
    (3) Population--annual census estimates as issued by the U.S.
Census Bureau; and
    (4) Special fuel consumption (net after reciprocity adjustment) as
defined by the FMCSA.
    A State's lead MCSAP agency may qualify for MCSAP Incentive funds
pursuant to 49 CFR 350.327(a) if the agency can demonstrate that the
State's CMV safety program meets or exceeds any or all of the following
five categories:
    (1) Reduction in the number of large truck-involved fatal crashes;
    (2) Reduction in the rate of large-truck-involved fatal crashes or
maintenance of a large-truck-involved fatal crash rate that is among
the lowest 10 percent of such rates for MCSAP recipients;
    (3) Upload of CMV crash reports in accordance with current FMCSA
policy guidelines;
    (4) Verification of Commercial Driver's Licenses during all
roadside inspections; and
    (5) Upload of CMV inspection data in accordance with current FMCSA
policy guidelines.
    Incentive funds are distributed in accordance with 49 CFR
350.327(b).
    The FMCSA calculates the amount of Basic and Incentive funding each
State is to receive. This information is provided to the States and is
made available on the Agency's Web site. The projected FY 2013
distribution is available at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety-security/safety-initiatives/mcsap/mcsapforms.htm. The amount indicated is based
on FY 2012 estimated awards,

pending final authorization, and does not include incentive funding
that may be available to States. The MCSAP Basic and Incentive formula
grants are awarded based on the State's submission of the CVSP, which
FMCSA must approve prior to distribution of funds. Therefore, the
evaluation factors for discretionary grant programs described in the
section below titled ``Application Information for FY 2013 Grants'' are
not applicable. MCSAP Basic and Incentive grant applications must be
submitted electronically through grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov).

New Entrant Safety Audit Grants

    The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users, Public Law 109-59, Sec.  4107(b), 119 Stat.
1144, 1720 (2005), amended by SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of
2008, Public Law 110-244, Sec.  301(b), 122 Stat. 1572, 1616 (2008), as
amended by Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, Public
Law 112-141, Sec.  32603(e), (2012) authorizes grant funding to conduct
interstate New Entrant safety audits consistent with 49 CFR Parts
350.321 and 385.301. Eligible recipients are State and local
governments. The goal of the New Entrant Safety Assurance Program is to
reduce CMV involved crashes, fatalities, and injuries through
consistent, uniform, and effective safety programs. Grantees may use
these funds for salaries and related expenses of New Entrant auditors,
including training and equipment, and to perform other eligible
activities that are directly related to conducting safety audits. The
FMCSA's share of these grant funds will be 100 percent pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 31144. More information about the New Entrant Safety Assurance
Program application and award process can be found at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/grants/New-Entrant/app-process.aspx. New
Entrant grant applications must be submitted electronically through
grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov).

MCSAP High Priority Grants

    The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users, Public Law 109-59, Sec.  4107(a), 119 Stat.
1144, 1719-20 (2005), as amended by SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections
Act of 2008, Public Law 110-244, Sec.  4101(a), Sec.  4107, 122 Stat.
1572, 1616, as amended by Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Act, Public Law 112-141, Sec. Sec.  32603(a), 32603(d), (2012)
authorizes grant funding for activities and projects that improve CMV
safety and compliance with CMV regulations. The goal of the MCSAP High
Priority grant program is to increase public awareness and education,
demonstrate new technologies and reduce the number and rate of CMV
crashes. Funding is also available for projects that are national in
scope. Eligible recipients are State agencies, local governments, and
organizations representing government agencies that use and train
qualified officers and employees in coordination with State motor
vehicle safety agencies. Participation of local law enforcement
agencies is encouraged. Interested local law enforcement agencies
should carefully review the NOFA when it is available on www.grants.gov
for special considerations and application review processes. For grants
awarded for public education and outreach activities, the Federal share
will be 100 percent. For all other High Priority grants, FMCSA will
provide reimbursements for no more than 80 percent of all eligible
costs, and recipients will be required to provide a 20 percent match.
Examples of High Priority activities include innovative traffic
enforcement projects, with particular emphasis on texting and hand-held
cell phone prohibitions, work zone enforcement, rural road safety, and
innovative traffic enforcement initiatives such as Ticketing Aggressive
Cars and Trucks (TACT). TACT provides a research-based safety model
that can be replicated by States when conducting a high-visibility
traffic enforcement program to promote safe driving behaviors among car
and truck drivers. The objective of this program is to reduce the
number of commercial truck and bus-related crashes, fatalities and
injuries resulting from improper operation of motor vehicles and
aggressive driving behavior. More information regarding TACT can be
found at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety-security/tact/abouttact.htm.
More information about the High Priority application and award process
can be found at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/grants/MCSAP-High-Priority/index.aspx. High Priority grant applications must be submitted
through grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov).

CMV Operator Safety Training Grants

    The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users, Public Law 109-59, Sec.  4134, 119 Stat. 1144,
1744-45 (2005), as amended by Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act, Public Law 112-141, Sec.  32603(g), (2012) authorizes
grant funds to train current and future drivers in the safe operation
of CMVs, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 31301(4). Eligible awardees include
State governments, local governments and accredited post-secondary
educational institutions (public or private) such as colleges,
universities, vocational-technical schools and truck driver training
schools. Funding priority for this discretionary grant program will be
given to institutions serving economically distressed regions of the
United States as demonstrated in the application. The Federal share of
these funds will be 80 percent, and recipients will be required to
provide a 20 percent match. More information about the CMV Operator
Safety Training grant application and award process can be found at
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/grants/CMV/app-process.aspx. CMV
Operator Safety Training grant applications must be submitted
electronically through grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov).

Border Enforcement Grants

    The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users, Public Law 109-59, Sec. Sec.  4101(c)(2),
4110, 119 Stat. 1144, 1715, 1721-22 (2005), as amended by Moving Ahead
for Progress in the 21st Century Act, Public Law 112-141, Sec. Sec.
32603(c) and 32603(h), (2012) authorizes grant funds to conduct CMV
safety programs and related enforcement activities and projects near
international borders or relating to international commerce. Pursuant
to 49 U.S.C. 31107, eligible awardees include State governments that
share a land border with Canada or Mexico, and any local government, or
entities (i.e., accredited post-secondary public or private educational
institutions such as universities) in that State. FMCSA encourages
local agencies to coordinate their application with the State lead CMV
inspection agency to prevent redundancy. Applications must include a
Border Enforcement Plan. As established by SAFETEA-LU, the Federal
share of these funds will be 100 percent. More information about the
BEG application and award process can be found at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/grants/beg/app-process.aspx. BEG grant
applications must be submitted electronically through grants.gov
(http://www.grants.gov).

CDLPI Grants

    The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users, Public Law 109-59, Sec. Sec.  4101(c)(1),
4124, 119 Stat. 1144, 1715, 1736-37 (2005), as amended by Moving Ahead
for Progress in the 21st Century Act, Public Law 112-141, Sec. Sec.
32603(c), 32604, (2012) authorizes grant funds to improve States'

implementation of the Commercial Driver's License (CDL) program and
ensure compliance with the requirements of 49 CFR Part 383 and 384.
Eligible expenses include computer hardware and software, publications,
testing, personnel, training, quality control, CDL program
coordinators, and to implement or maintain an employer notification
system for CDL suspension or revocation. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31313,
funds may not be used to rent, lease, or buy land or buildings. The
agency designated by each State as having the primary driver licensing
responsibility, including development, implementation, and maintenance
of the CDL program, is eligible to apply for basic grant funding. State
agencies, local governments, and other entities that can support a
State's effort to improve its CDL program, or conduct projects on a
national scale to improve the national CDL program, may also apply for
projects under the High Priority and Emerging Issues component of this
grant. Priority will be given to proposals that help States comply with
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR), with specific
emphasis on correcting previously-identified areas of non-compliance.
The Federal share of funds for projects awarded under this grant is
established by SAFETEA-LU as 100 percent. Information for the CLDPI
application and award process also can be found at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/grants/CDLPI/app-process.aspx. CLDPI grant
applications must be submitted electronically through grants.gov
(http://www.grants.gov).

SaDIP Grants

    The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users, Public Law 109-59, Sec. Sec.  4101(c)(5),
4128, 119 Stat. 1144, 1715, 1742 (2005), as amended by Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act, Public Law 112-141, Sec.  32603(c),
(2012) authorizes grant funds for the Safety Data Improvement Program
to support improving the overall quality of CMV data reported by a
State. Specifically, the goal of this program is to improve the
timeliness, efficiency, accuracy and completeness of State processes
and systems used to collect, analyze and report large truck and bus
crash and inspection data, as described 49 USC 31102. Eligible
recipients are State agencies, including the Territories of Puerto
Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands, and the District of Columbia. SaDIP applications must address
the FMCSA State Safety Data Quality (SSDQ) map, which provides a color-
coded, pictorial representation of the State's overall performance
using the SSDQ methodology. This methodology was developed by FMCSA to
evaluate the completeness, timeliness, accuracy, and consistency of the
State-reported CMV crash and inspection records in the Motor Carrier
Management Information System (MCMIS). The SSDQ methodology is
comprised of nine measures and one Overriding Indicator. Ratings are
updated quarterly, and individual State performance is portrayed
through the color-coded rating system: Green (good performance), Yellow
(fair performance), and Red (poor performance). The color-coded rating
system depicts each State's Overall Rating which considers all nine
SSDQ measures, except those measures with a rating of ``Insufficient
Data,'' plus the Overriding Indicator. Priority will be given to
proposals received from States rated Yellow and Red on the SSDQ Map.
The applicant must certify that it has (1) conducted a comprehensive
audit of its commercial motor vehicle safety data system within the
preceding two years; (2) developed a plan that identifies and
prioritizes its commercial motor vehicle safety data needs and goals;
and (3) identified performance-based measures to determine progress
toward those goals. The FMCSA will provide reimbursements for no more
than 80 percent of all eligible costs; recipients are required to
provide a 20 percent match. More information about the SaDIP
application and award process can be found at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/grants/SaDIP/app-process.aspx. SaDIP grant applications must be
submitted electronically through grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov).

PRISM Grants

    The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users, Public Law 109-59, Sec. Sec.  4101(c)(3),
4109, 119 Stat. 1144, 1715, 1720-21 (2005), as amended by Moving Ahead
for Progress in the 21st Century Act, Public Law 112-141, Sec. Sec.
32602, 32603(c), (2012) authorizes FMCSA to award grants funds to
States to implement the PRISM requirements that link Federal motor
carrier safety information systems with State CMV registration and
licensing systems. This program enables a State to determine the safety
fitness of a motor carrier, a registrant, or both, when licensing or
registering CMV and while the license or registration is in effect. The
PRISM program directly benefits highway safety helping to remove unsafe
motor carriers from the nation's highways through the potential and
actual imposition of vehicle registration sanctions on motor carriers
issued a Federal Out of Service order. No matching funds are required.
More information about the PRISM program process can be found at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety-security/prism/prism-process.aspx. PRISM
grant applications must be submitted electronically through grants.gov
(http://www.grants.gov).

CVISN Grants

    The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users, Public Law 109-59, Sec. Sec.  4101(c)(4),
4126, 119 Stat. 1144, 1715, 1738-41 (2005), as amended by Moving Ahead
for Progress in the 21st Century Act, Public Law No.112-141, Sec. Sec.
32603(c), 32605, (2012) authorizes FMCSA to award grant funds to States
to deploy, operate, and maintain elements of their CVISN Program,
including commercial vehicle, commercial driver, and carrier-specific
information systems and networks. The agency in each State designated
as responsible for the development, implementation, and maintenance of
a CVISN-related system is eligible to apply for grant funding. Section
4126 of SAFETEA-LU establishes two types of CVISN projects: Core and
Expanded. Core CVISN deployment project(s) eligibility includes the
projects necessary to support the State's most current Core CVISN
Program Plan and Top-Level Design (PP/TLD) approved by FMCSA. If a
State does not have a Core CVISN PP/TLD, it may apply for up to
$100,000 in funds to either create or update one. A State may also
apply for funds to prepare an Expanded CVISN PP/TLD if FMCSA
acknowledged the State as having completed Core CVISN deployment.
Eligibility includes the projects necessary to support a State's
Expanded CVISN deployment PP/TLD approved by FMCSA. If a State does not
have an existing or up-to-date Expanded CVISN PP/TLD, it may apply for
up to $100,000 in funds to either compile or update an Expanded CVISN
Program Plan and Top-Level Design.
    FY 2013 CVISN grant emphasis areas include to increase the
deployment of the Commercial Vehicle Information Exchange Window
(CVIEW); improve the quality of data uploads; and improve the use of
safety and productivity performance metrics. A State may receive no
more than an aggregate total of $2.5M in CVISN Core funding. A State
may receive no more than $1M in CVISN Expanded funding in any fiscal
year. Awards for approved CVISN grant applications are made to all Core
CVISN

applicants first and then to Expanded CVISN applicants. States must
provide a match of 50 percent. CVISN grant applications must be
submitted electronically through grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov).
    Application Information for FY 2013 Grants: General information
about the FMCSA grant programs is available in the Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance (CFDA) which can be found on the internet at http://www.cfda.gov. To apply for funding, applicants must register with
grants.gov at http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp and
submit an application in accordance with instructions provided. Because
the registration and certification process for grants.gov requires
several steps, first-time applicants are strongly encouraged to begin
the process well in advance of the application deadline.
    Evaluation Factors: The below evaluation factors will be used in
reviewing the applications for all FMCSA discretionary grants.
Additional factors may be included in each NOFA. These factors are:
    (1) Prior performance (completion of identified programs and goals
per the project plan submitted under previous grants awarded to the
applicant);
    (2) Effective Use of Prior Grants (timely use of available funds in
previous awards);
    (3) Safety and Cost Effectiveness (expected impact on safety
relative to the investment of grant funds; where appropriate, cost per
unit was calculated and compared with national averages to determine
effectiveness; in other areas, proposed costs are compared with
historical information to confirm reasonableness);
    (4) Applicability to announced priorities (grant applications that
specifically address these issues are given priority consideration);
    (5) Ability of the applicant to support the strategies and
activities in the proposal for the entire project period of
performance;
    (6) Use of innovative approaches in executing a project plan to
address identified safety issues;
    (7) Feasibility of overall program coordination and implementation
based upon the project plan; and
    (8) Other objective and performance-based criteria that FMCSA deems
appropriate, such as consistency with national priorities, overall
program balance, and geographic diversity.
    Estimated Application Due Dates: For the following grant programs,
FMCSA will consider funding complete applications or plans submitted by
the following anticipated dates (final due dates will be indicated in
the grants.gov funding opportunity notice):

MCSAP Basic and Incentive Grants--August 1, 2012.
Border Enforcement Grants--August 20, 2012.
New Entrant Safety Audit Grants--September 5, 2012.
MCSAP High Priority Grants--September 17, 2012.
CDLPI Grants--November 5, 2012.
SaDIP Grants--November 13, 2012.
CVISN Grants--November 19, 2012.
PRISM Grants--December 3, 2012.
CMV Operator Safety Training Grants--December 10, 2012.

    Applications submitted after due dates may be considered on a case-
by-case basis and are subject to availability of funds.

    Issued on: July 27, 2012.
William A. Quade,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement and Program Delivery.
[FR Doc. 2012-19109 Filed 8-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27625-27626]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11496]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[USCG-2012-0375]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for annual
fireworks events in the Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan zone
at various times from 10:00 p.m. on July 19, 2012 through 11:00 p.m. on
July 28, 2012 and then again from 10:15 p.m. through

11:00 p.m. on August 19, 2012. This action is necessary and intended to
ensure safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to,
during, and immediately after fireworks events. During the
aforementioned periods, the Coast Guard will enforce restrictions upon,
and control movement of, vessels in a specified area immediately prior
to, during, and immediately after fireworks events. During the
enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the safety zone
without permission of the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.935 will be enforced at various
times between 10:00 p.m. on July 19, 2012 and 11:00 p.m. on July 28,
2012 and then again between 10:15 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. on August 19,
2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email CWO Jon Grob, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector
Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATON: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
listed in 33 CFR 165.935, Safety Zone, Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI,
for the following events:
    (1) Festa Italiana fireworks display on July 19, 2012 from 10:00
p.m. through 10:45 p.m.; on July 20, 2012 from 10:00 p.m. through 10:45
p.m.; on July 21, 2012 from 10:00 p.m. through 10:45 p.m.; on July 22,
2012 from 10:00 p.m. through 10:45 p.m.
    (2) German Festival fireworks display on July 27, 2012 from 10:15
p.m. through 11:00 p.m.; on July 28, 2012 from 10:15 p.m. through 11:00
p.m.
    (3) Irish Festival fireworks display on August 19, 2012 from 10:15
p.m. through 11:00 p.m.
    All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port,
Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative to enter,
move within, or exit a safety zone. Vessels and persons granted
permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or
directions of the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or a
designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels
shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.935 Safety
Zone, Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition
to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide
the maritime community with advance notification of these enforcement
periods via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners.
The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan will issue a Broadcast
Notice to Mariners notifying the public when enforcement of the safety
zone established by this section is suspended. If the Captain of the
Port, Sector Lake Michigan, determines that the safety zone need not be
enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or she may use
a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the
safety zone. The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or
her on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    Dated: May 1, 2012.
M.W. Sibley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2012-11496 Filed 5-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Michigan Azinphos-methyl Tour

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Participants

EPA Office of Pollution, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances

Jim Gulliford

EPA Office of Pesticide Programs

Katie Hall

Nikhil Mallampalli

EPA Region 5

Margaret Guerriero

Barbara VanTil

Michigan State University Research & Extension

David Epstein, Tree Fruit IPM Coordinator

Department of Entomology

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI

Larry Gut, Associate Professor

Michigan State University Dept. of Entomology

Mark Whalon, Professor

Michigan State University Dept. of Entomology

Larry G. Olsen

Co-Director, North Central IPM Center

Department of Entomology

Michigan State University

Michael Brewer, Coordinator

Michigan State University IPM Program

Department of Entomology

Michigan State University

Carlos Garcia-Salazar

Small Fruit Agent for West Central Region

Ottawa County MSU Extension

Amy Irish-Brown

District Fruit Integrated Pest Management Agent

Clarksville Horticultural Station

Peter McGhee

Research Assistant

Department of Entomology

Michigan State University

Michigan Department of Agriculture

Michigan Department of Agriculture

PO Box 30017

Lansing, MI  48909

Ken Rauscher, Director

Pesticide and Plant Management Division

Gina Davis, Deputy Director

Pesticide and Plant Management Division

Brian Rowe, Manager

Pesticide Section

Brian Hughes

Pesticide Section

Pesticide Registration

Antonio Castro-Escobar, Manager

Worker Protection and Restricted Use Pesticides Program Manager

Pesticide & Plant Pest Management Division

Michigan Department of Agriculture

Grower Group

Denise Yockey

MI Apple Committee

Growers

Joe & Joe Klein

Apple Growers

Sparta, MI

Mike Wittenbach

President, MSU Horticultural Society

Apple Grower

Belding, MI

Jim Koan

Organic Apple Grower

Flushing, MI

Dave Smeltzer

Apple & Cherry Grower

Bear Lake, MI

Joe Rasch

Apple Grower

Conklin, MI

Steve Thome

Apple Grower

Comstock Park, MI

Mike Vanagtmael

Apple & Cherry Grower

Hart, MI

US Fish & Wildlife Service

Mike DeCapita

US FWS Ecological Services Field Office

East Lansing, MI

Worker Advocates

Ms. Teresa Hendricks

Michigan Migrant Legal Assistance Project

Grand Rapids, MI

Judy Fitzgerald, R.N.

Intercare Community Health Network

Bangor, MI

Alicia Sanchez, Assistant Outreach Coordinator & Migrant worker

Intercare Community Health Network

Bangor, MI

Antonio Castro-Escobar

See under Michigan Department of Agriculture

Medical Monitoring Contact

Abby Schwartz, MPH Environmental Epidemiologist

Pesticide Exposure and Injury Surveillance

Michigan Department of Community Health

Itinerary and Discussion

Koan Orchards

Participants:  Jim Koan, Mark Whalon, Dave Epstein, Larry Gut, Jim
Gulliford, Margaret Guerriero, Barbara VanTil, Katie Hall, Nikhil
Mallampalli

Discussed operations at an organic apple orchard.  Organic orchards do
not produce the same amount of pest-free fruit that a conventional
orchard does, so it is important to diversify into different products to
stay competitive in the market.  A typical conventional orchard produces
about 85% saleable fruit, while an organic operation produces a maximum
of 50% marketable product.  Conversion to organic production in Michigan
is hampered by the lack of organically-approved materials for key pests
such as plum curculio.  The transition is especially difficult in areas
of intensive apple production, where abandoned orchards serve as a
reservoir for pest species.

Clarksville Horticultural Station

Participants present:  Mark Whalon, Dave Epstein, Larry Gut, Mike
DeKapita, Denise Yockey, Peter McGhee, Jim Gulliford, Margaret
Guerriero, Barbara VanTil, Katie Hall, Nikhil Mallampalli, Brian Hughes,
Brian Rowe

Discussed RAMP - Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Programs.  One RAMP has
been completed for apples; this project has recently been renewed by
USDA.  Another RAMP is in progress for cherries.

Discussed cherries – all tart cherries in Michigan are harvested
mechanically.  Native hosts repopulate the commercial cherry trees with
pests.

Discussed transition programs from OPs to newer chemistries.  Growers
are willing to transition from OPs, but they would like more assistance.
 There are no one-to-one chemical substitutions, and the newer
chemistries work differently than broad-spectrum OPs.

Endangered Species - Reconciling ES Protection with commodity
production.  Some industries have location information for every farm
that grows a given commodity that could be used in endangered species
assessments.  There are other sources of information that could
supplement EPA’s information.

Codling moth alternatives – Visited several different test plots where
codling moth alternatives are being tested.  We also saw cherry breeding
program trees.

Lunch

Participants present:  Cherry and apple growers, Carlos Garcia-Salazar,
Mark Whalon, Larry Gut, Dave Epstein, Brian Rowe, Jim Gulliford,
Margaret Guerriero, Barbara VanTil, Katie Hall, Nikhil Mallampalli

Cherries and apples – Cherry fruit fly and plum curculio are difficult
to control in MI.  There is a zero tolerance for maggots and larvae of
both pests, resulting in total rejection of a farm’s crop if a single
pest is found in the fruit. The tolerance for pests in apples is not
quite as low.  Many growers do not feel comfortable with the new
chemistries as they are frequently unproven.  Timing and rates of
application are more critical with the newer chemistries.  There is a
very steep learning curve for growers working with newer chemistries.
Some of the new chemistries leave residues in the fruits for weeks or
months after they are applied, and they are not as efficacious as the
OPs.  Competitors can apply OPs, get perfect fruit that has no residues
and are more competitive on the global market.

Joe Klein Orchard

Participants present:  Apple growers, cherry growers, Brian Rowe, Mark
Whalon, Larry Gut, Dave Epstein, Amy Irish-Brown, Jim Gulliford,
Margaret Guerriero, Barbara VanTil, Katie Hall, Nikhil Mallampalli

Discussed apple and cherry RAMP outcomes.  Some of the farms were
profitable when using reduced risk pesticides, many were not.  Some of
the growers adopted some the techniques they learned during the RAMP
projects.  The growers found that the new chemistries controlled the
primary pests but brought about secondary pests.  In the past 5 years
the pesticide bill has doubled for many farmers.  Apple RAMP –
alternatives are efficacious, but expensive.  Several Apple RAMP growers
intending to following the OP-alternative program had to make an
emergency OP application this growing season.  Cherry RAMP –
alternatives are not efficacious all the time and are more expensive.
Because of the zero tolerance, growers may use AZM as a rescue treatment
before harvest.  AZM is never the first choice of insecticide; if it is
used it is because it is the only efficacious alternative.

Apple- Area-wide codling moth control research in the Ridge area of MI
has shown some success, but requires extensive scouting and monitoring
from MSU Extension.   Without the Extension commitment of resources, it
is not likely many farms would be able to adopt this technology.

Michigan Migrant Legal Assistance Project

Participants present:  Teresa Hendricks, Judy Fitzgerald, R.N., Alicia
Sanchez, Antonio Castro-Escobar, Jim Gulliford, Margaret Guerrerio,
Barbara VanTil, Katie Hall, Nikhil Mallampalli

Discussed common worker poisoning scenarios.  Continue outreach to
workers and medical staff on pesticide risks and symptoms.  High staff
turnover rates in community health centers is not conducive to incident
reporting.  Pesticide incidents are underreported and underinvestigated.
 Many workers are reluctant to report incidents because they don’t
want to lose work.  It is very difficult to attribute symptoms to
specific chemicals due lack of worker recognition of poisoning symptoms,
lack of reporting, and language barriers inhibiting worker understanding
of the nature of the pesticides applied.

Dinner

Participants present:  David Epstein, Larry Gut, Mark Whalon, Larry G.
Olsen, Mike Brewer, Ken Rauscher, Gina Davis, Jim Koan, Mike DeCapita,
Abby Schwartz, Jim Gulliford, Barbara VanTil, Katie Hall, Nikhil
Mallampalli


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 31 (Thursday, February 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 10118]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03293]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4498-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Colorado; 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 Colorado (FEMA-4498-DR), dated March 28, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on January 20, 2021.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Nancy J.
Dragani, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Lee K. dePalo as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    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.

Robert J. Fenton,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-03293 Filed 2-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: August 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 163)]
[Notices]
[Page 52060-52061]
[DOCID:fr24au10-117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1999-6156; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2001-9561; FMCSA-
2001-10578; FMCSA-2001-11426; FMCSA-2002-11714; FMCSA-2002-13411;
FMCSA-2003-16241; FMCSA-2003-16564; FMCSA-2004-17195; FMCSA-2005-21711;
FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2005-23099; FMCSA-2005-23238; FMCSA-2006-23773;
FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2008-0021]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA previously announced its decision to renew the
exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations for 60 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to
exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions
granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that
granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that will be
equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without
the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The comment
period ended on July 28, 2010 (75 FR 36778).

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    The Agency has not received any adverse evidence on any of these
drivers that indicates that safety is being compromised. Based upon its
evaluation of the 60 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal
vision exemptions for Jawad K. Al-Shaibani, Harold J. Bartley, Jr.,
Delmas C. Bergdoll, Kenneth J. Bernard, Allen G. Bors, Brad T.
Braegger, Michael C. Branham, John E. Breslin, Trixie L. Brown, Raymond
L. Brush, Scott F. Chalfant, Leroy A. Chambers, Harvis P. Cosby, Rodney
D. Curtis, Ronald D. Danberry, Norman J. Day, Michael D. DeBerry, John
K. DeGolier, Francisco Espinal, William L. Foote, Daniel R. Franks,
David W. Grooms, Walter D. Hague, Jr., Spencer N. Haugen, Edward J.
Hess, Jr., William G. Hix, Ralph E. Holmes, Bruce A. Homan, Timothy B.
Hummel, Fredrick C. Ingles, Lerry L. Jarvis, Michael S. Johannsen,
Charles E. Johnston, Harry L. Jones, Mearl C. Kennedy, Aaron C.
Lougher, William F. Mack, Patrick E. Martin, Bennet G. Maruska, Leland
K. McAlhaney, Bobby G. Minton, Charles J. Morman, Larry A. Nienhuis,
Corey L. Paraf, John H. Pribanic, Ronald M. Price, John P. Raftis,
Scott D. Russell, Alton M. Rutherford, Charles L. Schnell, Andrew W.
Shollett, Joseph B. Shaw, Jr., Wolfgang V. Spekis, Sandra J. Sperling,
Ryan K. Steelman, Robert L. Swartz, Jr., Roger A. Thein, Jr., Duane L.
Tysseling, Kenneth E. Walker and Richard G. Wendt.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each renewal
exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with
the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: August 11, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-20974 Filed 8-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P