[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 28 (Friday, February 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 9418]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02864]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-270, OMB Control No. 3235-0292]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Form F-6

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for approval.
    Form F-6 (17 CFR 239.36) is a form used by foreign companies to
register the offer and sale of American Depositary Receipts (ADRs)
under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.). Form F-6
requires disclosure of information regarding the terms of the
depository bank, fees charged, and a description of the ADRs. No
special information regarding the foreign company is required to be
prepared or disclosed, although the foreign company must be one which
periodically furnishes information to the Commission. The information
is needed to ensure that investors in ADRs have full disclosure of
information concerning the deposit agreement and the foreign company.
Form F-6 takes approximately 1.35 hour per response to prepare and is
filed by 643 respondents annually. We estimate that 25% of the 1.35
hour per response (0.338 hours) is prepared by the filer for a total
annual reporting burden of 217 hours (0.338 hours per response x 643
responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 8, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-02864 Filed 2-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1 SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY National Survey of Successful Waste Disposal Programs in Rural Areas in the United States Part A 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title National Survey of Successful Waste Disposal Programs in Rural Areas in the United States.

1( b) Abstract Under a USEPA grant, the Research Foundation for Health and Environmental Effects ( RFHEE) will conduct a survey of household waste disposal options. In conjunction with the Rural Community Assistance Program and the National Volunteer Fire Council, RFHEE will develop a targeted survey of approximately 40 questions to find successful methods of household trash disposal in rural areas besides burning, which releases toxics chemicals into the environment. The survey will not take longer than 20 minutes to complete. The Partners will conduct telephone interviews with 50 state, local, or tribal officials who have trash burning bans or programs. In addition, a sample of 50 local volunteer firefighters will be surveyed. Another 400 citizens living in areas with trash burning programs will be surveyed. A total of 500 respondents will be solicited.

The purpose of the survey is to find alternative, economically feasible options for trash disposal. The results of the survey will be available to the public. This survey will not be used for any federal regulatory purposes. Participation in the survey will be strictly voluntary. This one time survey is expected to require about 20 minutes of time to complete.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

2. Need for and use of the Collection This section provides information on the need for the collection and how the information will be used.

2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection Backyard burning ( BYB) of household trash is a human health and environmental concern in the United States. BYB releases numerous toxic chemicals including suspected carcinogenic 2 compounds such as dioxin. Household trash burning is the largest source of dioxin identified in USEPA= s dioxin inventory, and it accounts for more than half of the releases in the United States. Human exposure to dioxin occurs primarily through the consumption of food products containing animal fat ( beef and dairy products, pork, poultry). Upper bound cancer risks attributed to dioxin exposure for the general population are estimated at one in one thousand. This is a significant health risk for the population at large.

In recent years, many communities throughout the country have sought to reduce the practice of BYB of trash. However, BYB is still a prevalent practice both in areas which have and areas which do not have solid waste disposal options. This survey addresses the desire of numerous communities to reduce BYB, to reduce dioxin generated from the trash burning, and to reduce the amount of dioxin entering the human food chain.

The purpose of this survey is to identify successful strategies and to develop the infrastructure of waste disposal options in rural areas. USEPA has developed a comprehensive outreach effort to alert residents about the health and environmental concerns related to trash burning. However, as communities are made aware of the hazards associated with BYB, it is important for agencies to provide viable alternative disposal options. The survey results will be used to identify solutions to trash disposal in areas where trash burning was formerly common practice. The results of this study will be shared with interested communities that wish to reduce their trash burning.

Although USEPA agrees with the need to collect this information, this project was brought to the Agency by the Research Foundation for Health and Environmental Effects, an outside organization which has been involved with this issue in the past and works with State, Local, and Tribal officials and other stakeholders on BYB. This grant was selected for funding via a full competitive process in FY2003.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The survey results will be publicly available. The main users of the data are expected to be State, Local, and Tribal officials who are concerned about trash burning. Any parties interested in reducing trash burning in their area are welcome to use the results. However, the results will not be used for any regulatory purposes.

3. Non duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria This section provides information on satisfying OMB's collection guidelines, performing consultations, and ensuring confidentiality.

3( a) Non duplication The information collected in this survey is not currently available and is not collected through other routes. 3 3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR submission to OMB In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, EPA issued a public notice in the Federal Register, on June 7, 2004 ( 69 FR 31818) and provided a 60 day comment period for this ICR. In addition, the survey instrument was made publicly available. No comments were received.

3( c) Consultations The burden hours and costs have been reduced by using an outside survey firm to develop and refine this questionnaire. The survey firm has been required to pre test the survey in order to establish flow and readability of questions, as well as to ensure that length of the survey is kept at or below 20 minutes in time. In addition, professional survey firm staff will be used to conduct the survey, which will ensure accurate timekeeping and recording.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Not applicable. This is a one time survey.

3( e) General Guidelines This ICR adheres to the guidelines stated in the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act, as amended, OMB's implementing regulations, EPA's Information Collection Request Handbook, and other applicable OMB guidance.

3( f) Confidentiality This survey will not request any confidential information. However, participation in the survey is voluntary. Respondents will have the right to refuse to answer an individual question within the survey, as well as to opt not to participate at all.

3( g) Sensitive Questions No questions of a sensitive nature are included in any of the information collection requirements. However, participation in the survey is voluntary. Respondents will have the right to refuse to answer an individual question within the survey, as well as to opt not to participate at all.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested This section provides information on each piece of information being collected and the activities associated with developing and submitting or filing that information from the respondent perspective.

4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The Partners will conduct interviews with state officials ( SIC Code 9224; NAIC Code 92216) who have trash burning bans ( 25 states) or who are concerned about the issue. In addition, a sample of local officials, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and local volunteer firefighters will be surveyed as well. No industry or business representatives will be surveyed. 4 4( b) Information Requested All information requested will be gathered during the survey. No further information is required. None of these recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5. ( i) Data items, including record keeping requirements Information collected in the survey will be opinions on why people burn trash, awareness of local ordinances or public outreach on trash burning, and opinions on what would be successful for reducing this practice.

( ii) Respondent Activities Participate, if willing, in the survey.

5. The Information Collected B Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management This section provides information on the Agency activities that correspond with each piece of information collected, data management, small business burden, and collection schedules.

5( a) Agency Activities The Agency is managing a Grant Agreement with the Research Foundation for Health and Environmental Effects to collect this information. There is no burden on the Federal government for this effort.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management The survey information will be collected by the grantee via a contract with a private consulting firm per the grant agreement. A telephone survey was selected for several reasons. An in person survey was logistically complicated and economically infeasible. A mail survey leads to personal interpretations of questions and typically offers a low response rate. However, a telephone survey will be cost efficient and allow surveyors to ensure that the survey time will not extend past 20 minutes.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility Since participation in the survey is voluntary, there is no special flexibility required for small entities.

5( d) Collection Schedule Collection is scheduled to begin approximately one month after OMB approval is obtained and to take approximately six weeks to complete.

6. Estimating The Burden and Cost of the Collection This section provides information on the cost and burden associated with the information collection for both the respondents and the Agency. It presents these cost and burden estimates as individual costs per respondent, and as an 5 aggregate cost for the entire respondent universe and the Agency on an annual basis and over the entire period covered by the ICR.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden A full survey will take 20 minutes of time per Respondent to complete, at a total estimated cost of $ 733.50. Please see below for a detailed breakdown of costs. 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs The survey respondents are expected to include 50 state, local, or tribal officials with burn barrel programs. Another 50 members of rural volunteer fire companies will be surveyed. In addition, approximately 400 citizens living in areas where trash burning regulations or programs are in effect will be surveyed. Therefore, a total of 500 respondents will be included, but only 100 of them will be surveyed in an official capacity at their place of business.

According the U. S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, the national mean annual wage in 2003 for state or local officials was $ 31,490 ( Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, 2003). Also, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the real cost to an employer ( including total benefits) for a state or local worker is an additional 31.25% above an employee wage for June 2004. Therefore, the annual cost used for a respondent used was the base salary plus an additional 31.25% for benefits. This totaled $ 41,330.

For purposes of the burden estimate, we also assume that the firefighters may receive a salary. According to the U. S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, the national mean annual wage in 2003 for firefighters was $ 38,280 ( Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, 2003). Also, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the real cost to an employer ( including total benefits) for a state or local worker is an additional 31.25% above an employee= s wage for June 2004. Therefore, the annual cost used for a respondent used was the base salary plus an additional 31.25% for benefits. This totaled $ 50,242. However, this is likely to be an overestimation since many of the volunteer staff do not receive any pay for their services.

Estimated annual labor cost for respondents at a state, local, or tribal agency $ 41,330 ( includes wage and overhead costs such as insurance, etc.)

Estimated hourly cost for respondents at an agency ( wage and overhead) $ 19.87 Estimated survey time 20 minutes Cost to an individual agency $ 6.62 Total cost to all 50 participating government agencies $ 331.00 6 Estimated annual cost for respondents to an individual fire department $ 50,242 ( includes wage and overhead costs such as insurance, etc.)

Estimated hourly cost for respondents at a fire departm ent $ 24.15 Estimated survey time 20 minutes Cost to an fire department $ 8.05 Total cost for all 50 participating fire departments $ 402.50 TOTAL COST $ 734 No costs were included for the 400 public citizens surveyed. Citizens will not be surveyed during business hours, and since this is a voluntary survey, citizens may simply decline to participate. In addition, the officials and firefighters may also decline to participate in the survey.

( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs None.

( iii) Capital/ Start up Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs None.

( iv) Annualizing Capital Costs None.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost This survey is being conducted via a grant. EPA provided $ 64,000 in grant funding for this project. The grantee will purchase specialized survey services from a contractor; the remainder of the grant will cover the grantee= s personnel and overhead in initial planning of the survey, interpreting and reporting results ( trends and best practices in alternative to backyard burning of trash containing dioxin) to members of the public with interest in this topic. There is no additional burden on the Federal government and no plan to build upon these findings..

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs All burdens will be borne by the Respondents, therefore, please refer to Section 6( a).

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables All burdens will be borne by the Respondents; therefore, please refer to Section 6( a). 7 6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden Change is due to the start of this project.

6( g) Burden Statement Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 minutes per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OEI 2004 0001, which is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Environmental Information Docket is ( 202) 566 1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select A search,@ then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. OEI 2004 0001.

Appendix A 8 Script for Phone Survey on Backyard Burning DRAFT SURVEY INSTRUMENT 9 PRE INTERVIEW STATEMENT Hello, I'm __________________ of Wirthlin Worldwide, a national, independent research firm. We're talking with people from all around the nation today about residential trash disposal and the use of backyard burn barrels. Your views are very valuable to us, and we would appreciate it if you could spend some time to help us with our research.

SCREENING QUESTIONS A. Are you at least 18 years of age?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know / Refuse [ THANK AND TERMINATE]

< IF QA= 1, GO TO Q1; IF QA= 2, GO TO QB>

B. Is there anyone else there who is 18 years of age or older?

1. Yes 2. No [ THANK AND TERMINATE]

3. Don't know / Refuse [ TERMINATE AND TALLY AS REFUSAL]

< IF QB= 1, GO TO QC; IF QB= 2, THANK AND TERMINATE>

C. May I speak with that person, please? ( NOTE: If unavailable, arrange for a callback.)

1. Yes 2. No, not available now 3. Don't know / Refuse [ THANK AND TERMINATE]

< IF QC= 1, REPEAT INTRO AND ASK QA; IF QC= 2, THANK AND TERMINATE> 10 INTRODUCTION QUESTIONS To make sure that we're interviewing people that qualify for this survey, I need to ask a few questions that tell me about you and the area where you live. Please be assured that this is a confidential study to gauge opinions of U. S. citizens and not a sales call. All comments you make during the course of the interview will be treated in the strictest of confidence and no responses will be attributed to individuals.

1. First of all, please tell me in what town and state you live in.

1. Town of ___________________________ 2. State of ___________________________

3. Refuse 2. And what county is that in?

1. ___________________________

2. Don't know / not sure 3. Refuse 3. How long have you lived in this area? Would you say  ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Less than 1 year 2. 1 to 5 years 3. 5 to 10 years 4. More than 10 years 5. All of your life 6. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

4. Are you employed or do you serve as a member of a town, county, or state government?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 4. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

< IF Q4= 1, GO TO Q4a; IF Q4= 2, 3, 4, OR 5, GO TO Q6> 11 4a. Do you perform these duties in the same town or county where you live?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 4. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

4b. What is your job title?

1. Mayor 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

11. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 12. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

5. Are you employed or do you serve as a firefighter ( either volunteer or full time)?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 4. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

< IF Q5= 1, GO TO Q5a; IF Q5= 2, 3, 4, OR 5, GO TO Q7>

5a. Do you perform these duties in the same town or county where you live?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 4. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

6. How long have you lived / worked in this area? Would you say  ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS) 12 1. Less than 1 year 2. 1 to 5 years 3. 5 to 10 years 4. More than 10 years 5. All of your life 6. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

7. How would you describe the town that you live / work in? Would you say it is   ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Very rural 2. Somewhat rural 3. Not very rural 4. Not rural at all 5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 6. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

8. To the best of your knowledge, how many people would you say live in this town? Would you say   ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Less than 1,000 2. Between 1,000 and 10,000 3. Between 10,000 and 25,000 4. More than 25,000 5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 6. Refuse ( DO NOT READ) 13 GENERAL BACKYARD BURNING QUESTIONS Are you aware of people where you live who burn their trash in backyard burn barrels? ( DO NOT READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Yes 2. No 3. No, not any more ( but there used to be)

4. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 5. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

In your opinion, what do you think is the main reason why people where you live burn their trash in backyard burn barrels? In other words, what would you say is the main motivation for people to use backyard burn barrels where you live? ( DO NOT READ RESPONSE OPTIONS) ( ACCEPT FIRST RESPONSE ONLY)

1. Convenience 2. Habit or custom 3. Avoided cost 4. Lack of collection service 5. Avoided landfill disposal 6. Privacy 7. Unaware of harmful effects 8. Other: _____________________________ ( DO NOT READ)

9. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 10. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

How big of a problem do you think the use of backyard burn barrels is where you live? Would you say   ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. A very big problem 2. Somewhat of a problem 3. Not much of a problem 4. Not a problem at all 5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 6. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

< IF 1, GO TO ; IF 2, 3, 4, OR 5, GO TO > 14 In your opinion, do you think that eliminating the use of burn barrels is an important issue among most of the people where you live? ( DO NOT READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 4. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

Do you think that eliminating the practice of backyard burning is a priority for your local government ( town or county government)? ( DO NOT READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 4. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

In general, how do you think most people where you live feel about using burn barrels to dispose of household trash? Would you say that most people where you live are   ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Very much in favor of eliminating burn barrels 2. Somewhat in favor of eliminating burn barrels 3. Somewhat against eliminating burn barrels 4. Very much against eliminating burn barrels 5. Don't care one way or the other about burn barrels 6. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 7. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

Some people may have used burn barrels for many years and may not be willing to stop. In your opinion, what would be the best way to change these people's minds and to get them to stop using burn barrels? ( DO NOTE READ RESPONSE OPTIONS) ( ACCEPT FIRST RESPONSE ONLY)

1. Educate them about the adverse health effects associated with backyard burning 2. Strictly enforce the bans or restrictions by making them pay fines or citations 3. Make trash removal services more affordable 4. Make transfer station more convenient 5. Make recycling more convenient 6. Nothing will ever change their minds and get them stop 15 7. Nothing, they should be left alone 8. Other: _____________________________ ( DO NOT READ)

9. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 10. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

Overall, how active do you think people are when it comes to environmental issues where you live? Would you say  . ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Very active 2. Somewhat active 3. Not very active 4. Not active at all 5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 6. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

In your opinion, how knowledgeable do you think that most people where you live are of the harmful environmental impacts and human health effects from using backyard burn barrels? ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Very knowledgeable 2. Somewhat knowledgeable 3. Not very knowledgeable 4. Not knowledgeable at all 5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 6. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

Again, in your opinion, how knowledgeable do you think that most people where you live are of the fire hazards associated with using backyard burn barrels? ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Very knowledgeable 2. Somewhat knowledgeable 3. Not very knowledgeable 4. Not knowledgeable at all 5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 6. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

Still, in your opinion, do you think that most people where you live / work consider backyard burning to be a local, state, or nationwide problem? ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS) 16 1. Local 2. State 3. Nationwide 4. Not a problem at any level ( DO NOT READ)

5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 6. Refuse ( DO NOT READ) 17 BANS OR RESTRICTIONS Are you aware of any bans or restrictions on backyard burning where you live?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 4. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

< IF 1, GO TO ; IF 2, 3, OR 4, GO TO >

To the best of your knowledge, is this ban or restriction a state law, a local law, or both?

1. State law 2. Local law 3. Both a state and a local law 4. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 5. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

Again, to the best of your knowledge, how long has this ban or restriction been in effect? ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Less than one year 2. One to two years 3. Two to five years 4. Five years or more 5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

In your opinion, do you think that most people where you live are aware of these bans or restrictions? Would you say most people where you live are   ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Very aware 2. Somewhat aware 3. Not very aware 4. Not aware at all 5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

Do you recall seeing any television commercials, reading any newspaper ads , hearing any radio ads, or seeing anything else that talks about these bans or restrictions? 18 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 4. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

And where specifically did you see this information ( in what form)? ( DO NOT READ OPTIONS) ( ACCEPT MORE THAN ONE RESPONSE)

1. Pamphlets 2. Advertised in local newspaper 3. Advertised on local television 4. Notified through the mail 5. Materials handed out door to door 6. The Internet ( website or e mail) 7. Word of mouth 8. Outreach at community events 9. Local officials did nothing at all 10. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

In general, since the bans or restrictions were put in place where you live, how much of a change have you noticed in the rate of asthma, respiratory illnesses, heart disease, and other adverse health effects? Would you say   ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Adverse health effects have gone down a lot 2. Adverse health effects have gone down slightly 3. Adverse health effects have stayed about the same 4. Adverse health effects have gone up slightly 5. Adverse health effects have gone up a lot 6. Too early to tell ( DO NOT READ)

7. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

How successful do you think these bans or restrictions have been in encouraging individuals to stop backyard burning where you live? Would you say   ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Very successful 2. Somewhat successful 3. Somewhat unsuccessful 19 4. Not successful at all 5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

On a scale of one to ten, where one means not successful at all and ten means extremely successful, how would you rate the success of the bans or restrictions on backyard burning where you live?

1. 1 2. 2 3. 3 4. 4 5. 5 6. 6 7. 7 8. 8 9. 9 10. 10 11. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

< IF 6, 7, 8, 9, OR 10, GO TO ; IF 1, 2, 3, 4, OR 5, GO TO >

What would you say is the main reason for the success of the bans or restrictions where you live?

1. [ OPEN QUESTION]

2. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 3. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

What would you say is the main reason for the failure of the bans or restrictions to discourage the practice of using backyard burn barrels where you live?

1. [ OPEN QUESTION]

2. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 3. Refuse ( DO NOT READ) 20 Enforcement and Regulation Now, I'd like to talk just a minute about enforcement and regulation of burn barrel activity where you live.

In some towns, people can be issued fines or citations for using backyard burn barrels. Are you aware of people where you live being issued fines or citations for using backyard burn barrels? ( DO NOT READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 4. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

In your opinion, do you think that these fines or penalties are strict enough to discourage people where you live from using backyard burn barrels to dispose of their trash? ( DO NOT READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 4. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

Again, in your opinion, do you think that increasing the fines or penalties for using backyard burn barrels would discourage people where you live from using them to dispose of their trash? Would you say   ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Yes, most definitely 2. Yes, but not very much 3. No, not at all 4. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 5. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

Do you think that most people where you live are active in reporting those who use burn barrels? Would you say they are   ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Very active in reporting burn barrels 2. Somewhat active in reporting burn barrels 3. Not very active in reporting burn barrels 4. Not at all active in reporting burn barrels 21 5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 6. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

Do you think that these bans or restrictions are adequately enforced where you live?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

How aggressive do you think local officials have been in enforcing the bans or restrictions where you live? Would you say   ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Very aggressive 2. Somewhat aggressive 3. Not very aggressive 4. Not at all aggressive 5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 6. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

Overall, how responsive do you think the fire officials where you live are to burn barrel complaints? Would you say they are   ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Extremely responsive to complaints 2. Somewhat responsive to complaints 3. Not very responsive to complaints 4. Not at all responsive to complaints 5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 6. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

In your opinion, what is the one thing that local officials could do to adequately enforce the bans or restrictions on using backyard barrels where you live? ( DO NOT READ RESPONSE OPTIONS) ( ACCEPT FIRST RESPONSE ONLY)

1. More aggressive enforcement 2. Increase fines and penalties 3. Make public more aware through outreach campaigns 4. Offer affordable curbside trash removal 5. Make recycling facilities more convenient/ accessible 6. Other: _____________________________ 22 7. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

Again, in your opinion, do you think that eliminating the practice of backyard burning should be the responsibility of local governments, or should it be left to state governments?

1. Local government 2. State government 3. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 4. Refuse ( DO NOT READ) 23 PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGNS In some towns or communities, local or state officials or health officers use public education campaigns to make people aware of the dangers and harmful health effects from using backyard burn barrels. Are you aware of any outreach efforts where you live to discourage people from using backyard burn barrels to dispose of their trash? ( DO NOT READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

< IF 1, GO TO ; IF 2 OR 3, GO TO >

What types of public education campaigns about burn barrels have there been where you live? ( DO NOT READ OPTIONS) ( ACCEPT MORE THAN ONE RESPONSE)

1. Pamphlets 2. Advertised in local newspaper 3. Advertised on local television 4. Notified through the mail 5. Materials handed out door to door 6. The Internet ( website or e mail) 7. School programs ( aimed specifically at children) 8. Word of mouth 9. Local officials did nothing at all 10. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

In your opinion, do you think that these public education materials reached a broad audience or were available to most of the people where you live? ( DO NOT READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

How available would you say that public education materials are to the people where you live? Would you say   ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Very available 24 2. Somewhat available 3. Somewhat unavailable 4. Not available at all 5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

Would you say that the available public education campaigns are concerned mostly with  ? ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. The bans or restrictions in place where you live 2. The possible health effects due to using backyard burn barrels 3. What should and shouldn't be burned in backyard burn barrels 4. What alternatives to backyard burn barrels exist where you live ( for instance, trash pick up, landfills, recycling programs, etc.)

5. Other: _____________________________ ( DO NOT READ)

6. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

How clear do you think this message is to most people where you live? Would you say the message is   ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Very clear 2. Somewhat clear 3. Somewhat clear 4. Not clear at all 5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

Have these messages inspired you uto limit or stop burning your household trash?

1. Yes 2. No 3. No, I never burn household trash 4. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 5. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

In your opinion, do you think that the public education materials helped to educate most people where you live about backyard burning?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 25 Again, in your opinion, do you think that the public education materials helped to motivate most people where you live to stop backyard burning?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

To the best of your knowledge, did these public education materials supply a telephone number, Internet website address, or some other means of contacting someone to ask questions?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

How responsive do you think people where you live are to the education campaigns? In other words, how motivated do you think people are as a result of these public education campaigns? Would you say   ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Very motivated 2. Somewhat motivated 3. Somewhat motivated 4. Not motivated at all 5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

Again, on a scale of one to ten, where one means not successful at all and ten means extremely successful, how would you rate the success of the public education campaign where you live?

1. 1 2. 2 3. 3 4. 4 5. 5 6. 6 7. 7 8. 8 9. 9 26 10. 10 11. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

To your knowledge, were there any public education campaigns in local schools or directed specifically toward children?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

In your opinion, how important do you think it is to educate children about the adverse health effects of using backyard burn barrels? ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Very important 2. Somewhat important 3. Somewhat important 4. Not important at all 5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

In your opinion, what would be the most effective type of public education campaign to stop people from using backyard burn barrels where you live? Would you say  ( DO NOT READ RESPONSE OPTIONS) ( ACCEPT FIRST RESPONSE ONLY)

1. Pamphlets 2. Advertised in local newspaper 3. Advertised on local television 4. Notified through the mail 5. Materials handed out door to door 6. Website or e mail 7. School programs ( aimed specifically at children) 7. Word of mouth 8. Other: _____________________________ ( DO NOT READ)

9. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 27 In your opinion, what should be the main focus of these public education materials and their message? In other words, what do people in your community need to know that would change their minds about using burn barrels? ( DO NOT READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. The bans or restrictions in place 2. The possible health effects due to using backyard burn barrels 3. What should and shouldn't be burned in backyard burn barrels 4. Reducing the nuisance of neighborhood smoke, bad smells, and breathing difficulties 5. The potential of fire hazards associated with backyard burning 6. What alternatives to backyard burn barrels exist ( for instance, trash pick up, transfer stations, recycling programs, etc.)

7. Other: _____________________________ ( DO NOT READ)

8. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 28 ALTERNATIVES TO USING BURN BARRELS Now, to change the subject just a bit, I'd like to talk a little about alternatives to burn barrels where you live.

Is there a trash removal service available where you live? [ READ IF NECESSARY: A trash removal service, for instance, is when a company comes to your home once or twice a week on a regular basis to pick up and haul away your garbage.) ( DO NOT READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Yes 2. Yes, but only in some areas 3. No, but it will be in the future 4. No, not anymore 5. No, not at all 6. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

In your opinion, how effective do you think a trash removal service would be/ is in discouraging people where you live from using backyard burn barrels to dispose of their trash? Would you say   ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Very effective 2. Somewhat effective 3. Not very effective 4. Not effective at all 5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 6. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

< IF 1 OR 2, GO TO ; IF 3, 4, 5, OR 6, GO TO >

And why do you say that? Why do you think people where you live would stop using backyard burn barrels if a trash removal service were available? ( DO NOT READ RESPONSE OPTIONS) ( ACCEPT FIRST RESPONSE ONLY)

1. Convenience 2. Affordability 3. Healthier alternative 4. Safer alternative 5. The right thing to do 29 6. Stop being a nuisance to neighbors 7. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 8. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

Is there a transfer station available where you live? [ READ IF NECESSARY: A transfer station is a public landfill or town dump where residents can dispose of their garbage.) ( DO NOT READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Yes 2. Yes, but only in some areas 3. No, but it will be in the future 4. No, not at all 5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

In your opinion, how effective do you think a transfer station would be/ is in discouraging people where you live from using backyard burn barrels to dispose of their trash? Would you say   ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Very effective 2. Somewhat effective 3. Not very effective 4. Not effective at all 5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 6. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

< IF 1 OR 2, GO TO ; IF 3, 4, 5, OR 6, GO TO >

And why do you say that? Why do you think people where you live would stop using backyard burn barrels if a transfer station were available? ( DO NOT READ RESPONSE OPTIONS) ( ACCEPT FIRST RESPONSE ONLY)

1. Convenience 2. Affordability 3. Healthier alternative 4. Safer alternative 5. The right thing to do 6. Stop being a nuisance to neighbors 7. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 8. Refuse ( DO NOT READ) 30 Similarly, some towns have a recycling program or make recycling facilities available for people that live there. Is there a recycling program or recycling facility available where you live? ( DO NOT READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Yes 2. Yes, but only in some areas 3. No, but it will be in the future 4. No, not any more 5. No, not at all 6. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

< IF 1 OR 2, GO TO ; IF 3, 4, OR 5, GO TO >

Does the recycling program or recycling facility where you live offer any type of incentives for you to recycle? ( DO NOT READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 4. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

In your opinion, how effective do you think a recycling program or recycling facility would be/ is in discouraging people where you live from using backyard burn barrels to dispose of their trash? Would you say   ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Very effective 2. Somewhat effective 3. Not very effective 4. Not effective at all 5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 6. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

< IF 1 OR 2, GO TO ; IF 3, 4, 5, OR 6, GO TO >

And, again, why do think that people where you live would stop using backyard burn barrels if a recycling program or a recycling facility were available? ( DO NOT READ RESPONSE OPTIONS) ( ACCEPT FIRST RESPONSE ONLY)

1. Convenience 31 2. Affordability 3. Healthier alternative 4. Safer alternative 5. The right thing to do 6. Stop being a nuisance to neighbors 7. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 8. Refuse ( DO NOT READ) 32 LOCAL FIRE OFFICIALS In your opinion, how bad is the problem of people using backyard burn barrels to dispose of trash in your jurisdiction? Would you say   ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Extremely bad 2. Somewhat bad 3. Not very bad 4. Not bad at all 5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 6. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

What do you think is the main reason that people in your jurisdiction burn their trash in backyard burn barrels?

1. [ OPEN QUESTION}

2. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 3. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

To the best of your knowledge, what percentage of brush or forest fires are started in your jurisdiction each year by people using backyard burn barrels?

1. ___________________________

2. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 3. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

In your opinion, do you think that the number of brush or forest fires in your jurisdiction due to backyard burning over the past few years is  ? ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Increasing 2. Staying about the same 3. Decreasing 4. Depends on weather/ seasonal factors 5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 6. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

Again, to the best of your knowledge, what percentage of home or structure fires are started in your jurisdiction each year by people using backyard burn barrels? 33 1. ___________________________

2. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 3. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

And, in your opinion, do you think that the number of home or structure fires in your jurisdiction due to backyard burning over the past few years is  ? ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Increasing 2. Staying about the same 5. Decreasing 6. Depends on weather/ seasonal factors 5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 6. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

In your opinion, how aware do you think that people where you live are of the harmful environmental impacts and human health effects from using backyard burn barrels? ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Very aware 2. Somewhat aware 3. Not very aware 4. Not aware at all 5. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 6. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

In your opinion, do you think that the bans or restrictions on the use backyard burn barrels are adequately enforced in your jurisdiction?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 4. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

What do you think is the main reason that bans or restrictions on backyard burn barrels are not adequately enforced within your jurisdiction?

1. [ OPEN QUESTION]

2. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 34 3. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

Do you think that the enforcement of these bans or restrictions is a burden on the local firefighting resources in your jurisdiction?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 4. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

< ASK EVERYONE>

In your opinion, what is the one thing that local town or county government officials could do to adequately enforce the bans or restrictions on using backyard barrels in your jurisdiction? ( DO NOT READ RESPONSE OPTIONS) ( ACCEPT FIRST RESPONSE ONLY)

1. Increase fines and penalties 2. Make public more aware through outreach campaigns 3. Offer affordable curbside trash removal 4. Make recycling facilities more convenient/ accessible 5. Nothing 6. Other: _____________________________

7. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

Again, in your opinion, what is the one thing local fire officials could do to adequately enforce the bans or restrictions on using backyard barrels in your jurisdiction? ( DO NOT READ RESPONSE OPTIONS) ( ACCEPT FIRST RESPONSE ONLY)

1. More aggressive enforcement 2. Increase fines and penalties 3. Make public more aware through outreach campaigns 4. Nothing 5. Other: _____________________________

6. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ)

In your opinion, what is the one thing that could make people in your jurisdiction change their minds about using backyard burn barrels to dispose of their trash? 35 1. [ OPEN QUESTION}

2. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 3. Refuse ( DO NOT READ) 36 DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS Finally, I need to ask just a few more questions to help us categorize the people participating in this survey. As I said before, all your responses will be kept strictly confidential.

First, in which of the following age groups would you include yourself? Are you between   ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. 18 to 25 years of age 2. 26 to 35 years of age 3. 36 to 45 years of age 4. 46 to 55 years of age 5. Over the age of 55 6. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

Gender ( DO NOT READ)

1. Male 2. Female Next, what is your race or ethnic background? ( DO NOT READ REPONSE OPTIONS) ( ACCEPT FIRST RESPONSE ONLY)

1. Caucasian 2. African American 3. Hispanic 4. Asian 5. Native American 6. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 7. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

How many people, including children, live in your household?

1. One 2. Two 3. Three 4. Four 5. Five 6. Six or more 37 7. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 8. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

Are any of those children?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 4. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

And are any of these children   ( READ RESPONSE OPTIONS)

1. Under 2 years old 2. 2 to 4 years old 3. 5 to 7 years old 4. 8 to 10 years old 5. 11 to 13 years old 6. 14 to 17 years old 7. Don't know / not sure ( DO NOT READ) 8. Refuse ( DO NOT READ)

CONCLUSION STATEMENT Thank you for taking part in this research, your comments are very valuable to us.

Would you be willing to participate in a more in depth interview as a case study for our research at a later date?

1. Yes 2. No Name: __________________________

Daytime Phone: __________________________

Most convenient time: __________________________


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		9/29/14

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Lora Strine, EPA

SUBJECT:	9/14/14, Meeting Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on 9/14/14 to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

Joe Goffman, EPA, participated by phone

First Name
Last Name
Title
Utility
Email
Patricia
Alofsin
Director, Governmental Relations
Austin Energy
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jan
Aspuru
Vice President, Electric & Water Production
Orlando Utilities Commission
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>David
Barnes
Chief Legal & Ethics Officer
ElectriCities of NC, Inc.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mike
Baxley
Senior VP & General Counsel
Santee Cooper
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mark
Bonsall
General Manager and Chief Executive Officer
Salt River Project
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Maura
Brueger
Director of Government & Legislative Affairs
Seattle City Light
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tim
Burke
Vice President - Customer Service & Public Affairs
Omaha Public Power District
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jorge
Carrasco
General Manager & CEO
Seattle City Light
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Lonnie
Carter
President and Chief Executive Officer
Santee Cooper
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Joe
Citta
CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER
Nebraska Public Power District
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jeffrey
Cohen
Director Legislative & Regulatory Affairs
New York Power Authority
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Andrew
Colosimo
Government and Corporate Affairs Manager
Colorado Springs Utilities
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Frank
Crane
Director, Govt. & Corporate Affairs
MEAG Power
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>John
Di Stasio
President
LPPC
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Lane
Dickson
Senior Manager - Federal Affairs
Salt River Project
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Paula
DiFonzo
Chief Executive Officer
New Braunfels Utilities/ APPA

Edward
Easterlin
Vice President & CFO
Omaha Public Power District
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ellen Caslavka
Edwards
General Counsel
Grand River Dam Authority
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jerry
Forte
Chief Executive Officer
Colorado Springs Utilities
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Stephen
Fotis
Partner
Van Ness Feldman LLP
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bill
Gaines
Director of Utilities/CEO
Tacoma Public Utilities
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Kathy
Garcia
Director, Federal & State Relations
CPS Energy
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Kathleen
Garrett
Director, Environmental Services
Austin Energy
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Rudy
Garza
Vice President, External Relations
CPS Energy
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Michael
Gianunzio
Chief Legislative & Regulatory Officer
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tim
Grove
Manager Federal And Regulatory Affairs
Omaha Public Power District
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sephir
Hamilton
Chief of Staff
Seattle City Light
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cindy
Hayes
Meeting Planner
LPPC
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Peter
Hayes
ASSOCIATE GENERAL MANAGER & CHIEF PUBLIC AFFAIRS EXECUTIVE
Salt River Project
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Randy
Howard
Senior Assistant General Manager - Power System
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Charleen
Jacobs
Executive Assistant
Tacoma Public Utilities
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bob
Johnston
President & CEO
MEAG Power
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sue
Kelly
President & CEO
American Public Power Association

Nancy
Kilgo

JEA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Debbie
Kimberly
VP, Customer Energy Solutions
Austin Energy
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Gary
King
Chief Workforce and Information Technology Officer
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Richard
Kizer
Vice President Public Affairs
Santee Cooper
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Steve
Klein
General Manager and CEO
Snohomish PUD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Lisa
Kountoupes
President
Kountoupes Denham
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Laura
Lewis
General Counsel
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Larry
Luong
Federal Affairs Program Manager
SMUD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bob
Mack
Deputy Director
Tacoma Public Utilities
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Missy
Mandell
Executive Director
LPPC
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Clark
Mather
Senior Manager for External Affairs
Tacoma Public Utilities
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jessica
Matlock
Director of Government Relations
Snohomish PUD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Paul
McElroy
Managing Director/CEO
JEA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Deborah
McLellan
Office Manager
Tacoma Public Utilities
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>John D.
McMahon
CEO
Long Island Power Authority
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Chip
Merriam
Vice President - Legislative, Regulatory & Compliance
Orlando Utilities Commission
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Andrew
Munro
Director of Customer Service
Grant County PUD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sherri
Newell Wilkinson
Chief Strategy and External Affairs Officer
Colorado Springs Utilities
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Joe
Nipper
Sr. Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and Communications
American Public Power Association

Michael
Nolan
Outside Consultant
Orlando Utilities Commission

Robert
Nordhaus
Partner
Van Ness Feldman, LLP
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Michael
O'Connor
Associate General Manager and Chief Legal Executive, Law and Human Resources
Salt River Project
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Arlen
Orchard
General Manager and Chief Executive Officer
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Lawrence
Pacheco
Managing Director, FTI Consulting
FTI Consulting
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Stephen
Pelcher
Deputy General Counsel Nuclear and Regulatory Compliance
Santee Cooper
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Pat
Pope
President & CEO
Nebraska Public Power District
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ken
Price
Chief Commercial Officer
Lower Colorado River Authority
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Gil
Quiniones
President & Chief Executive Officer
New York Power Authority
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mitchell
Rapaport
Partner
Akin Gump
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Nathan
Reese

Grand River Dam Authority
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Lisa
Rennie
Sr Manager for External Affairs
Tacoma Public Utilities
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Samantha
Robledo
Operations
LPPC
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Noreen
Roche-Carter
Manager and Treasurer
SMUD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jackie
Sargent
GM/CEO
Platte River Power Authority
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jonathan
Schneider
Partner
Stinson Morrison
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Carolyn
Shellman
Executive Vice President and General Counsel
CPS Energy
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sue
Sheridan
Senior Policy Consultant
Van Ness Feldman LLP
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Hilary
Sills
President
Sills Associates

Anne
Spangler
General Counsel
Snohomish PUD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dan
Sullivan
General Manager/CEO/Director of Investments
Grand River Dam Authority
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Robert
Talley
President
Talley & Associates Inc

Robert
Taylor
Senior Director, Regulatory Policy and Public Involvement
Salt River Project
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tim
Tunis
CFO
ElectriCities of NC, Inc.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Carolyn
Vowell Dougherty
CFO/Treasurer
Grand River Dam Authority
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tony
Webb
General Manager
Grant County PUD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Larry
Weis
General Manager
Austin Energy
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>David
Wiggs
Chief Administrative Officer
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Phil
Wilson
General Manager
Lower Colorado River Authority
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Joseph
Wilson
General Counsel
Platte River Power Authority
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Steve
Wright
General Manager
Chelan County PUD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 251 (Friday, December 30, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 96448]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31659]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-23-000]

Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on December 13, 2016, Florida Gas Transmission
Company, LLC (FGT), 1300 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in
Docket No. CP17-23-000 a prior notice request pursuant to sections
157.205, 157.208, and 157.210 of the Commission's regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, requesting authorization to
construct, install, own, maintain, and operate its Western Division
Project. Specifically, FGT proposes to construct approximately one mile
of 36-inch-diameter pipeline loop, relocate an existing receiver, and
install one new mainline valve downstream of Compressor Station 11 in
Santa Rosa County, Florida. Additionally, FGT proposes to install
approximately 100 feet of 8-inch-diameter connection piping, a custody
transfer flange, and other auxiliary and appurtenant facilities at a
new interconnection to be constructed with Florida Public Utilities
Company (FPU) in Escambia County, Alabama, near the Alabama/Florida
border. FGT states that the Western Division Project will provide
68,500 million British thermal units per day of natural gas to FPU and
Ascend Performance Materials, Inc. FGT estimates the cost of the
Western Division Project to be approximately $10,655,060, all as more
fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission
and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to
Stephen T. Veatch, Senior Director of Certificates, Florida Gas
Transmission Company, LLC, 1300 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77002, by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
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 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.

    Dated: December 23, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-31659 Filed 12-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 70 (Thursday, April 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21653-21655]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08478]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69334; File No. SR-BX-2013-022]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Order
Approving, on an Accelerated Basis, Proposed Rule Change To Adopt
Chapter V, Section 3(d)(iii) Regarding Quoting Obligations

April 5, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On March 5, 2013, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a proposed rule change to
adopt Chapter V, Section 3(d)(iii) regarding quoting obligations. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on March 14, 2013.\4\ The Commission received no comment letters on the
proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69070 (March 7,
2013), 78 FR 16303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    On May 6, 2010, the U.S. equity markets experienced a severe
disruption that, among other things, resulted in the prices of a large
number of individual securities suddenly declining by significant
amounts in a very short time period before suddenly reversing to prices
consistent with their pre-decline levels.\5\ This severe price
volatility led to a large number of trades being executed at
temporarily depressed prices, including many that were more than 60%
away from pre-decline prices.

One response to the events of May 6, 2010, was the development of the
single-stock circuit breaker pilot program, which was implemented
through a series of rule filings by the equity exchanges and by
FINRA.\6\ The single-stock circuit breaker was designed to reduce
extraordinary market volatility in NMS stocks by imposing a five-minute
trading pause when a trade was executed at a price outside of a
specified percentage threshold.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The events of May 6 are described more fully in a joint
report by the staffs of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(``CFTC'') and the Commission. See Report of the Staffs of the CFTC
and SEC to the Joint Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory
Issues, ``Findings Regarding the Market Events of May 6, 2010,''
dated September 30, 2010, available at http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2010/marketevents-report.pdf.
    \6\ For further discussion on the development of the single-
stock circuit breaker pilot program, see Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 67091 (May 31, 2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012)
(``Limit Up-Limit Down Plan'' or ``Plan'').
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62884 (September
10, 2010), 75 FR 56618 (September 16, 2010) and Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 62883 (September 10, 2010), 75 FR 56608 (September
16, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-033) (describing the ``second stage'' of
the single-stock circuit breaker pilot) and Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 64735 (June 23, 2011), 76 FR 38243 (June 29, 2011)
(describing the ``third stage'' of the single-stock circuit breaker
pilot).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To replace the single-stock circuit breaker pilot program, the
equity exchanges filed a National Market System Plan \8\ pursuant to
Section 11A of the Act,\9\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\10\ which featured
a ``limit up-limit down'' mechanism (as amended, the ``Limit Up-Limit
Down Plan'' or ``Plan'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NYSE Euronext filed on behalf of New York Stock Exchange LLC
(``NYSE''), NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex''), and NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca''), and the parties to the proposed National Market
System Plan, BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''), Chicago Stock
Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX
PHLX LLC, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, and National Stock Exchange,
Inc. (collectively with NYSE, NYSE MKT, and NYSE Arca, the
``Participants''). On May 14, 2012, NYSE Amex filed a proposed rule
change on an immediately effective basis to change its name to NYSE
MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT''). See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
67037 (May 21, 2012) (SR-NYSEAmex-2012-32).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \10\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan sets forth requirements that are designed to prevent
trades in individual NMS stocks from occurring outside of the specified
price bands. The price bands consist of a lower price band and an upper
price band for each NMS stock. When one side of the market for an
individual security is outside the applicable price band, i.e., the
National Best Bid is below the Lower Price Band, or the National Best
Offer is above the Upper Price band, the Processors \11\ are required
to disseminate such National Best Bid or National Best Offer \12\ with
a flag identifying that quote as non-executable. When the other side of
the market reaches the applicable price band, i.e., the National Best
Offer reaches the lower price band, or the National Best Bid reaches
the upper price band, the market for an individual security enters a
15-second Limit State, and the Processors are required disseminate such
National Best Offer or National Best Bid with an appropriate flag
identifying it as a Limit State Quotation. Trading in that stock would
exit the Limit State if, within 15 seconds of entering the Limit State,
all Limit State Quotations were executed or canceled in their entirety.
If the market does not exit a Limit State within 15 seconds, then the
Primary Listing Exchange will declare a five-minute trading pause,
which is applicable to all markets trading the security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As used in the Plan, the Processor refers to the single
plan processor responsible for the consolidation of information for
an NMS Stock pursuant to Rule 603(b) of Regulation NMS under the
Exchange Act. See id.
    \12\ ``National Best Bid'' and ``National Best Offer'' has the
meaning provided in Rule 600(b)(42) of Regulation NMS under the
Exchange Act. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Primary Listing Exchange may also declare a trading pause when
the stock is in a Straddle State, i.e., the National Best Bid (Offer)
is below (above) the Lower (Upper) Price Band and the NMS Stock is not
in a Limit State. In order to declare a trading pause in this scenario,
the Primary Listing Exchange must determine that trading in that stock
deviates from normal trading characteristics such that declaring a
trading pause would support the Plan's goal to address extraordinary
market volatility.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As set forth in more detail in the Plan, all trading
centers would be required to establish, maintain, and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the
display of offers below the Lower Price Band and bids above the
Upper Price Band for an NMS Stock. The Processors would be able to
disseminate an offer below the Lower Price Band or bid above the
Upper Price Band that nevertheless may be inadvertently submitted
despite such reasonable policies and procedures, but with an
appropriate flag identifying it as non-executable; such bid or offer
would not be included in National Best Bid or National Best Offer
calculations. In addition, all trading centers would be required to
develop, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures reasonably
designed to prevent trades at prices outside the price bands, with
the exception of single-priced opening, reopening, and closing
transactions on the Primary Listing Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 31, 2012, the Commission approved the Plan as a one-year
pilot, which shall be implemented in two phases.\14\ The first phase of
the Plan shall be implemented beginning April 8, 2013.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See ``Limit Up-Limit Down Plan,'' supra note 6. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68953 (February 20, 2013), 78 FR
13113 (February 26, 2013) (Second Amendment to Limit Up-Limit Down
Plan by BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y- Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Inc., et al.) and Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 69062 (March 7, 2013), 78 FR 15757 (March 12, 2013) (Third
Amendment to Limit Up-Limit Down Plan by BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS
Y- Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., et al.)
    \15\ See ``Second Amendment to Limit Up-Limit Down Plan,'' supra
note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Description of the Proposal

    In light of and in connection with the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan, BX
is adopting Chapter V, Section 3(d)(iii) to provide that the Exchange
shall exclude the amount of time an NMS stock underlying a BX option is
in a Limit State or Straddle State from the total amount of time in the
trading day when calculating the percentage of the trading day that
Options Market Makers are required to quote.
    Currently, under Chapter VII, Sections 5 and 6, BX requires Market
Makers, on a daily basis, to make markets consistent with the
applicable quoting requirements specified in Sections 5 and 6, on a
continuous basis in at least 60% of the series in options in which the
Market Maker is registered. To satisfy this requirement with respect to
quoting a series, a Market Maker must quote such series 90% of the
trading day (as a percentage of the total number of minutes in such
trading day) or such higher percentage as BX may announce in advance.
The Exchange's proposal would suspend a Market Maker's continuous
quoting obligation for the duration that an underlying NMS stock is in
a Limit State or a Straddle State. As a result, when calculating the
duration necessary for a Market Maker to meet its obligations that it
post valid quotes at least 90% of the time the classes are open for
trading, that time will not include the duration that the underlying is
in a Limit State or Straddle State.

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\16\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ which,
among other things, requires a national securities exchange to be so
organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of
the Act and to enforce compliance by its members and persons associated
with its members with the provisions of the Act, the rules and
regulations thereunder, and the rules of

the exchange, and is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulation, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In approving the proposed rule changes, the Commission has
considered their impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposal to suspend a Market Maker's
obligations when the underlying security is in a limit up-limit down
state is consistent with the Act. During a limit up-limit down state,
there may not be a reliable price for the underlying security to serve
as a benchmark for market makers to price options. In addition, the
absence of an executable bid or offer for the underlying security will
make it more difficult for market makers to hedge the purchase or sale
of an option. Given these significant changes to the normal operating
conditions of market makers, the Commission finds that the Exchange's
decision to suspend a Market Maker's obligations in these limited
circumstances is consistent with the Act.
    The Commission notes, however, that the Plan was approved on a
pilot basis and its Participants will monitor how it is functioning in
the equity markets during the pilot period. To this end, the Commission
expects that, upon implementation of the Plan, the Exchange will
continue monitoring the quoting requirements that are being amended in
this proposed rule change and determine if any necessary adjustments
are required to ensure that they remain consistent with the Act.
    The Commission also notes that the Exchange did not propose to
waive its bid-ask spread requirements for Market Makers when the
underlying is in a Limit or Straddle State. The Commission believes
that retaining this requirement should help ensure the quality of the
quotes that are entered and preserves one of the obligations of being a
Market Maker.
    In addition, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act \18\ for approving the proposed rule change on an
accelerated basis. The proposal is related to the Plan, which will
become operative on April 8, 2013.\19\ Without accelerated approval,
the proposed rule change, and any attendant benefits, would take effect
after the Plan's implementation date. Accordingly, the Commission finds
that good cause exists for approving the proposed rule change on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)
    \19\ See supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\20\ that the proposed rule change (SR-BX-2013-022) is approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08478 Filed 4-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P