                  Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)              Considerations for Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03

                                Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0574                                                Date: January 5, 2015

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows the EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if the EPA determines that the exemption is "safe." Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines "safe" to mean that "there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information." This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, the EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require the EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance exemption, and to "ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue...." Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that the EPA consider "available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity."

The EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, the EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, the EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

I. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance Exemption

In the Federal Register of September 12, 2013 (78 FR 56185) (FRL-9399-7), the EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 3F8177) by Technology Sciences Group (712 Fifth St., Suite A, Davis, CA 95616) on behalf of IAB, S.L. [Investigaciones y Aplicaciones Biotechnologicas S.L.,Avda, Paret del Patriarca 11-B, Ap. 30, 46113 Moncada (Valencia) Spain. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 in and on all food commodities. The notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner, IAB, S.L, which is available in Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0574 via http://www.regulations.gov.     Three comments were filed in the Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 docket but none of these appeared to concern Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 or the requested exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.  The comments are not relevant to this tolerance action as these comments do not concern the safety of this microbe or have any bearing on the Agency's assessment under section 408 of the FFDCA.

II. Toxicological Profile

Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, the EPA reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information on Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03, and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. The EPA also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

A.  Overview of Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03

Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 is a naturally occurring bacterium originally isolated from the rhizosphere of cucurbits in Valencia, Spain. The Bacillus subtilis species is a naturally occurring bacterium found in agricultural soils worldwide. Bacillus subtilis is a rod-shaped, gram-positive, aerobic, motile bacterium which is ubiquitous in nature and has been recovered from water, soil, air and decomposing plant residue.  The four end-use products EPs containing Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 are proposed for use to control bacterial or fungal pests in various grain, small fruit and vegetable crops, tree fruit and nut crops, and grass seed crops, row crops such as sugarbeet, tobacco, sugarcane, hops, oil crops, greenhouse/shadehouse and landscape ornamental tree and plant crops.  Additional proposed uses include applications to garden and ornamental landscapes in home-owner and residential areas.

B.  Microbial Pesticide Toxicology Data Requirements

All applicable mammalian toxicology data requirements supporting the request for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 in or on all food commodities have been fulfilled with data submitted by the petitioner or scientific rationale. An acute injection toxicity/pathogenicity study showed that Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 when injected intravenously at the dose administered is not toxic or pathogenic via this route of exposure. The acute oral and dermal toxicity were designated EPA Toxicity Category III based on the maximum dose administered. The acute inhalation toxicity and acute eye irritation studies were classified in EPA Toxicity Category IV (see below or Ref. 1, and 2) and revealed little to no toxicity attributed to Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03.  Finally, the petitioner reported that no hypersensitivity incidents occurred during the research, development, and testing of this active ingredient.

The overall conclusions from all toxicological information submitted by the petitioner are briefly described below, and more in-depth synopses of study results can be found in the associated draft Biopesticides Registration Action Document (BRAD) for Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03, provided as a reference in Section VII of this document (Ref. 1).

   1. Acute Injection Toxicity/Pathogenicity  -  Rat  (OCSPP Guideline Number 885.3200) (MRID 48969303)  The microbial pest control agent (MPCA) test substance or inactivated MPCA test substance was injected into the tail vein of one of two groups of rats at a high dose (1.4 x 10[8] CFU/mL or 1.4 x 10[7] CFU/rat).  A control group was conducted concurrently.  The animals were observed frequently on day of dosing for mortality and signs of pharmacologic and/or toxicological effects and once daily thereafter for 21 days.  Tissue and blood samples taken at interim sacrifices from the group receiving the active test substance were cultured to provide quantitative measurements of the test microbe's clearance pattern.  There was no mortality in any group during the study.  During observations for clinical signs, all animals appeared normal for the duration of the study.  The gross necropsy conducted at termination of the study revealed no observable abnormalities, with the exception of one white dot on the liver of a Group III - MPCA animal.  The test organism had cleared completely from the Group III - MPCA blood by Day 3.  Once clearance was established by two consecutive interim sacrifices that showed less than 100 CFU/gram tissue of the test organism in the organs plated, no further tissue samples were taken or cultured.  The test organism had completely cleared from the kidneys by Day 14 and from the brain by Day 21.  There was no test substance seen in the mesenteric lymph nodes or lungs at the Day 21 counts.  Test organism was still present in the liver and spleen at Day 21 but was showing a pattern of clearance.  Test organism was present in the cecum contents by Day 21. Based on the mortality of the animals, the test substance Technical Product Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 was determined to be non-toxic to rats when injected intravenously at a dose of 1.4 x 10[8] CFU/mL or 1.4 x 10[7] CFU/rat. EPA determined this study to be acceptable.

   2. Acute Oral Toxicity/Pathogenicity  -  Rat (OCSPP Guideline Number 885.3050) and Acute Pulmonary Toxicity/Pathogenicity  -  Rat (OCSPP Guideline Number 885.3150)  (MRID 48969317) The registrant has submitted the following rationale that existing data for the Acute Injection Toxicity/ Pathogenicity study on the TGAI be considered to satisfy the requirements for Acute Oral & Pulmonary Tox/Pathogenicity studies: Technical Product Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 was dosed at a single high dose exposure and followed for an adequate post-exposure observation period. The test substance was injected into the tail vein of one of two groups of rats at a high dose. A control group (untreated) was included. The animals were observed frequently on day of dosing for mortality and signs of pharmacologic and/or toxicological effects and once daily thereafter for 21 days. Tissue and blood samples taken at interim sacrifices from the group receiving the active test substance were cultured to provide quantitative measurements of the test microbe's clearance pattern. The acute injection toxicity/ pathogenicity study on the TGAI was adequate to show the microorganism was not infective or toxic at high doses, and the data from the acute oral and acute inhalation studies demonstrated low toxicity (EPA toxicity category III and IV respectively). The EPA determined that existing data for the Acute Injection Toxicity /Pathogenicity study was adequate and the rationale submitted is rated as acceptable.

   3. Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats (OCSPP Guideline Number 870.1100) (MRID 48969304) The test item Bacillus subtilis IAB/BS03 Technical Powder was administered to a group of 6 female Sprague Dawley rats at the single dose of 2000 mg/kg body weight (mean : 7.8 x 10[9] CFU/animal). No mortality occurred during the study. No clinical signs related to the administration of the test item were observed. The body weight evolution of the animals remained normal throughout the study. The macroscopical examination of the animals at the end of the study did not reveal treatment related change. In conclusion, the LD50 of the test item Bacillus subtilis IAB/BS03 Technical Powder is higher than 2000 mg/kg body weight by oral route in the rat. EPA classified the acute oral toxicity of Bacillus subtilis IAB/BS03 as EPA Toxicity Category III. EPA determined this study to be acceptable.

   4. Acute Dermal Toxicity Study in Rats (OCSPP Guideline Number 870.1200)  (MRID 48969305)  The test item Bacillus subtilis IAB/BS03 Technical Powder was applied onto the intact skin of 10 Sprague Dawley rats (5 males and 5 females) at the single dose of 2000 mg/kg body weight (mean : 8.8 10[9] CFU/animal). No mortality occurred during the study. Neither cutaneous reactions nor systemic clinical signs related to the administration of the test item were observed. A slight brown coloration was noted on the treatment site of all animals on days 1 and 2. The body weight evolution of the animals remained normal throughout the study. The macroscopical examination of the animals at the end of the study did not reveal treatment-related changes. In conclusion, the LD50 of the test item Bacillus subtilis IAB/BS03 Technical Powder is higher than 2000 mg/kg body weight by dermal route in the rat. EPA classified the acute dermal toxicity of Bacillus subtilis IAB/BS03 as Toxicity Category III and rated this study as acceptable.

   5. Acute Inhalation Toxicity Study in Rats (OCSPP Guideline Number 870.1300)     (MRID 48969407)       This study was performed to assess the toxic potential of a substance by single inhalation dose, and estimate the lethal concentration (LC50) in rats at a level of concentration of 4.7 mg/L in air during 4 hours of exposure to Bacillus subtilis IAB/BS03. The test substance was administered by a system of resuspension of dust which provided the material in a concentration of 4.7 mg/L in air. 10 rats (5 for each sex) of the Sprague-Dawley strain were exposed to the product within an exposure chamber for a period of 4 hours. The results showed a mortality of 0% and a LC50 of level upper of 4.7 mg/L in air during 4 hours. The clinical observations were conducted daily, looking for signs of toxicity or mortality in the population over a 14 day period. Body weight was recorded weekly during the study. At the end, the surviving animals were submitted to necropsy. The animals exposed by inhalation route to 4.7 mg/L of the product Bacillus subtilis IAB/BS03 in air during 4 hours showed no symptoms associated with exposure of the product during the 14 day period of observation. The macroscopic pathology examination of the animals exposed to the test substance showed moderate pulmonary congestion, mild petechia in lung and moderate to severe hepatic congestion. All the animals showed a weight increase during the period of the study. This increase was 29.5% in male and 8.5% in female. This study estimated that LC50 for the product Bacillus subtilis IAB/BS03 in rats is higher than 4.7 mg/L in air during 4 hours. EPA classified the acute inhalation toxicity of Bacillus subtilis IAB/BS03 as Toxicity Category IV and rated this study as acceptable    6. Primary Eye Irritation  -  Rabbit   (OCSPP Guideline Number 870.2400) (MRID 48969306) The test item Bacillus subtilis IAB/BS03 Technical Powder was instilled, as supplied, into the eye of 3 New Zealand rabbits at the dose of 0.1 g (2 x 10[9] CFU)/animal. The ocular conjunctivae reactions observed during the study have been slight to moderate and totally reversible. A slight to moderate redness was noted 1 hour after the test item instillation and was totally reversible between days 2 and 4. This redness was associated with a slight chemosis noted 1 hour after the test item instillation in two animals and this slight chemosis was totally reversible on day 1. EPA classified the primary eye irritation of Bacillus subtilis IAB/BS03 as Toxicity Category IV and rated this study as acceptable.

   7. Primary Dermal Irritation  -  Rabbit  (OCSPP Guideline Number 870.2500)  (MRID 48969307) The test item Bacillus subtilis IAB/BS03 Technical Powder was applied, as supplied, at the dose of 0.5 g (1010 CFU /animal), under semi-occlusive dressing during 4 hours on an undamaged skin area of 3 rabbits. A slight erythema was noted on the treated area of one animal, 1 and 24 hours after the patch removal. This reaction was totally reversible on day 2. EPA classified the primary dermal irritation of Bacillus subtilis IAB/BS03 as Toxicity Category IV and rated this study as acceptable.

   8. Hypersensitivity incidents (OCSPP Guideline Number 885.3400) To date, no incidents of hypersensitivity or any other adverse effects have occurred through the research, development, testing or commercialization of the active ingredient Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 Technical Powder and its related end-use products. Should any incidents occur, they must be reported per FIFRA Section 6(a)(2).

III. Aggregate Exposure

In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of FFDCA directs EPA to consider  available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other nonoccupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses).

Food Exposure and Risk Characterization: Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 and other closely related Bacillus subtilis bacteria already exist in the soil environment. The EPA found that increased dietary exposure to Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03, a naturally occurring bacterium, from pesticide use is anticipated to be negligible because  it is anticipated that the concentrations of Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 on treated plants may be elevated immediately after application but will rapidly decline to environmental background levels. The EPA concluded that the risk posed to adults, infants, and children is likely to be minimal because of the low acute toxicity/pathogenicity potential of Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 based on the results of toxicity studies described in in sections II of this document..

Drinking Water Exposure and Risk Characterization: Bacillus subtilis is naturally present in soils (Ref. 3); therefore, Bacillus subtilis may occur in surface water and possibly groundwater. There are no use sites for the Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 containing pesticides with direct applications to water, but there is a possibility of spray drift from aerial applications or runoff of prepared fields and rangelands into surface waters.  Bacillus species are often detected in drinking water even after going through acceptable water treatment processes, largely because the spores are resistant to these disinfection processes (Ref. 4).and it is possible that spores of Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 could be found in drinking water along with naturally occurring Bacilli spores found in soils. Should this microbial pesticide be present, no adverse effects are expected from exposure to Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03, through drinking water, based on the results of toxicity studies described in in sections II of this document.

Non-occupational, Residential Risk Characterization:  Because Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 use sites do include residential settings and the bacterium is naturally-occurring, some non-occupational exposure to the bacterium is likely. Repeated exposures to the Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 microorganism from pesticidal applications do not exceed EPA's level of concern, particularly in light of available data that demonstrate Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 is not toxic (acute injection toxicity/pathogenicity and acute oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity), is non-irritating (primary dermal irritation, primary eye irritation), and is not pathogenic when used as labeled in accordance with good agricultural practices (acute injection toxicity/pathogenicity) (see additional discussion in Section II of this document).

IV. Cumulative Effects from Substances with a Common Mechanism of Toxicity

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance exemption, the EPA consider "available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity."  The EPA has not found Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 to share a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 does not appear to be toxic to humans via dietary, dermal and pulmonary exposure. For the purposes of the tolerance action, therefore, the EPA has assumed that Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. Thus, section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA does not apply. For information regarding the EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

V.  Determination of Safety for the United States Population, Infants and Children In considering the establishment of a tolerance or tolerance exemption for a pesticide chemical residue, FFDCA section 408 (b) (2) (C) provides that the EPA shall assess the available information about consumption patterns among infants and children, special susceptibility of infants and children to pesticide chemical residues, and the cumulative effects on infants and children of the residues and other substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. In addition, FFDCA section 408(b) (2) (C) provides that the EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of exposure (safety) for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless the EPA determines that a different margin of exposure (safety) will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of exposure (safety) is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. In applying this provision, the EPA either retains the default value of 10X or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to the EPA support the choice of a different factor.

Based on the acute toxicity and pathogenicity data/information discussed in section II above (and Ref. 1 and 2), the EPA concludes that there are no threshold effects of concern to infants, children, or adults when Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 is used as labeled in accordance with good agricultural practices. As a result, the EPA concludes that no additional margin of exposure (safety) is necessary to protect infants and children and that not adding any additional margin of exposure (safety) will be safe for infants and children.

Moreover, based on the same data/information and EPA analysis as presented directly above, the Agency is able to conclude that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the United States population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to the residues of Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 when it is used -- as labeled and in accordance with good agricultural practices -- as an herbicide. Such exposure includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. The EPA has arrived at this conclusion because, considered collectively, the data and information available on Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 do not demonstrate toxic or pathogenic potential to mammals, including infants and children.

.   VI. Conclusions

The EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03. Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 in or on all food commodities when applied or used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

VII. References

   1. Biopesticides Registration Action Document (BRAD) for Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03

   2. U.S. EPA. 2014a.  Memorandum from I. Barsoum (OPP/BPPD) to S. Cerrelli, Re:  Review of Product Chemistry and Acute Toxicity Studies for Section 3 registration of new TGAI Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 ( EPA Reg. No. 89615-R). Dated July 29, 2014.

   3. Logan, N.A., and P. de Vos. 2009. Genus I. Bacillus, Pp. 21-128 In: P. de Vos, G.M. Garrity, D. Jones, N.R. Krieg, W. Ludwig, F.A. Rainey, K.H. Schleifer, and W. Whitman (Eds.) Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Volume 3, 2nd Ed. Springer, New York.

   4. World Health Organization, Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. (2011) 4th Ed. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/2011/dwq_guidelines/en/


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25180-25183]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11407]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1092; FRL-9994-65-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Permit To Install Public Hearing
Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving certain
changes to the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action
relates to changes to the Permit to Install requirements for public
participation of permitting actions. Additionally, the action contains
changes to the rule which address permit emission limits that are
enforceable as a practical matter.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 1, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1092. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend
that you telephone Constantine Blathras, Environmental Engineer, at
(312) 886-0671 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constantine Blathras, Environmental
Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background
II. State Submittal
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act requires that the SIP
include a program to provide for the ``regulation of the modification
and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by
the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality
standards are achieved.'' This includes a program for permitting
construction and modification of both major and minor sources that the
state deems necessary to protect air quality. The State of Michigan's
minor source permit to install rules are contained in Part 2 (Air Use
Approval) of the Michigan Administrative Code. Changes to the Part 2
rules were submitted on November 12, 1993; May 16, 1996; April 3, 1998;
September 2, 2003; March 24, 2009; and February 28, 2017.
    Michigan originally submitted its Michigan R 336.1205 (rule 205) as
a revision to its Part 2 SIP on May 16, 1996. The most recent version
of rule 205 was submitted to EPA on March 24, 2009 and has a State
effective date of June 20, 2008. EPA published a proposed approval of
all Part 2 changes, except rule 205, on August 15, 2017 (82 FR 38651).
EPA took no action to approve rule 205 at that time. Most recently, EPA
approved changes to the Part 2 rules (except rule 205) in a final
approval dated August 31, 2018 (83 FR 44485). In this action, EPA is
approving revisions to the SIP for Michigan rule 205 and 324.5511(3) of
the Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. Rule
205 is titled ``Permit to install; approval.'' and is a section of the
Part 2 air use approval rules of the Michigan Administrative Code that
specifies the public participation requirements for issuance of air
pollutant construction permits. Michigan Act 451, Part 55, section
324.5511(3) defines the permitting actions requiring public comment and
public hearing opportunities.

II. State Submittal

(1) R 336.1205 (Rule 205) of Michigan's Part 2 Air Permit Rules

    Rule 205 requires permits to install which include limitations that
restrict the potential to emit from a stationary source, process, or
process equipment to a quantity below that which would otherwise
constitute a major source or major modification under any part of the
Part 2 air permit rules. Permits to install must contain adequate
emission limits that are enforceable as a practical matter; with a
consideration to the time-period, production, emission, usage and/or
operational limits that restrict the source's potential to emit in
order to demonstrate compliance.
    Michigan rule 205 describes the content and public participation
process for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), as
the permitting authority, to act on certain permits which need to be
``federally enforceable'' or enforceable as a practical matter.
Additionally, the rule also prescribes these requirements for

any permit issued under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. This rule
incorporates guidance published by EPA in the Federal Register on June
28, 1989 (54 FR 27274) on limiting a source's potential to emit. The
rule applies only to sources and modifications defined as ``major''
under Federal regulations and to sources which would be subject to the
``major'' requirements except for conditions contained in the permit
which limit the potential to emit to less than the applicable emission
thresholds. Sources which accept conditions which limit the potential
to emit to something less than the true design capacity of the
equipment being installed are referred to as ``synthetic minor''
sources.
    Rule 205 specifies that the draft permit is subject to the public
participation process specified in section 324.5511(3) of Michigan Act
451. The requirements of section 324.5511(3) are reviewed and further
described below. Lastly, Michigan, at its discretion, may approve a
permit to install that includes limitations restricting the potential
to emit of the stationary source without meeting the requirements of
section 324.5511(3) if the emission limitations restrict the potential
to emit of the source to less than 90% of the quantity referenced in
the applicable requirement.

(2) 324.5511(3) of Michigan Act 451

    In its May 1996 submittal, MDEQ requested that all of Part 55 of
Act 451 of the 1994 Michigan act be approved as a revision to the
Michigan SIP in addition to rule 205 and other sections of Michigan's
Part 2 air permit program rules. EPA did not act on the request to
include Part 55 of the Michigan act into the Michigan SIP, nor did we
approve rule 205. Upon EPA's review of the submittal, we determined
that the other sections of the Part 55 act, such as 324.5506, pertain
to the Michigan operating permits program. EPA approved the mechanism
for Michigan's title V operating permits program but did not approve
its operating permits rules into the SIP because that program has a
different approval mechanism under the Clean Air Act. Additionally,
section 324.5511(3) references consent orders and the public notice
opportunity for those actions. Actions related to consent orders are
not being approved into the State's SIP.
    On December 19, 2018, Michigan submitted a clarification letter to
EPA specifying that it only intended to submit a selection of section
324.5511(3) of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act
451 of 1994 as part of the revision with Michigan rule 205. Michigan
rule 205 references the above-mentioned rule 324.5511(3) at R
336.1205(1)(b) citing, ``A draft permit has been subjected to the
public participation process specified in section 324.5511(3) of the
act.'' EPA is approving the selection of section 5511(3) into the
Michigan SIP as submitted by the State in their December 19, 2018
letter. The selected language as submitted removes references to
Michigan's operating permits program and consent order requirements
which are not being approved into the SIP, nor are they required to be
approved into the SIP. Whereas section 5511(3) contains provisions
related to New Source Review (NSR), the operating permits program, and
consent orders, this action is not intended as a revision to Michigan's
SIP language pertaining to its title V operating permits program or to
actions related to consent orders, but only for NSR construction
permitting purposes.
    EPA requires that major sources and major modifications to major
sources subject to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of air
quality and those sources impacting nonattainment areas be subject to
public participation requirements, including a public comment period
and opportunity for a public hearing. EPA already approved Michigan's
major source air permitting program and its associated public
participation requirements, found in Michigan rule R 336.2817, on March
25, 2010 (75 FR14352) in accordance with the requirements found in 40
CFR 51.166. Sources subject to Part 19, New Source Review for major
sources impacting nonattainment areas, are required to obtain a permit
subject to the permitting provisions of Michigan rules Part 19, which
meet the requirements found in 40 CFR 51.165(a) and (b), and rule 201
of the Part 2 air permit rules.
    Approving Michigan's rule 205 and section 324.5511(3) of the
Michigan act as a revision to the Michigan SIP will strengthen the
existing State public notice requirements for public participation for
air permits. As stated in Michigan's letter, ``These additions will
strengthen the Michigan SIP by formalizing the public participation
process for all permits issued pursuant to Part 55 and R 336.1201, as
well as major source prevention of significant deterioration and
nonattainment NSR permits to install.''
    Section 324.5511(3), paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) specify the
requirements for permit notification and sets the public comment period
to at least 30 days with an opportunity for a public hearing with at
least a 30-day notice. The current SIP required NSR public
participation process provides for only a 21-day public notice and
comment period. The Federal permit public participation requirements
are only applicable for major source and major modifications in both
attainment and nonattainment areas and not the minor source permitting
program. These approved provisions of rule 205 and section 324.5511(3)
further strengthen the already approved minor air pollutant
construction permitting program by adding a public notice requirement
for those sources above 90% of the quantity referenced in the
applicable requirements which would constitute a major source or major
modification and by prescribing the permit emission limitations which
will make the synthetic minor air permit practically enforceable.
Michigan will continue to exercise its discretion by making draft
permits available for public comment which are below the 90% quantity
in the applicable requirements for a major source or major
modification.

(3) Proposed Approval and Comments Received

    On March 27, 2019, EPA published an action proposing approval of
Michigan rule R336.1205 and 324.5511(3) of Michigan Act 451 (84 FR
11464). The comment period for the proposed approval ended April 26,
2019. EPA received two comments via the regulations.gov website during
the comment period. Commenters submitted comments that generally were
in support of this proposed action. One commenter noted that the
requirement for public hearing being put into place in Michigan needs
to be country-wide and not just limited to communities that demand it
after damage has already happened. The commenter also raised concerns
with the oil and gas companies not requiring public notice for drilling
operations. The Federal major source construction permitting rules
require that all major sources of air pollution be subject to a public
participation process including a 30-day public comment period and
opportunity for a public hearing. States are required to adopt
requirements that are at least as stringent as the Federal applicable
air permitting requirements. The State of Michigan issues air permits
pursuant to its regulations including all applicable Federal
requirements, with their associated public notice and comment period
requirements.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving Michigan rule R 336.1205, ``Permit to install;
approval''

and portions of section 324.5511(3) of Michigan Act 451 of 1994 into
the Michigan SIP.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Michigan
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available through www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA Region
5 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in
the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by
EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110
and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of
EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 30, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 21, 2019.
Cheryl L. Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. Section 52.1170 is amended:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (c) by adding an entry for ``R 336.1205''
after the entry for ``R 336.1204'' under the heading ``Part 2. Air Use
Approval''; and
0
b. In the table in paragraph (e) by adding an entry for ``List of
permit applications; list of consent order public notices; notice,
opportunity for public comment and public hearing required for certain
permit actions.'' after the entry for ``Regional Haze Progress
Report''.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Michigan Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
      Michigan citation               Title          effective date    EPA approval date          Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Part 2. Air Use Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
R 336.1205..................  Permit to install;          6/20/2008  5/31/2019, [Insert
                               approval.                              Federal Register
                                                                      citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
   Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or         State       EPA approval date          Comments
           provision             nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
List of permit applications;     Statewide.........      12/19/2018  5/31/2019, [Insert  Includes: Letter from
 list of consent order public                                         Federal Register    Michigan Department of
 notices; notice, opportunity                                         citation].          Environmental Quality
 for public comment and public                                                            Director C. Heidi
 hearing required for certain                                                             Grether to Regional
 permit actions.                                                                          Administrator Cathy
                                                                                Stepp, dated 12/19/
                                                                                2018, along with an
                                                                                enclosed selection of
                                                                                Section 5511 (3) of
                                                                                Part 55, Air Pollution
                                                                                Control, of the
                                                                                Natural Resources and
                                                                                Environmental
                                                                                Protection Act, 1994
                                                                                PA 451, as amended.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-11407 Filed 5-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 118 (Monday, June 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35931-35933]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15174]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64666; File No. SR-NSCC-2011-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to the Analytic Reporting Service

June 14, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on June 2, 2011, the National
Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared
primarily by NSCC. NSCC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \2\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) thereunder
\3\ so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change clarifies provisions related to the
Analytic Reporting Service.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NSCC 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. NSCC 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 Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    Under the proposed rule change, NSCC will amend Rule 57 (Insurance
and Retirement Processing Services), Section 12 (Analytic Reporting
Service) to clarify (i) the scope of information included within the
Analytic Reporting Service and (ii) the opt-out provisions

applicable to the Analytic Reporting Service with the goal of providing
greater transparency to NSCC Members and Limited Members.\4\ The rule
change, which can be viewed as filed by NSCC on its Web site at http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2011/nscc/2011-03.pdf,
include the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Analytic Reporting Service provides NSCC Members and
Limited Members with the ability to perform market analysis based on
Insurance Processing Service (``IPS'') Data. This market analysis
(commonly referred to as ``benchmarking data'') allows users of the
service to obtain and compare aggregated data from different
perspectives. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63604 (Dec. 23,
2010), 75 FR 82115 (Dec. 29, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Change in Name
    The original name of the service was the ``Analytics Reporting
Service.'' Based on further discussions, NSCC has determined that it
will call the service the ``Analytic Reporting Service'' (i.e.,
Analytic will be singular and not plural).
2. Scope of the Release of Clearing Data
    ``Clearing Data,'' as defined in NSCC's Rule 49, includes data
received by NSCC for inclusion in the clearance and settlement process
of NSCC or such data, reports, or summaries produced as a result of
NSCC processing such transaction data. In order to clarify the
information that will be released as part of the Analytic Reporting
Service, NSCC is revising Rule 57, Section 12, to define the term
``Analytics Data'' to mean ``aggregated information related to the
insurance products market, including benchmarking information and
league tables.'' The intent of this change is to clarify the scope and
extent of the data that will be released as part of the Analytic
Reporting Service.
3. Opt-Out Provision
    NSCC Members and Limited Members are provided with the opportunity
to opt-out of having information attributed to them as part of the
league tables because certain NSCC Members and Limited Members may
consider this to be a release of proprietary or confidential
information. In order to clarify the relationship between the Analytic
Reporting Service opt-out provisions and Rule 49, Section 12 of Rule 57
is being amended to specifically state that those NSCC Members or
Limited Members that do not opt-out in the manner described in section
12 of Rule 57 are deemed to have consented to the release of their IPS
Data as part of the Analytics Data for the purposes of Rule 49.
    In order for an IPS Member to opt-out of having information
attributed to itself prior to the service becoming available, an IPS
Member must notify NSCC in writing during the initial ninety (90) day
opt-out period. NSCC will announce the beginning of this ninety (90)
day period through an Important Notice. A new IPS Member may opt-out by
providing NSCC with written notice of its election to opt-out at any
time prior to activation of its account. Once the Analytic Reporting
Service commences to include the information of an IPS Member, the IPS
Member may elect to opt-out at any time by providing NSCC with thirty
(30) days' written notice.
    By opting-out, an IPS Member is prohibiting NSCC from attributing
Analytics Data in any discernable manner to that IPS Member. However,
opting-out does not prohibit NSCC from including the IPS Member's
information for purposes of benchmarking in a manner that does not
identify the specific IPS Member. By opting-out, the IPS Member also
permits NSCC to disclose that the specific Analytics Data attributable
to the particular IPS Member is not included in certain types of data
(e.g., in the production of league tables, NSCC will disclose which IPS
Members have not been included in the league tables). This disclosure
will provide transparency to all IPS Members and will assist in the
usability of the Analytics Data.
    As stated in the original Analytic Reporting Service filing,\5\ an
IPS Member that opts-out will forfeit any portion of NSCC's annual
refund, if any, that is directly attributable to the revenue generated
by the Analytic Reporting Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC states that the proposed change is consistent with the
requirements set forth under Section 17A of the Act \6\ because it will
permit NSCC Members and Limited Members to enhance their monitoring and
analysis of their respective businesses and is designed to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in the clearance and
settlement of securities transactions, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a national system for the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact or impose any burden on competition.

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

    NSCC has not solicited or received written comments relating to the
proposed rule change. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written
comments it receives.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) \8\
thereunder because the proposed rule change effects a change in an
existing service of NSCC that (i) does not adversely affect the
safeguarding of securities or funds in NSCC's custody or control or for
which it is responsible and (ii) does not significantly affect the
respective rights of NSCC or persons using the service. At any time
within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Supra note 2.
    \8\ Supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NSCC-2011-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NSCC-2011-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with
respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filings also will be available for inspection and
copying at NSCC's principal office and NSCC's Web site at http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2011/nscc/2011-03.pdf. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-NSCC-2011-03 and should be
submitted on or before July 11, 2011.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-15174 Filed 6-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:BARFIELD GENE, ASSE; BARFIELD GENE, ASSE; BARFIELD GENE, ASSE; BARFIELD GENE, ASSE


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 15 (Thursday, January 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3960-3963]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01024]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. SIPA-180; File No. SIPC-2019-01]

Securities Investor Protection Corporation; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Bylaw Change, as Revised by Amendment No. 1, Relating to SIPC
Board Compensation

January 16, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 3(e)(1) of the Securities Investor Protection
Act of 1970 (``SIPA''),\1\ on October 7, 2019 the Securities Investor
Protection Corporation (``SIPC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed bylaw change relating
to the SIPC Board of Directors' (``Board'') compensation. On October
24, 2019, SIPC consented to a 90-day extension of time before the
proposed bylaw amendments would take effect pursuant to section 3(e)(1)
of SIPA. On November 19, 2019, SIPC filed a revised version of the
proposed bylaw change, which replaced and superseded the original
proposed bylaw change in its entirety. Pursuant to section 3(e)(1)(B)
of SIPA, the Commission finds that the proposed bylaw change, as
revised by Amendment No. 1, involves a matter of such significant
public interest that public comment should be obtained.\2\ Therefore,
pursuant to section 3(e)(2)(A) of SIPA, the Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comment from interested persons on the proposed
bylaw change, as revised by Amendment No. 1.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78ccc(e)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78ccc(e)(1)(B).
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78ccc(e)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its filing with the Commission, SIPC included statements
concerning the purpose of and statutory basis for the proposed bylaw
change, as revised by Amendment No. 1, as described below, which
description has been substantially prepared by SIPC.

I. SIPC's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for,
Proposed SIPC Bylaw Change Relating to SIPC Board Compensation

    Pursuant to Section 3(e)(1) of SIPA, SIPC hereby submits for filing
with the Commission a proposed amendment to Article 2, Section 6, of
the SIPC Bylaws. Article 2, Section 6, of the Bylaws relates to the
honoraria paid to non-Governmental members of the SIPC Board.
    As amended, Article 2, Section 6, would: (1) Change the Board
Chairperson's yearly honorarium from $15,000 to $28,000; (2) change the
Directors' yearly honorarium from $6,250 to $12,000; (3) while the
position of Chairperson remains vacant, authorize the Board Vice
Chairperson who serves as acting Chairperson for a continuous twelve
month period, to receive an honorarium of $28,000; (4) while the
positions of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson remain vacant, authorize
any Director, to whom the SIPC Board delegates authority to perform
certain functions of the Chairperson, to receive an honorarium of
$28,000 provided that the Director performs those functions for a
continuous twelve month period; and (5) provide for a re-evaluation of
Board honoraria every ten (10) years under a formula tied to the Senior
Executive Service pay scale.
    The proposed bylaw amendment was approved by the SIPC Board. Under
SIPA section 78ccc(e)(1), unless it is disapproved by the Commission or
the Commission determines that the matter is of such significant public
interest as

to warrant public comment, the amendment will take effect thirty (30)
days after a copy is filed with the Commission. The Board has provided
that, if approved by the Commission, the proposed amendment would not
be implemented until six (6) months from the date of Commission
approval or non-disapproval. Section IV below provides the text of the
proposed changes to Article 2, Section 6, of the Bylaws.

Background

    The SIPC Board consists of seven members. Five of SIPC's Directors
are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by
the Senate. Of the five Directors, three are associated with, and
representative of, the securities industry (``Securities Directors''),
and two are from outside of the industry. The Directors from outside of
the securities industry serve as Chairman and Vice Chairman of SIPC. In
addition, one SIPC Director is an officer or employee of the Department
of the Treasury and one Director is an officer or employee of the
Federal Reserve Board. SIPA Sec.  78ccc(c)(1)-(3).
    Under SIPA Section 78ccc(c)(5), all matters relating to Director
compensation are as provided in the SIPC Bylaws. Since 1994, when the
position of Chairperson ceased to be a full-time position, the
honoraria awarded to the Directors have been as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bylaw date                    Bylaw                 Chairman                Vice Chairman                    Industry directors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994.............................  Art. 2, Sec.   6...  $1,000/meeting; $500/day  $500/meeting; $500/day    Expenses only.
                                                         for official business +   for official business +
                                                         expenses.                 expenses.
2006.............................  Art. 2, Sec.   6...  $15,000 honorarium +      $6,250 honorarium +       $6,250 honorarium + expenses.
                                                         expenses.                 expenses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the Government Directors are ineligible, the recipients of
the honoraria are limited to the Directors from the private sector. The
honoraria are paid from the SIPC Fund, 15 U.S.C. 78ddd(a)(1), and no
taxpayer monies are used.
    The amounts of the Director honoraria have been the same for more
than 10 years. For the reasons discussed below, the Board has
determined that it is appropriate that the proposed changes to Article
2, Section 6, of the Bylaws be made.

General Statement of Basis and Purpose of Proposed Changes

Enhanced Responsibilities and Risk
    The SIPC Board sets the direction and policies for the Corporation.
Since the 2008 financial crisis, SIPC's responsibilities have grown,
and greater demands have been placed upon the time, commitment, and
energy, of the Directors.
    The Directors oversee a Fund which currently stands at more than
$3.3 billion. The size of the Fund is modest compared to the amounts of
customer assets at risk in SIPA liquidations over the last several
years. These have included MF Global Inc., involving the largest
commodities brokerage liquidation in history; Lehman Brothers Inc.,
with $106 billion owed to more than 111,000 customers; and Bernard L.
Madoff Investment Securities LLC, with over $20 billion of customer
assets owed. Each of these liquidations contained or contains complex
and significant legal or operational hurdles for their resolution.
Today, such large cases cannot be viewed as isolated events or SIPC's
involvement in them as incidental. For example, in a too-big-to-fail
situation, Congress has given SIPC an important role. Under the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, SIPC serves as
trustee in the orderly liquidation of a covered broker-dealer. See 12
U.S.C. 5385(a)(1).
    Given the breadth of SIPC's mission, whether the Fund is sufficient
to satisfy SIPA's goal of customer protection is one of the most
important issues that Directors face. The potential exposure arising
from the liquidation of large firms alone highlights the importance of
the Board's decision-making.
    The sizeable amounts at stake in recent cases also create more risk
for the Directors including the risk that Directors may be sued for
tactical reasons, however frivolous such suits may be. For example, in
the Madoff case, the SIPC Board and its President were sued in a multi-
million dollar complaint brought by Madoff investors. Canavan v.
Harbeck, Case No. 2:10-cv-00954-FSH-PS (D.N.J.). Although the Directors
are shielded from liability for their good faith actions or omissions
under SIPA Section 78kkk(c), the burden of having to defend against a
law suit, the uncertainty of the outcome of litigation, the demands on
a Director's time, and the reputational risk to the Director, remain.
    Today, more accountability is asked of corporate directors. At
SIPC, the Directors not only oversee the administration of the quasi-
public SIPC Fund, but also of the SIPC Employees' Savings Plan, and the
SIPC Employees' Retirement Plan. As a result of their role in these and
other matters, the Board must carefully oversee Management and the
policies and procedures Management has put in place.
Time Commitment
    SIPC Directors willingly devote their time to SIPC, often at the
expense of other important commitments, and potential compensation,
outside of their SIPC responsibilities. The time, even for some
Directors to travel to SIPC, can be burdensome since under SIPA section
78ccc(c)(2)(C)(i), the Securities Directors cannot be from the same
geographical area of the United States. SIPC Directors travel from
their home base to Washington, DC, to attend regular Board, as well as
Committee, Meetings. There are three committees at SIPC on which the
Directors serve: One for investments, another for compensation, and a
third, for audit and budget. See Article 3, Section 1, of the SIPC
Bylaws. In addition to their attendance and participation at Meetings,
the Directors regularly meet in Executive Session to discuss matters of
importance to SIPC business.
Attracting and Retaining Qualified Directors
    In order for the SIPC program to be successful, it must have a
Board that is engaged, resourceful, and willing to devote the time and
energy to the program and to be committed to it. While it is an honor
to be appointed as a Director, there should be some recognition of the
contributions made by these individuals. Measured against the demands
placed upon the Directors and the responsibilities and risks they are
expected to assume, the changes proposed by the Board are modest.
Basis for the Amounts Proposed
    In considering a possible Bylaw change, the Board, through its
Government Directors, commissioned Korn/Ferry International (``Korn/
Ferry''), a leading global management and executive consulting firm, to
provide recommendations with respect to compensation for SIPC Board

members, including the Chair and Vice Chair. In undertaking the
engagement, Korn/Ferry constructed a peer group of 23 organizations
comparable to SIPC and analyzed their Director compensation. The peer
group included non-profit groups, regulatory advocacy organizations, as
well as federally funded ones.
    Based upon its analysis, Korn/Ferry concluded that entities similar
to SIPC in purpose and responsibilities typically provide some
compensation to their Directors. Specifically, with respect to SIPC,
Korn/Ferry recommended that:
    (1) Director compensation consist of an annual retainer paid
quarterly and ranging between $30,000 and $50,000;
    (2) The Vice Chair receive an additional amount of $3,000 to $5,000
per year; and
    (3) The Chair receive an additional $10,000 to $15,000 per year.
    Korn/Ferry Director Compensation Analysis, dated May 31, 2019, at
10.
    Independently, the Government Directors formulated a separate
approach to the matter. Under their analysis, they reasoned that
because the non-Government Directors are Presidential appointees
confirmed by the Senate who render a public service, it would be
appropriate to measure the amount of a Director honorarium against the
pay of a Senior Executive Service (``SES'') Government employee. The
maximum amount under the SES pay scale currently is $189,600. Based
upon an average of 16 days of service per year comprised of six days of
meetings, five days for preparation, and five days for ad hoc work, the
Directors concluded that the non-Government Directors should receive an
honorarium of $12,000 per year which would continue to be paid in
quarterly installments. Applying the current ratio of Chair versus non-
Chair honoraria, the non-Government Directors calculated the honorarium
of the Chair at $28,000. The Board also calculated that an adjustment
for inflation since the honoraria were last set in 2006 would have
resulted in an honorarium of more than $19,000 for the Chair.
    The Board adopted the recommendations of the non-Government
Directors, and agreed with their proposal that the amount of the
honoraria be reviewed every ten years, and adjusted according to the
above methodology. The Directors also agreed that the requested
amendment, if approved, would take effect six months from the date of
approval or non-disapproval by the Commission.

II. Need for Public Comment

    Section 3(e)(1) of SIPA provides that the Board of Directors of
SIPC must file a copy of any proposed bylaw change with the Commission,
accompanied by a concise general statement of the basis and purpose of
the proposed bylaw change.\4\ The proposed bylaw change will become
effective thirty days after the date of filing with the Commission or
upon such later date as SIPC may designate or such earlier date as the
Commission may determine unless: (1) The Commission, by notice to SIPC
setting forth the reasons for such action, disapproves the proposed
bylaw change as being contrary to the public interest or contrary to
the purposes of SIPA; or (2) the Commission finds that the proposed
bylaw change involves a matter of such significant public interest that
public comment should be obtained, in which case it may, after
notifying SIPC in writing of such finding, require that the procedures
for SIPC proposed rule changes in section 3(e)(2) of SIPA be followed
with respect to the proposed bylaw change.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78ccc(e)(1).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78ccc(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Compensation paid to members of the financial service industry and
paid to officials serving the public interest has become a topic of
public interest in recent years. Therefore, the Commission finds,
pursuant to section 3(e)(1)(B) of SIPA,\6\ that the proposed bylaw
changes involve a matter of such significant public interest that
public comment should be obtained and is requiring that the procedures
applicable to SIPC proposed rule changes in section 3(e)(2) of SIPA \7\
be followed. As required by section 3(e)(1)(B) of SIPA,\8\ the
Commission has notified SIPC of this finding in writing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78ccc(e)(1)(B).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78ccc(e)(2).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78ccc(e)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register, or within such longer period (A) as the Commission
may designate of not more than ninety days after such date if it finds
such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so
finding or (B) as to which SIPC consents, the Commission shall: (i) By
order approve such proposed bylaw change; or (ii) institute proceedings
to determine whether such proposed bylaw change should be
disapproved.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78ccc(e)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Text of Proposed Bylaw Change

    The text of the proposed bylaw change, as revised by Amendment No.
1, is provided below. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed
deletions are in brackets.
ARTICLE 2
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Section 6. Honorarium and Reimbursement of Expenses
    The Chairman of the Corporation shall receive a yearly honorarium
of $[15,000]28,000. The Chairman also shall be reimbursed for expenses
incurred in connection with official business of the Corporation. The
Vice Chairman shall receive a yearly honorarium of $[6,250]12,000,
except that, if the position of Chairman is vacant and the Vice
Chairman serves as acting Chairman for a continuous twelve-month
period, then the Vice Chairman shall receive a yearly honorarium of
$28,000 for such period, calculated on a ratable basis for any partial
period of such service in excess of the first twelve-month period. The
Vice Chairman also shall be reimbursed for expenses incurred in
connection with official business of the Corporation. The three
Directors selected from the securities industry (``Securities
Directors'') each shall receive a yearly honorarium of $[6,250]12,000,
except that, if the positions of Chairman and Vice Chairman are vacant
and, during such vacancy and pursuant to a delegation of authority from
the Board, one of the Securities Directors performs certain functions
of the Chairman for a continuous twelve-month period, then that
Securities Director shall receive a yearly honorarium of $28,000 for
such period, calculated on a ratable basis for any partial period of
such service in excess of the first twelve-month period. The
[three]Securities Directors [selected from the securities industry]
also shall be reimbursed for expenses incurred in connection with
official business of the Corporation. [The yearly honoraria shall be
paid in quarterly installments as of November 21, 2006.] The remaining
two Directors shall receive no honoraria from the Corporation and shall
not be reimbursed by the Corporation for their official business
expenses.
    The honoraria described herein shall be paid in quarterly
installments beginning on May 6, 2020. At ten year intervals
thereafter, without further amendment of these Bylaws, the Board shall
have authority to evaluate and adjust the amounts of the honoraria
provided herein. In adjusting the amount of the honoraria, the Board

shall give due consideration to the number of days of service rendered
by such member of the Board, and the maximum pay of a Senior Executive
Service Government employee.

V. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SIPC-2019-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All comments should refer to File Number SIPC-2019-01. To help the
Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed bylaw change that is filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
bylaw change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Commission. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SIPC-2019-01, and
should be submitted on or before February 13, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(f)(2)(i); 17 CFR 200.30-3(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-01024 Filed 1-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 27 (Monday, February 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7542-7543]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02558]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL20-20-000; QF14-782-001]

GRE 314 East Lyme LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on February 3, 2020, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2019), GRE 314 East Lyme
LLC (Petitioner), filed a petition for declaratory order seeking
requirements applicable to qualifying small power production facilities
set forth in section 292.203(a)(3) for the period June 6, 2014 to
September 18, 2014, as more fully explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern time on March 4, 2020.

    Dated: February 4, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
 Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-02558 Filed 2-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 186 (Thursday, September 25, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57494-57495]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22759]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 171 and 173

[Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0143 (HM-253)]
RIN 2137-AE81

Hazardous Materials: Reverse Logistics (RRR).

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. Extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is notifying the public of its intent to extend the
comment period by thirty days for a notice of proposed rulemaking
entitled ``Hazardous Materials: Reverse Logistics'' under Docket Number
PHMSA-2011-0143 (HM-253) published in the Federal Register on August
11, 2014.

DATES: The comment period for the NPRM published August 11, 2014, at 79
FR 46748, is extended from October 10, 2014, until November 10, 2014.
To the extent possible, PHMSA will consider late-filed comments.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket Number
(PHMSA-2011-0143; HM-253) by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing
Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: To Docket Operations, Room W12-140 on the
ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this notice at the beginning of the comment. Note
that all comments received will be posted without change to the docket
management system, including any personal information provided.
    Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, or DOT's Docket
Operations Office (see ADDRESSES).

    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any
written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by
the name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70;
Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Andrews, Hazardous Materials
Standards and Rulemaking Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On August 11, 2014, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) published a notice of proposed rulemaking [79 FR
46748] seeking comments on our proposal to revise the Hazardous
Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to return
shipments of certain hazardous materials by motor vehicle. PHSMA
proposed to establish a new section in the regulations to provide an
exception for materials that are transported in a manner that meets the
definition of ``reverse logistics.'' In this NPRM, PHMSA also proposed
to clearly identify the hazardous materials authorized, and the
packaging, hazard communication, and training requirements applicable
to reverse logistics shipments. In addition, this rulemaking also
proposed to expand an existing exception for reverse logistics
shipments of used automobile batteries that are being shipped from a
retail facility to a recycling center.

II. Extension of Comment Period

    PHMSA received a request to extend the comment period by thirty
days from the American Trucking Association (ATA). ATA is conducting
its annual meeting in early October 2014, and will require more time to
adequately respond with an official comment. ATA is requesting this
extension in order to have sufficient time to fully evaluate the
impacts of the proposed requirements associated with the proposals in
the NPRM. An extension of the comment period will provide ATA and its
members the opportunity to compile valuable and comprehensive comments.
    Due to PHMSA's desire to collect meaningful input from affected
stakeholders, PHMSA is granting the ATA's request to extend the comment
period to ensure ATA and other stakeholders have sufficient time to
review the proposals in the NPRM. PHMSA is confident the 30-day
extension will allow stakeholders sufficient time to conduct a more
thorough review.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 19, 2014, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97(b).
William S. Schoonover,
Deputy Associate Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-22759 Filed 9-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register: November 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 222)]
[Notices]
[Page 70739-70740]
[DOCID:fr18no10-81]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. ER11-1962-000]

Wheelabrator North Broward Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

November 8, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Wheelabrator North Broward Inc.'s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 29, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29032 Filed 11-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Use of EPA Developed Materials EXHIBIT 1 ESTIMATED ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST Hours and Costs Per Respondent/ Activity To Leg. Mgr. Tech. Cler. Respon. Labor Capital/ Respon.

$ 119.90/ $ 97.90/ $ 69.30/ $ 36.30/ Hours/ Cost/ Startup O & M or INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Hour Hour Hour Hour Activity Activity Cost Cost Activities Memorandum of Understanding Receive and review the MOU 1.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 $ 903 $ 0 $ 0 8 Gather information and fill out MOU data sheet 1.00 25.00 0.00 2.00 28.00 $ 2,640 $ 0 $ 0 8 Sign and submit MOU to EPA 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 $ 67 $ 0 $ 3 8 SUBTOTAL varies varies varies varies varies varies varies varies varies Implementation Plan Review instructions 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 $ 196 $ 0 $ 0 8 Gather information and develop the Implementation Plan 0.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 20.00 $ 1,672 $ 0 $ 0 8 Complete the form( s) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 $ 134 $ 0 $ 0 8 Sign and submit plan to EPA 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 $ 67 $ 0 $ 3 8 Update Implementation Plan, as necessary 0.00 6.50 4.00 1.50 12.00 $ 968 $ 0 $ 3 27 SUBTOTAL varies varies varies varies varies varies varies varies varies Annual Report Review instructions 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 $ 685 $ 0 $ 0 8 Gather the requested information for the initial report 0.00 10.00 37.00 0.00 47.00 $ 3,543 $ 0 $ 0 8 Complete the initial form( s) 0.00 4.00 0.00 1.00 5.00 $ 428 $ 0 $ 0 8 Sign and submit the initial report to EPA 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 $ 67 $ 0 $ 3 8 Prepare and submit a subsequent Annual Report 0.00 10.00 18.50 1.50 30.00 $ 2,316 $ 0 $ 3 90 SUBTOTAL varies varies varies varies varies varies varies varies varies Use of EPA Developed Materials Make request to EPA for materials 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 $ 232 $ 0 $ 0 9 Return borrowed materials within 30 days 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 $ 36 $ 0 $ 3 9 SUBTOTAL varies varies varies varies varies varies varies varies varies Additional Activities Notify EPA within two weeks of any change in Natural Gas Star Implementation Manager responsibility 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 1.50 $ 116 $ 0 $ 3 10 SUBTOTAL varies varies varies varies varies varies varies varies varies TOTAL varies varies varies varies varies varies varies varies varies Total Hours and Costs Number of Total Total Hours/ Cost/

Year Year 72 $ 7,224 224 $ 21,120 8 $ 560 304 $ 28,904 16 $ 1,568 160 $ 13,376 16 $ 1,072 8 $ 560 324 $ 26,217 524 $ 42,793 56 $ 5,480 376 $ 28,344 40 $ 3,424 8 $ 560 2,700 $ 208,710 3,180 $ 246,518 27 $ 2,088 9 $ 351 36 $ 2,439 15 $ 1,190 15 $ 1,190 4,059 $ 321,844


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 138 (Friday, July 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43650-43651]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15605]

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

UNIFIED CARRIER REGISTRATION PLAN

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: July 23, 2020, from Noon to 2:00 p.m., Eastern time.

PLACE: This meeting will be accessible via conference call and via Zoom
Meeting and Screenshare. Any interested person may call (i) 1-929-205-
6099 (U.S. Toll) or 1-669-900-6833 (U.S. Toll) or (ii) 1-877-853-5247
(U.S. Toll Free) or 1-888-788-0099 (U.S. Toll Free), Meeting ID: 952
5849 8325, to listen and participate in this meeting. The website to
participate via Zoom Meeting and Screenshare is https://kellen.zoom.us/j/95258498325.

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Finance
Subcommittee (the ``Subcommittee'') will continue its work in
developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and
Agreement. The subject matter of this meeting will include:

Proposed Agenda

I. Call to Order--UCR Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will welcome attendees, call the meeting to
order, call roll for the Subcommittee, confirm whether a quorum is
present, and facilitate self-introductions.

II. Verification of Publication of Meeting Notice--UCR Executive
Director

    The UCR Executive Director will verify the publication of the
meeting notice on the UCR website and distribution to the UCR contact
list via email followed by the subsequent publication of the notice in
the Federal Register.

III. Review and Approval of Subcommittee Agenda and Setting of Ground
Rules--Subcommittee Chair

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action
    The Subcommittee Agenda will be reviewed, and the Subcommittee will
consider adoption.
Ground Rules
Subcommittee action only to be taken in designated areas on agenda

IV. Approval of Minutes From January 27, 2020 Meeting--Subcommittee
Chair

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action
     Draft minutes from the January 27, 2020 Finance
Subcommittee meeting will be reviewed. The Subcommittee will consider
action to approve.

V. Proposed Policy for UCR Board Fee Recommendations--UCR Depository
Manager

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action
    The UCR Depository Manager will present a draft of a proposed
policy regarding recommendations by the Board to the Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Transportation regarding possible UCR fee changes
that the Board may recommend from time-to-time as conditions warrant.
The policy will include a general-purpose description, guidelines for
interacting with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA), timelines regarding submission of fee change recommendations,
and the methodology that will be used to quantify fee changes. The
Subcommittee may take action to recommend adoption of the proposed
policy to the Board.

VI. Proposed Amendment to Refunds Procedure--UCR Depository Manager

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action
    The UCR Depository Manager will present a draft of a proposed
amendment regarding the issuance of refunds, especially when related to
refunding permitting services that register motor carriers without
consent. The Subcommittee may take action to recommend adoption of the
proposed amendment to the Board.

VII. UCR Investments--UCR Depository Manager

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action
    Representatives from the Bank of North Dakota and Truist Bank
(formerly SunTrust) will discuss the current investment landscape with
the Subcommittee and potentially offer recommendations for investment
options within current economic conditions. (Each presentation to last
approximately 15 minutes). The Subcommittee may take action to
recommend potential investment options to the Board.

VIII. Certificates of Deposit--UCR Depository Manager

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action
    The UCR Depository Manager will provide a report on activities
required to redeem one certificate of deposit at the Bank of North
Dakota scheduled to mature on August 5, 2020 as well as discuss the
need to reinvest proceeds from the matured CD. The Subcommittee may
take action to recommend adoption of the CD reinvestment proposal to
the Board.

IX. Board Insurance--UCR Depository Manager

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action
    The UCR Depository Manager will provide an update on plans to
procure insurance for the UCR Board and Officers (Directors and
Officers and Cybersecurity policies). The Subcommittee may take action
to recommend adoption of the proposal to the Board.

X. Review 2020 Administrative Expenses Through June 30, 2020--UCR
Depository Manager

    The UCR Depository Manager will present the administrative costs
incurred for the period of January 1, 2020 through June 30, 2020,
compare to the budget for the same time-period, and discuss all
significant variances.

XI. Review 2021 Proposed Administrative Budget--UCR Depository Manager

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action
    The UCR Depository Manager will present the preliminary budget for
administrative operating expenses planned during the calendar year
2021. The Subcommittee may take action to recommend adoption of a 2021
proposed administrative budget to the Board.

XII. Review 2022-2023 Proposed Administrative Budgets--UCR Depository
Manager

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action
    The UCR Depository Manager will present the preliminary budgets for
administrative operating expenses planned during the calendar years
2022-2023 that will be used to establish the amount of the
Administrative Reserve. The Subcommittee may take action to recommend
adoption of a 2022-2023 proposed administrative budget to the Board.

XIII. Update on Current Financial Reserve Funds--UCR Depository Manager

    The UCR Depository Manager will discuss the two financial reserves
authorized by the Board, compare them to current bank account balances,
and address any over/under-funding of the accounts including plans to
address funding differences.

XIV. Final 2020 Distributions to States--UCR Depository Manager

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action
    The UCR Depository Manager will present a proposed plan for the
final distribution to states for the 2020 registration year expected to
be completed in August. The Subcommittee may take action to recommend
to the Board adoption of final 2020 distributions to the states.

XV. Other Business--Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will call for any other items the
Subcommittee members would like to discuss.

XVI. Adjournment--Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will adjourn the meeting.

    The agenda will be available no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern time,
July 14, 2020 at: https://plan.ucr.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Elizabeth Leaman, Chair, Unified
Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Alex B. Leath,
Chief Legal Officer, Unified Carrier Registration Plan.
[FR Doc. 2020-15605 Filed 7-15-20; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-YL-P