[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 127 (Friday, July 1, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38592-38597]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16616]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 131

[EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0515; FRL-9428-3]

Phosphorus Water Quality Standards for Florida Everglades

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a rule that would identify provisions of
Florida's Water Quality Standards for Phosphorus in the Everglades
Protection Area (Phosphorus Rule) and Florida's Amended Everglades
Forever Act (EFA) that EPA has disapproved and that therefore are not
applicable water quality standards for purposes of the Clean Water Act.
EPA is proposing today's rule following EPA's disapproval of these
provisions and EPA's specific directions to the State of Florida to
correct these deficiencies in the Phosphorus Rule and EFA. EPA's
disapproval, specific directions to the State, and today's proposed
rule implement two orders by the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. The intended effect of today's proposed rule is to
identify only those provisions of Florida law that EPA has disapproved
and that therefore are not applicable water quality standards for
purposes of the Clean Water Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 1, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2011-0515 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments. This electronic docket is EPA's
preferred method of receiving comments.
     Mail: Water Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-
0515. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to section I.D of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OW Docket Center,
which is open from 8:30 until 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The OW Docket Center telephone number is (202) 566-
2426, and the Docket address is OW Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. The 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 Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mario Sengco, Standards and Health
Protection Division, Office of Science and Technology, Mail Code:
4305T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. What entities may be affected by this rule?

    Citizens concerned with water quality in Florida may be interested
in this rulemaking. Entities discharging phosphorus to waters upstream
of the Everglades Protection Area could be indirectly affected by the
Phosphorus Rule and EFA, although not specifically by this proposed
rulemaking because the current action further addresses prior
disapproval by EPA of certain provisions of the Phosphorus Rule and
EFA. Any indirect affect to entities would be because the water quality
standards contained in the State's regulation and statute are used in
determining National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit limits. With this in mind, categories and entities that may
ultimately be indirectly affected include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Examples of potentially affected
             Category                             entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Management Districts........  Entities responsible for managing
                                     point source discharges near the
                                     Everglades Protection Area.
Nonpoint Source Contributors......  Entities responsible for
                                     contributing nonpoint source runoff
                                     near the Everglades Protection
                                     Area.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for entities that may be affected by this action. This table
lists the types of entities of which EPA is now aware that potentially
could be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in
the table could also be affected. Any parties or entities conducting
activities within watersheds of the Florida waters covered by this
rule, or who rely on, depend upon, influence, or contribute to the
water quality of the Everglades Protection Area, might be affected by
this rule. To determine whether your facility or activities may be
affected by this action, you should examine this proposed rule. If you
have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. How do I get copies of this notice?

    Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0515. The official public
docket is the collection of materials that is available for public
viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Although all documents in the docket are listed in an index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room, open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the telephone
number for the Water docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

C. What comments will be considered and what should I consider as I
prepare my comments for EPA?

    (1) The public is invited to submit comments on whether EPA's
proposed rule is consistent with EPA's disapprovals of the Phosphorus
Rule and EFA and the Court's orders.
    (2) The public is invited to submit comments regarding EPA's
approach of identifying, through incorporation by reference, those
provisions of the Phosphorus Rule and EFA that are not applicable water
quality standards for purposes of the CWA.
    (3) Do not submit confidential business information (CBI) to EPA
through the http://www.regulations.gov portal. Contact EPA before
submitting CBI by contacting the person in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

II. Background

    EPA is proposing a rule that would identify provisions of Florida's
Water Quality Standards for Phosphorus in the Everglades Protection
Area (Phosphorus Rule) and Florida's Amended Everglades Forever Act
(EFA) that EPA has disapproved and that therefore are not applicable
water quality standards for purposes of the Clean Water Act. EPA is
proposing today's rule following its disapproval of these provisions
and EPA's specific directions to the State of Florida to correct these
deficiencies in the Phosphorus Rule and EFA. EPA's disapproval and
specific directions to the State implement two orders by the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Pursuant to the
Court's orders, EPA gave the State a period of time to correct the
deficiencies. The State has not corrected the deficiencies within that
time period. Therefore, EPA is proposing today's rule. The proposed
rule incorporates by reference two documents that identify the specific
provisions of Florida's Phosphorus Rule and EFA that are not applicable
water quality standards for purposes of the Clean Water Act.

A. Statutory and Regulatory Background

    Section 303(c) (33 U.S.C. 1313) of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
directs States, with oversight by EPA, to adopt water quality standards
to protect the public health and welfare, enhance the quality of water
and serve the purposes of the CWA. Under section 303, States are
required to develop water quality standards for waters of the United
States within the State. Section 303(c) and EPA's implementing
regulations (40 CFR Part 131) provide that water quality standards
shall include designated uses of the water and water quality criteria
necessary to protect those uses.
    States must submit any new or revised water quality standards for
EPA review and approval/disapproval. EPA must approve/disapprove any
new or revised standards within 60-90 days. (Section 303(c)(3)). If EPA
disapproves any standard, EPA is to specify the changes to meet the
requirements of the CWA. If the changes are not adopted by the State,
EPA is to promulgate standards to address the necessary changes in the
State standards that EPA has disapproved. Today, EPA is proposing
Federal standards to address the portions of Florida's standards that
EPA disapproved and that have not been revised by the State.

B. Florida's Phosphorus Rule and Everglades Forever Act

1. Florida's Phosphorus Rule
    In 2005, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)
submitted to EPA for review pursuant to CWA section 303(c), provisions
of Florida Administrative Code (``FAC'') 62-302.540 entitled ``Water
Quality Standards for Phosphorus Within the Everglades Protection
Area'' (Phosphorus Rule or Rule). The Rule established a numeric water
quality criterion for phosphorus as well as implementing provisions for
the numeric criterion within the Everglades Protection Area. In 2005
and 2006, EPA issued a series of decisions approving certain provisions
of the Phosphorus Rule and concluding that other provisions were not
new or revised water quality standards and did not require EPA
approval/disapproval under CWA section 303(c).
2. Florida's Everglades Forever Act
    The Florida Legislature enacted the Everglades Forever Act in 1994
to maintain and restore the ecosystem of the Everglades. See Miccosukee
Tribe of Indians v. United States, 105 F.3d. 599, 601 (11th Cir. 1997).
EPA subsequently reviewed and approved one section of the EFA (section
4(f)) as a new or revised water quality standard in 1999. The
Legislature enacted amendments to the EFA in 2003. EPA reviewed the
amendments and issued a decision in 2003 that the amendments were not
new or revised water quality standards requiring EPA approval/
disapproval under section 303(c) of the CWA.

C. Litigation and Subsequent EPA Actions

    In consolidated litigation, plaintiffs challenged (1) EPA's 2003
decision that the EFA amendments were not water quality standards and
(2) EPA's 2005 and 2006 decisions regarding the Phosphorus Rule. In a
July 29, 2008 decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida upheld in part and remanded in part EPA's
decisions. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians & Friends of the Everglades v.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, et al., No. 04-21488-CIV-Gold/McAliley (S.D.
Fla.). The Court upheld EPA's 2005 approval of the Phosphorus Rule's
numeric phosphorus criterion and the ``four-part'' test for determining
attainment of the criterion. The Court overturned (1) EPA's decision
that certain implementing provisions of the Phosphorus Rule were not
new or revised water quality standards and (2)

EPA's approval of other provisions of the Phosphorus Rule finding EPA's
approval to be arbitrary and capricious. The Court also rejected EPA's
determination that the legislative amendments to the EFA did not
constitute new or revised water quality standards subject to EPA review
(and approval or disapproval) under section 303(c) of the CWA. The
Court remanded to EPA to take further action consistent with the
Court's decision.
1. EPA's December 2009 Determination
    On December 3, 2009, EPA issued a new Determination in response to
the Court's remand. Consistent with the Court's 2008 decision, EPA
disapproved certain amendments to the EFA. It is those disapproved
provisions of the EFA that are, in part, the subject of today's
proposed rulemaking. In addition, EPA reviewed the provisions of the
Phosphorus Rule that the Court either found were new or revised
standards or that the Court had held EPA's prior approval invalid.
Consistent with the Court's decision, EPA disapproved certain
provisions of the Phosphorus Rule and those disapproved provisions also
are the subject of today's proposed rulemaking.
2. Court's April 10, 2010 Order
    Plaintiffs challenged EPA's December 2009 Determination, alleging,
in part, that EPA failed to (1) specify the changes that Florida must
make to the Phosphorus Rule and EFA to bring them into compliance with
the CWA and (2) commit to promulgate if the State fails to act. The
Court, in an order dated April 10, 2010, remanded EPA's 2009
Determination and ordered EPA to issue an Amended Determination (AD) by
September 3, 2010. While the Court did not take issue with EPA's
disapprovals, the Court nevertheless ordered that EPA's AD ``shall
specifically direct the State of Florida to correct deficiencies in the
Amended EFA and Phosphorus Rule that have been invalidated,'' attaching
copies of the Rule and EFA with strikeout markings indicating the exact
language from the Rule and EFA that the State must correct. Order at
44. The Court ordered that in the AD, ``EPA shall require the State of
Florida to commence and complete rule-making for the Phosphorus Rule
within 120 days from the date of the Amended Determination and shall
require amendments to the Amended EFA to be enacted by July 1, 2011.''
Order at 44-45. The Court further ordered that ``[i]n the event the
State of Florida fails to timely act, the EPA shall provide timely
notice, and the EPA Administrator ``shall promulgate such standard[s]''
pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1313(c).'' Order at 45.
3. EPA's September 3, 2010 Amended Determination
    Consistent with the Court's April 14, 2010 Order, EPA gave
directions to the State of Florida for correcting deficiencies in the
Phosphorus Rule and Amended EFA. EPA's AD included as attachments
copies of the Phosphorus Rule and EFA with strikeout markings
indicating the language that the State needed to correct. EPA's AD
stated that if FDEP has not finalized revisions by January 1, 2011 and
the Legislature has not enacted amendments to the EFA by July 1, 2011,
EPA would initiate rulemaking to promulgate standards consistent with
the Court's Order.
    FDEP initiated a rulemaking to adopt the necessary revisions to the
Phosphorus Rule consistent with EPA's AD. However, FDEP did not
complete that process by January 1, 2011. Nor has FDEP completed its
rulemaking process since that date. The Florida Legislature also did
not introduce or enact any amendments to the EFA consistent with EPA's
AD. The Florida Legislature stands adjourned and is not scheduled to
reconvene prior to July 1, 2011. Therefore, EPA is proceeding,
consistent with the Court's Order and EPA's AD, to initiate the
rulemaking process to promulgate Federal standards addressing the
deficiencies of the Phosphorus Rule and EFA.

III. EPA's Proposal and Solicitation of Public Comments

    EPA's proposed rule identifies those provisions in the Phosphorus
Rule and Everglades Forever Act that EPA has disapproved and that
therefore are not applicable water quality standards for purposes of
the CWA. The provisions are the ones that EPA previously disapproved in
December 2009 that the Court identified in its April 2010 Order and
that EPA identified in its September 2010 AD. EPA's proposed rule
incorporates by reference copies of the Phosphorus Rule and EFA with
the strikeout markings indicating the provisions and language that are
not applicable water quality standards for purposes of the CWA.
    For the convenience of persons reviewing this proposal, EPA has put
copies of the Phosphorus Rule and Amended Everglades Forever Act in the
docket, with the strikeout markings indicating the language that EPA
disapproved and that EPA's proposed rule identifies as not being
applicable water quality standards for purposes of the CWA. The
provisions of the Phosphorus Rule and EFA that will not be applicable
water quality standards for purposes of the CWA are summarized in
Tables 1 and 2.
    The remaining provisions of the Phosphorus Rule and EFA in the
docket either already have been approved by EPA as new or revised water
quality standards (i.e., are applicable water quality standards for the
purposes of the CWA), or are not a water quality standard subject to
EPA review and approval (or disapproval) under the Clean Water Act. As
explained in the Statutory and Regulatory Background (II.A) and in the
sections below, EPA is not proposing to promulgate any of the remaining
provisions that EPA has approved or that are not water quality
standards.
    In the Court's 2010 order, the judge struck a provision in the EFA
(i.e., paragraph 2(l)), which defined the term ``optimization.'' In
today's action, EPA is not identifying the strike out paragraph 2(l) in
the EFA or paragraph 3(f) in the Phosphorus Rule because EPA did not
specifically disapprove either provision in its December 2009
Determination. EPA believes that its decision not to identify these two
definitions in today's proposed rule will not conflict with the
objectives of the Court in its ruling because EPA disapproved the other
provisions in the EFA and Phosphorus Rule where the term
``optimization'' occurs and EPA has identified those disapproved
provisions in today's proposed rule.
    For the convenience of the reader and to improve the readability of
the documents, EPA has included a few minor text changes to the
Phosphorus Rule and Amended Everglades Forever Act in the docket. These
changes are identified by underline. EPA included these few text
changes in its submission to the Court and the Court's April 2011 order
reflects these changes. EPA added text when deletion of the disapproved
language rendered the remaining text difficult to understand. In EFA
section 10 for example, EPA's added text would restore language that
existed prior to enactment of EFA amendments. In these sections, EPA is
not proposing to establish new or revised water quality standards with
these text changes, but merely to restore language that would make the
remaining text easier to understand. Similarly, for ease of
readability, the docket versions of the Phosphorus Rule and Amended
Everglades Forever Act strike the definitions of ``optimization''
(which is defined only for the purposes of other provisions that EPA
disapproved) from sections 2(l) and 3(f), respectively, as discussed
above.

 Table 1--62-302.540 Provisions of Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.)
(Water Quality Standards for Phosphorus Within the Everglades Protection
  Area) That Are Not Applicable Water Quality Standards for Purposes of
                           the Clean Water Act
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Section                  Specific provision or language
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)(a)............................  Entire paragraph.
(1)(b)(2).........................  Entire paragraph.
(2)(b)-(f)........................  Entire paragraphs and subparagraphs.
(2)(h)............................  Entire paragraph.
(2)(l)............................  Entire paragraph.
(3)(a)-(b)........................  Entire paragraphs.
(3)(h)............................  Entire paragraph.
(4)(d)(2)(c)......................  Sentence only, ``If these limits are
                                     not met, no action shall be
                                     required, provided that the net
                                     improvement or hydropattern
                                     restoration provisions of
                                     subsection (6) below are met.''
(5)(a)............................  Entire paragraph.
(5)(b)(2)-(3).....................  Entire paragraphs.
(5)(d)............................  Entire paragraph.
(6)(a)-(c)........................  Entire paragraphs and subparagraphs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Table 2--Provisions of the Amended Everglades Forever Act (Florida
  Statute 373.4592) That Are Not Applicable Water Quality Standards for
                     Purposes of the Clean Water Act
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Section                  Specific provision or language
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2)(a)............................  Entire paragraph.
(2)(g)............................  Sentence 1, phrase ``are further
                                     described in the Long-Term Plan''.
(2)(j)............................  Entire paragraph.
(2)(p)............................  Entire paragraph.
(3)(b)-(e)........................  Entire paragraphs.
(4)(a)............................  Sentence 9, phrase ``design,
                                     construction, and implementation of
                                     the initial phase of the Long-Term
                                     Plan, including operation and
                                     maintenance, and research for the
                                     projects and strategies in the
                                     initial phase of the Long-Term
                                     Plan, and including''
(4)(a)(4).........................  Sentence 1, phrase ``however, the
                                     district may modify this schedule
                                     to incorporate and accelerate
                                     enhancements to STA \3/4\ as
                                     directed in the Long-Term Plan''.
(4)(a)(6).........................  Entire subparagraph.
(4)(e)(2).........................  Sentences 7, 8 and 9.
(4)(e)(3).........................  Sentence 3.
(10)..............................  Sentence 1, phrase ``to implement
                                     the pre-2006 projects and
                                     strategies of the Long-Term Plan.''
                                    Sentence 1, phrase ``in all parts of
                                     the Everglades Protection Area''.
                                    Sentence 1, phrase ``and moderating
                                     provisions''.
(10)(a)...........................  Entire paragraph.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that its proposal to incorporate by reference
documents that identify those specific provisions of the Phosphorus
Rule and EFA that are not applicable water quality standards for
purposes of the CWA best accomplishes the purpose of removing those
provisions from consideration for future implementation within CWA
programs.
    EPA considered other approaches to accomplish this result and
decided the approach the Agency is proposing today is the most
appropriate approach. Because the Phosphorus Rule and EFA are Florida
laws, EPA could not ``amend'' those state laws. EPA considered whether
it should incorporate the complete Phosphorus Rule and EFA as Federal
regulations and amend them accordingly. EPA concluded this approach
would not be appropriate for two reasons.
    First, to the extent EPA would be promulgating as Federal
regulations provisions of state water quality standards that EPA has
approved (or provisions associated with approved water quality
standards but that are not themselves water quality standards), the CWA
does not provide for such action. The CWA provides that when EPA
approves a new or revised state water quality standard, ``such standard
shall thereafter be the water quality standard for the applicable
waters of the State.'' CWA section 303(c)(3). Only if EPA disapproves a
state water quality standard or makes a determination that a new or
revised water quality standard is necessary to meet the requirements of
the Clean Water Act under section 303(c)(4)(B) and the state fails to
make the necessary changes, does the Act direct EPA to promulgate such
water quality standards for navigable waters of the state. There are
many provisions of the Phosphorus Rule that EPA approved. EPA did not
believe it would be appropriate to promulgate those provisions as
Federal regulations.
    Second, except for the disapproved provisions of the EFA
amendments, EPA has not approved or disapproved the remaining
provisions of the EFA (with one exception) as new or revised water
quality standards under the Clean Water Act. Therefore, it would not be
appropriate for EPA to promulgate such provisions as Federal water
quality standards.
    For these reasons, EPA concluded the best approach was to identify,
through incorporation by reference, those provisions of the Phosphorus
Rule and EFA that EPA disapproved and are therefore not applicable
water quality standards for purposes of the CWA. EPA solicits comments
on this approach.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This proposed action merely
clarifies the water quality standards concerning the phosphorus rule
and the Amended EFA statute that are not water quality standards for
purposes of the CWA and does not impose any information collection
burden on anyone.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of
assessing the impacts of this action on small entities, small entity is
defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    As a result of the disapproval action by EPA in December 2009, the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection already needs to ensure
that permits it issues do not implement the provisions identified in
this rule which are not applicable water quality standards for purposes
of the CWA. In doing so, the State will have a number of choices
associated with permit writing. While Florida's implementation of the
rule might ultimately result in some new or revised permit conditions
for some dischargers, including small entities, EPA's action today
would not impose any of these as yet unknown requirements on small
entities. Thus, I certify that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or Tribal governments or the private
sector. This proposed action merely clarifies the water quality
standards concerning the phosphorus rule and the Amended EFA and does
not impose any burden on anyone. Therefore, this action is not subject
to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action does not have Federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed action merely
clarifies the water quality standards concerning the phosphorus rule
and the Amended EFA and does not apply to any government other than the
State of Florida.

F. Executive Order 13175

    This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) because this is
an action in which the EPA has no discretion, i.e., EPA is mandated by
the Court to take this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO 12866
and because the Agency does not believe the environmental health risks
or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate
risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994))
establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main
provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States. This
action is not subject to E.O. 12898 because this proposed action merely
clarifies the water quality standards concerning the phosphorus rule
and the Amended EFA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131

    Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Indians--
lands, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control.

    Dated: June 27, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 131 as follows:

PART 131--WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

    1. The Authority citation for part 131 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Subpart D--[Amended]

    2. Section 131.44 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  131.44  Florida.

    (a) Phosphorus Rule. The document entitled ``Corrected Florida
Administrative Code 62-302.540: Water Quality Standards for Phosphorus
Within the Everglades Protection Area,'' (Phosphorus Rule) dated April
26, 2011 shall be added to this Subpart through an incorporation by
reference. The Director of the Federal Register approves this
incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a). Copies
of the document may be inspected and obtained from the docket
associated with this rulemaking (Docket Number EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0515), at
EPA's Water Docket (Address: 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., EPA West,
Room B102, Washington, DC 20460, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>), or at
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to the following Web site http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.htm. EPA adopts
and identifies the portions of the document that have strikeout
markings as portions of the Phosphorus Rule that EPA disapproved on
December 3, 2009, and that are not applicable water quality standards
for the purposes of the Clean Water Act. Remaining portions of the
Phosphorus Rule that EPA had previously approved are applicable water
quality standards for the purposes of the Clean Water Act but are not
codified as Federal water quality standards.
    (b) Amended Everglades Forever Act. The document entitled
``Corrected Everglades Forever Act: Florida Statute 373.4592,'' dated
April 26, 2011 shall be added to this Subpart through an incorporation
by reference. The Director of the Federal Register approves this
incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a). Copies
of the document may be inspected and obtained from the docket
associated with this rulemaking (Docket Number EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0515), at
EPA's Water Docket (Address: 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., EPA West,
Room B102, Washington, DC 20460, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER> or at
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to the following Web site: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
EPA adopts and identifies the portions of the document that have
strikeout markings as portions of the statute that EPA disapproved on
December 3, 2009, and that are not applicable water quality standards
for the purposes of the Clean Water Act. Remaining portions of the
statute that EPA had previously approved are applicable water quality
standards for the purposes of the Clean Water Act but are not codified
as Federal water quality standards.

[FR Doc. 2011-16616 Filed 6-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19167-19169]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07699]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary of Transportation

 Requirements for the Secretary of Transportations Recognizing
Aviation and Aerospace Innovation in Science and Engineering Awards

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of the announcement of Requirements for the Secretary of
Transportation's RAISE (Recognizing Aviation and Aerospace Innovation
in Science and Engineering) Awards.

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

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 3719 (America COMPETES Act).
    Award Approving Official: Anthony Foxx, Secretary of
Transportation.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to a recommendation by the Future of Aviation
Advisory Committee, the Secretary of Transportation is announcing the
third-annual competition to recognize students with the ability to
demonstrate unique, innovative thinking in aerospace science and
engineering. In its third year, the Secretary has decided to create two
divisions within the award: A high school division and a university
division (both undergraduate and graduate). The Secretary of
Transportation intends to use the awards to incentivize students at
high schools and universities to think creatively in developing
innovative solutions to aviation and aerospace issues, and to share
those innovations with the broader community.

DATES: Effective on April 01, 2014 to October 31, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Watts, Ph.D., Federal
Aviation Administration,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
James Brough, Federal Aviation Administration,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Subject of Challenge Competition: The Secretary's RAISE
(Recognizing Aviation & Aerospace Innovation in Science and
Engineering) Award will recognize innovative scientific and engineering
achievements that will have a significant impact on the future of
aerospace or aviation. Following an open solicitation by the United
States Department of Transportation (``the Department''), the Secretary
of Transportation (``the Secretary'') will designate an Award Review
Board Chair, who will submit nominations to the Secretary for final
consideration. The rules for this competition will be available at
http://www.challenge.gov.
    Eligibility:
    To be eligible to participate in the Secretary's RAISE Award
competition, students must be U.S. citizens or permanent residents. For
the high school division, the students must have been enrolled in at
least one semester (or quarterly equivalent) at a U.S. high school (or
equivalent approved home school program) in 2014. For the University
division, the student must have been enrolled in a U.S.-based college
or university for at least one semester (or quarterly equivalent) in
2014. Students may participate and be recognized as individuals or in
teams. Each member of a team must meet the eligibility criteria. An
individual may join more than one team. There is no charge to enter the
competition.
    The following additional rules apply:
    1. Candidates shall submit a project in the competition under the
rules promulgated by the Department;
    2. Candidates shall agree to execute indemnifications and waivers
of claims against the Federal government as provided in this Notice;
    3. Candidates may not be a Federal entity or Federal employee
acting within the scope of employment;
    4. Candidates may not be an employee of the Department, including
but not limited to the Federal Aviation Administration, or the Research
and Innovative Technology Administration;
    5. Candidates shall not be deemed ineligible because an individual
used Federal facilities or consulted with Federal employees during a
competition, if the facilities and employees are made available to all
individuals participating in the competition on an equitable basis;
    6. The competition is subject to all applicable Federal laws and
regulations. Participation constitutes the Candidates' full and
unconditional agreement to these rules and to the Secretary's
decisions, which are final and binding in all matters related to this
competition;
    7. Submissions which in the Secretary's sole discretion are
determined to be substantially similar to a prior submitted entry may
be disqualified;
    8. Submissions must be original, be the work of the Candidates, and
must not violate the rights of other parties. All submissions remain
the property of the applicants. Each Candidate represents and warrants
that he, she, or the team, is the sole author and owner of the
submission, that the submission is wholly original, that it does not
infringe any copyright or any other rights of any third party of which
the Candidate is aware, and, if submitted in electronic form, is free
of malware;
    9. By submitting an entry in this contest, contestants and entrants
agree to assume any and all risks and waive any claims against the
Federal Government and its related entities (except in the case of
willful misconduct) for any injury, death, damage, or loss of property,
revenue or profits, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, arising
from their participation in this contest, whether the injury, death,
damage, or loss arises through negligence of otherwise. Provided,
however, that by registering or submitting an entry, contestants and
entrants do not waive claims against the Department arising out of the
unauthorized use or disclosure by the agency of the intellectual
property, trade secrets, or confidential information of the entrant;
    10. The Secretary and the Secretary's designees have the right to
request access to supporting materials from the Candidates;
    11. The submissions cannot have been submitted in the same or
substantially similar form in any previous Federally-sponsored
promotion or Federally-sponsored contest, of any kind;
    12. Each Candidate grants to the Department, as well as other
Federal agencies with which it partners, the right to use names,
likeness, application materials, photographs, voices, opinions, and/or
hometown and state for the Department's promotional purposes in any
media, in perpetuity, worldwide, without further payment or
consideration; and
    13. The Secretary collects personal information from Candidates
when they enter this competition. The information collected is subject
to the ChallengePost privacy policy located at http://www.challengepost.com/privacy.
    Expression of Interest:
    While not required, students are strongly encouraged to send brief
expressions of interest to the Department to be considered for an
award. The expressions of interest should be sent by June 1, 2014 to
the contact shown below and should include the following elements: (1)
Name of Candidate(s); (2) Name of educational institution(s) with which
Candidate(s) are affiliated; (2) Telephone and email addresses for
Candidate(s); (3) brief high-level overview of the proposed project.
    Submission Requirements:
    Final submission packages shall consist of the following elements:
    1. Nomination letter from at least one teacher, advisor, faculty
member, and others as appropriate. The nomination letter(s) must
communicate accomplishments in the following areas:
a. Technical Merit of the Concept
    Evidence of technical merit based upon teacher (parent or legal
guardian in the case of home schooled applicants), advisor, or faculty
nomination and evaluation of the submitted proposal, written paper,
and/or reports.
b. Professionalism and Leadership
    Evidence of professionalism and leadership may be in the form of,
but not limited to:
    (1) Membership and offices held in various groups
    (2) Presentations made to various groups, meetings, and at symposia
    (3) Leadership in student professional activities
    (4) Community outreach activities
    2. An overall summary of the innovation, not to exceed one page,
which includes a title of the project and statement of the impact that
the innovation will have on the field of aviation or aerospace;
    3. A copy of the student's academic transcript or certified grade
report (as applicable);
    4. A copy of the paper(s) and related materials describing the
innovative concept written by the student(s) being nominated (no page
limit).
    Once submissions have been received, the Department may request
additional information, including supporting documentation, more
detailed contact information, releases of liability, and statements of
authenticity to guarantee the originality of the work. Failure to
respond in a timely fashion may result in disqualification.
    All materials should be forwarded with a cover letter to the
attention of: Patricia Watts, Ph.D., Centers of Excellence Program
Director, Federal Aviation Administration, L-28, FAA William J. Hughes
Technical Center, Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405.

    Hardcopy is preferred; however, the package also may be transmitted
by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The submission period begins on May
1, 2014. Submissions must be sent by 11:59 p.m. Pacific daylight time
on October 31, 2014. The timeliness of submissions will be determined
by the postmark (if sent in hard copy) or time stamp of the recipient
(if emailed). Award administrators assume no responsibility for lost or
untimely submissions for any reason.
    Award:
    The winner will be announced by the end of 2014. A trophy with the
winner's name and date of award will be displayed at the Department of
Transportation and a display copy of the trophy will be sent to the
winner's school/college/university. An additional plaque or trophy will
be awarded to the individual or team. At the option of the Secretary,
the Department will pay for invitational travel expenses to Washington,
DC for up to four representatives of the winning teams to present their
project to Department officials and receive the award from the
Secretary.
    Basis Upon Which the Winners Will Be Selected:
    All submissions will be initially reviewed by the FAA Centers for
Excellence Program Director upon receipt to determine if the
submissions meet the eligibility requirements. Registration packages
meeting the eligibility requirements will be judged by advisory panels
consisting of academic experts, government officials including FAA, the
Department, and representatives of the private sector. The advisory
panels will select the most highly qualified submissions and present
them to the Secretary of the Department, who will select the winning
entrant.
    Submissions will be judged against other submissions from the same
division on the following criteria:
    Technical Merit:
     Has the submission presented a clear understanding of the
associated problems?
     Has the submission developed a logical and workable
solution and approach to solving the problem/s?
     What are the most significant aspects of this concept?
     Has the submission clearly described the breadth of impact
of the innovation?
    Originality:
     Is this concept new or a variation of an existing idea,
and in what way(s)?
     How is this work unique?
     Was the concept developed independently or in cooperation
with others?
    Impact:
     To what extent will this project make a significant impact
and/or contribution to the future of the aviation and aerospace
environment?
    Practicality:
     Who directly benefits from this work?
     Can this program or activity be implemented in a practical
fashion?
     What are the costs anticipated to be incurred and saved by
executing this concept?
    Measurability:
     How has this individual/group measured the impact on the
aviation environment?
     To what extent does the innovation result in measurable
improvements?
    Applicability:
     Can this effort be scaled?
     Is this work specific to one region, various regions, or
to the entire nation?
    All factors are important and will be given consideration, but the
advisory panels will give the ``technical merit'' factor the most
weight in the screening process. The Secretary retains sole discretion
to select the winning entrant.
    Additional Information:
    Federal grantees may not use Federal funds to develop COMPETES Act
challenge applications.
    Federal contractors may not use Federal funds from a contract to
develop COMPETES Act challenge applications or to fund efforts in
support of a COMPETES Act challenge submission.

    Issued On: April 1, 2014.
Susan L. Kurland,
Assistant Secretary of Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2014-07699 Filed 4-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 67 (Monday, April 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17311-17314]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07047]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80372; File No. SR-OCC-2017-003]

Options Clearing Corporation Self-Regulatory Organizations; the
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Concerning the Requirement for Clearing Members To Participate in
Default Management Testing

April 4, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 29, 2017, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below; Items I
and II have been prepared by OCC. OCC filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) \3\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \4\ thereunder 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    This proposed rule change by OCC codifies the requirement for
Clearing Members to participate in default management testing.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements. All terms with initial capitalization that are not
otherwise defined herein have the same meaning as set forth in the OCC
By-Laws and Rules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ OCC's By-Laws and Rules can be found on OCC's public Web
site: http://optionsclearing.com/about/publications/bylaws.jsp.

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

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
Background
    On September 28, 2016 the Commission adopted amendments to Rule
17Ad-22 \6\ and added new Rule 17Ad-22(e)(13) \7\ pursuant to Section
17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \8\ and the Payment,
Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (``Payment, Clearing
and Settlement Supervision Act'') \9\ to require that a ``covered
clearing agency,'' as defined by Rule 17Ad-22(a)(5),\10\ has the
authority and operational capacity, among other things, to require that
participants, and other stakeholders when practicable, participate in
the review and testing of the covered clearing agency's default
procedures (collectively, the new and amended rules are herein referred
to as ``CCA'' rules). Specifically, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(13) requires that a
covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(13).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \9\ 12 U.S.C. 5461 et. seq.
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(5).

    Ensure the covered clearing agency has the authority and
operational capacity to take timely action to contain losses and
liquidity demands and continue to meet its obligations by, at a
minimum, requiring the covered clearing agency's participants and,
when practicable, other stakeholders to participate in the testing
and review of its default procedures, including any close-out
procedure, at least annually and following material changes
thereto.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(13).

    OCC meets the definition of a covered clearing agency and is
therefore subject to the requirements of the CCA rules, including Rule
17Ad-22(e)(13).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Practice
    As a matter of current practice, OCC already involves certain of
its Clearing Members in testing of OCC's default management procedures.
Article V of OCC's By-Laws sets forth OCC's initial membership
requirements. Pursuant to Interpretation and Policy .02(b) of Article
V, Section 1 of OCC's By-Laws, an applicant must demonstrate that it is
operationally capable of, among other things, participating in
applicable default management activities as required by OCC and in
accordance with applicable laws and regulations.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See OCC By-Laws Article V, Section 1, Interpretation and
Policy .02(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once an applicant becomes a Clearing Member, Chapter II of OCC's
Rules also sets forth operational requirements that address default
management procedure testing. In particular, OCC Rule 214(d) requires
Clearing Members to maintain certain operational capabilities as a
continuing obligation of participating in OCC as a Clearing Member.
This includes ``the ability to participate in default management
activities, including auctions, as may be required by the Corporation
and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See OCC Rule 214(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As contemplated by Interpretation and Policy .02(b) of Article V,
Section 1 and Rule 214(d), OCC already conducts periodic default
management testing, which includes the participation of certain
Clearing Members.
Proposed Rules 218(c) and (d)
    To comply with certain requirements in Rule 17Ad-22(e)(13) that the
Commission recently adopted as part of the CCA rules, OCC is proposing
to implement Rules 218(c) and (d) to establish a requirement that
Clearing Members participate periodically in testing of OCC's default
procedures, including any close-out procedures. Proposed Rules 218(c)
and (d) would make clear, consistent with the CCA rules, OCC's right to
designate Clearing Members that are required to participate in default
procedure testing and require designated Clearing Members to comply
with the default procedure testing within specified timeframes.
    OCC maintains a Default Management Policy (``Policy'') that also
addresses its default procedure testing requirements. Specifically, the
Policy notes, among other things, that OCC's default management testing
will occur on at least an annual basis, or more frequently if a
material change is made to OCC's default management procedures or as
may be deemed necessary by OCC's internal ``Default Management Working
Group.'' \15\ In addition, the Policy provides that certain Clearing
Members would be required to participate in OCC's default management
testing, consistent with proposed Rules 218(c) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The ``Default Management Working Group'' is a staff-level
working group chaired by the Vice President of Default Management
and composed of staff from other OCC departments involved in default
management testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rules 218(c) and (d) would establish flexible and
transparent key factors that OCC would use to determine which Clearing
Members are required to participate in default management testing.
Proposed Rules 218(c) and (d) would require OCC to use the key factors
to select Clearing Members that, taken as a whole, OCC determines are
the minimum necessary for the maintenance of fair and orderly markets,
the promotion of robust risk management, the support of stability of
the broader financial system and the protection investors and the
public interest. OCC's key factors in determining which Clearing
Members will be selected for testing in any given testing event would
include but not be limited to: (i) Suitability of business activities
and anticipated impact on resources; \16\ (ii) historical open interest
and volume in asset classes, where appropriate; \17\ and (iii)
participation in previous tests. In adopting the CCA rules, the
Commission provided guidance that clarifies that ``[a] covered clearing
agency may designate in its policies and procedures that certain
participants, or certain categories of participants, be designated for
participation in certain tests.'' \18\ OCC's key factors to determine
which Clearing Members are selected for participation in a given test
of a default procedure are designed to provide flexibility to OCC while
also ensuring that the appropriate Clearing Members participate in
tests relevant to their business activities as relevant to OCC. Any
Clearing Members designated to participate in a test of OCC's default
procedures would be notified in advance and provided details concerning
the nature of such testing as the particular test plans are determined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ OCC's Clearing Members vary in their size, capacity, and
participation in OCC's services from large, active members to
smaller members that may not participate in certain services or may
have less resources, personnel, or capacity to engage in default
procedure testing at a given time. Consequently, OCC needs to
preserve reasonable flexibility in considering the suitability of
business activities and anticipated impact on resources of a
Clearing Member considered for participation in a particular default
management testing exercise. OCC notes, however, that this in no way
abrogates a Clearing Member's obligations to maintain the minimal
operational capabilities, including the ability to participate in
default management activities, as required by OCC's rules. See e.g.,
OCC Rule 214(d).
    \17\ See, e.g., OCC Rule 1104.02(d), noting that in a default
scenario OCC will pre-qualify certain potential bidders in an
auction based on, among other things, demonstrated activity in the
products being auctioned and qualification to clear transactions in
the asset class in which the Clearing Member proposes to submit bids
before inviting a bidder to participate in the auction.
    \18\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78961 (September 28,
2016), 81 FR 70786, 70830 (October 13, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, OCC already conducts periodic default management

testing and includes certain Clearing Members in such testing under
Rule 214(d). Accordingly, OCC believes the proposed rule would have
comparatively little impact on its Clearing Members relative to OCC's
existing practice. As previously noted, the proposed rule is intended
to establish clear authority in accordance with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(13)
\19\ for OCC to require Clearing Member participation in default
procedure testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \20\ because the proposed change would
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in the
clearance and settlement of securities transactions by expressly
establishing in OCC's Rules that Clearing Members must participate in
default procedure testing, which, in turn, would help to ensure that if
OCC's default procedures are activated, they would function as
intended. OCC believes that the proposed rule change is also consistent
with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(13) \21\ because it would require Clearing Members
to participate in the testing of OCC's default procedures, including
any close-out procedures, which testing would occur at least annually
and following any material changes to OCC's default management
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC also believes that Clearing Members will benefit by having
proposed Rules 218(c) and (d) clearly state their obligation to
participate in default procedure testing if designated, as required
under the CCA rules. Moreover, OCC believes that this legal framework
would promote consistency with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) \22\ by ensuring that
OCC has a well-founded, clear, transparent and enforceable legal basis
regarding default management procedure testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with the existing
rules of OCC, including any other rules proposed to be amended.

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.\23\ Proposed Rules
218(c) and (d) would expressly establish OCC's authority to require
Clearing Members to participate in particular default management
procedure testing exercises. However, OCC does not believe that such a
requirement--which is minimally necessary for compliance with Rule
17Ad-22(e)(13) \24\--imposes any burden on competition among Clearing
Members, let alone any burden greater than necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To begin, proposed Rules 218(c)
and (d) would not impose disparate operational requirements on Clearing
Members because all Clearing Members are required to have sufficient
minimum capabilities to participate in OCC's default management
procedure testing process. Further, the process for selecting Clearing
Member participants would be designed to ensure that Clearing Members
would participate in tests that are relevant to their business
activities, consistent with OCC's current practice. Finally, OCC
believes that the limited, periodic use of Clearing Member resources in
default management testing exercises would not affect the ability of a
selected Clearing Member to continue to operate its business as it
otherwise would. Accordingly, OCC believes the responsibilities
associated with testing participation would be equitably distributed
such that no Clearing Member(s) would face any burden on competition
more than is necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act and that the proposed rule change is therefore consistent with
the requirements of the Act applicable to clearing agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with
respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\25\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \26\ thereunder, the proposed rule change is filed for
immediate effectiveness because it does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms would not
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate. Additionally, OCC
provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the
proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of
filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated
by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC stated that the proposed rule change would not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest because, as
described above, OCC already conducts periodic default management
testing and includes certain Clearing Members in such testing, in
accordance with Interpretation and Policy .02(b) of Article V, Section
1 of OCC's By-Laws and Rule 214(d). OCC stated further that proposed
Rules 218(c) and (d) would only modify OCC's rules to clearly
articulate the requirement that Clearing Members must participate
periodically in testing of OCC's default management procedures. OCC
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any significant
burden on competition because, as described above, OCC believes the
responsibilities associated with testing participation would be nominal
and infrequent and would be equitably distributed among Clearing
Members by OCC using certain key factors, including but not limited to
participation in previous tests.
    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. OCC has requested that the Commission waive the
30-day operative delay contained in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) so that the
proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. According to
OCC, the proposed rule change does not present any novel or
controversial issues. OCC stated that this proposed rule change would
require Clearing Members to participate in the testing of OCC's default
procedures consistent with 17Ad-22(e)(13). In its proposal, OCC stated
that the proposed rule change is not intended to substantively alter
OCC's default management testing procedures, but is instead intended to
amend OCC's rules to clearly articulate the requirement that Clearing
Members must participate in the testing of OCC's default management
procedures. Therefore, the Commission designates

the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of 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.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Notwithstanding its immediate effectiveness, implementation
of this rule change will be delayed until this change is deemed
certified under CFTC Regulation Sec.  40.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-OCC-2017-003 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2017-003. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's
Web site at http://www.theocc.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/sr_occ_17_003.pdf
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2017-003 and
should be submitted on or before May 1, 2017.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-07047 Filed 4-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 155 (Thursday, August 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53133-53134]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19072]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-558-000]

PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Public Comment Meeting
Location Change for the Proposed Penneast Pipeline Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is providing
this notice of a change in the location of public comment meetings for
the PennEast Pipeline Project. Since issuance of the Notice of
Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Proposed PennEast Pipeline Project on July 22, 2016, the Commission
staff was notified that The Grand Colonial in Hampton, New Jersey and
the Clifford B. Martin Memorial Hall in Ewing, New Jersey are no longer
available for the public comment meetings previously scheduled for
August 16 and 17, 2016, respectively. Please take note that the public
comment meetings are now scheduled at the following alternative
locations at the same date and time as previously scheduled.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date and time                           Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, August 16, 2016, 6-   Holiday Inn Clinton-Bridgewater,
 10 p.m.                        Hunterdon Ballroom, 111 W Main Street,
                                Clinton, NJ 08809, Phone: (908) 735-
                                5111.

Wednesday, August 17, 2016, 6- Patriots Theater at War Memorial, George
 10 p.m.                        Washington Ballroom, 1 Memorial Drive,
                                Trenton, NJ 08608, Phone: (609) 984-
                                8484.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All other public comment meetings will be held as listed in the
Notice of Availability issued on July 22, 2016.

    Dated: August 5, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19072 Filed 8-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31965-31966]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10972]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0072; FRL-8635-04-OAR]

Release of the Policy Assessment for the Reconsideration of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability; policy assessment.

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

SUMMARY: On or about May 23, 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) will make available the document, Policy Assessment for the
Reconsideration of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter (PA). This document was prepared as a part of the
current reconsideration of the 2020 final decision on the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Particulate Matter (PM). The
PA serves to ``bridge the gap'' between the currently available
scientific and technical information and the judgments required of the
Administrator in determining whether to retain or revise the existing
PM NAAQS.

DATES: This document will be available on or about May 23, 2022.

ADDRESSES: This document will be available on the EPA's website at
https://www.epa.gov/naaqs/particulate-matter-pm-air-quality-standards.
The document will be accessible under ``Policy Assessments'' from the
current review.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Lars Perlmutt, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, (Mail Code C539-04), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:
919-541-3037, fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Two sections of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
the Act) govern the establishment and revision of the NAAQS. Section
108 directs the Administrator to identify and list certain air
pollutants and then issue ``air quality criteria'' for those
pollutants. The air quality criteria are to ``accurately reflect the
latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of
all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be
expected from the presence of such pollutant in the ambient air . . .''
(CAA section 108(a)(2)). Under section 109 of the Act, the EPA is then
to establish primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS
for each pollutant for which the EPA has issued air quality criteria.
Section 109(d)(1) of the Act requires periodic review and, if
appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. Revised air
quality criteria are to reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the
effects of the pollutant on public health and welfare. Under the same
provision, the EPA is also to periodically review and, if appropriate,
revise the NAAQS, based on the revised air quality criteria.
    The Act additionally requires appointment of an independent
scientific review committee that is to periodically review the existing
air quality criteria and NAAQS and to recommend any new standards and
revisions of existing criteria and standards as may be appropriate (CAA
section 109(d)(2)(A)-(B)). Since the early 1980s, the requirement for
an independent scientific review committee has been fulfilled by the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). In December 2020, the
EPA announced its final decision to retain the primary and secondary
PM2.5 and PM10 standards, without revision (85 FR
82684, December 18, 2020).\1\ On June 10, 2021, the Agency announced
its decision to reconsider the 2020 p.m. NAAQS final action.\2\ In its
announcement of the reconsideration of the PM NAAQS, the Agency
explained that, in support of the reconsideration, it would develop a
supplement to the 2019 Integrated Science Assessment (ISA Supplement)
\3\ and an updated PA. A draft of the ISA Supplement was released in
September 2021 (86 FR 54186, September 30, 2021) and a draft of the PA
was released in October 2021 (86 FR 56263, October 8, 2021). The draft
ISA Supplement and the draft PA were reviewed by the seven-member
chartered CASAC, with support from the PM CASAC Panel.4 5
The final PA reflects consideration of the advice and comments from the
CASAC, as well as public comments, on the draft PA. The PA serves to
``bridge the gap'' between the scientific and technical information in
the 2019 ISA and ISA Supplement and any air quality, exposure and risk
analyses available in the reconsideration, and the judgments required
of the Administrator in determining whether to retain or revise the
existing PM NAAQS. The PA builds upon the information presented in the
2019 ISA, the ISA Supplement, and the 2020 PA. The PA document will be
available on or about May 23, 2022, on the EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/naaqs/particulate-matter-pm-air-quality-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The welfare effects considered in this reconsideration
include visibility impairment, climate effects, and materials
effects (i.e., damage and soiling). Ecological effects of PM, such
as those related to deposition of nitrogen- and sulfur-containing
compounds in vulnerable ecosystems, are being considered in the
separate, on-going review of the secondary NAAQS for oxides of
nitrogen and oxides of sulfur.
    \2\ The press release for this announcement is available at:
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-reexamine-health-standards-harmful-soot-previous-administration-left-unchanged
    \3\ The 2019 ISA and the ISA Supplement are available at:
https://www.epa.gov/naaqs/particulate-matter-pm-standards-integrated-science-assessments-current-review
    \4\ For more information, see: https://casac.epa.gov/ords/sab/f?p=105:18:667108909508:::RP,18:P18_ID:2606
    \5\ For more information, see: https://casac.epa.gov/ords/sab/f?p=105:18:13023836743815:::RP,18:P18_ID:2607#meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The document briefly described above does not represent and should
not be construed to represent any final EPA policy, viewpoint, or
determination.

    Dated: May 16, 2022.
Panagiotis Tsirigotis,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2022-10972 Filed 5-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 46 (Friday, March 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13346-13347]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04758]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[9956-73-OEI]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, State of Montana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Montana's
request to revise its National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Implementation EPA-authorized program to allow electronic reporting.

DATES: EPA's approval is effective April 10, 2017 for the State of
Montana's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation
program, if no timely request for a public hearing is received and
accepted by the Agency.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop
2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
1175<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving,
electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to
EPA for a revision of those programs and obtain EPA approval. Subpart D
provides standards for such approvals based on consideration of the
electronic document receiving systems that the state, tribe, or local
government will use to implement the electronic reporting.
Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3, subpart D
provides special procedures for program revisions to allow electronic
reporting, to be used at the option of the state, tribe or local
government in place of procedures available under existing program-
specific authorization regulations. An application submitted under the
subpart D procedures must show that the state, tribe or local
government has sufficient legal authority to implement the electronic
reporting components of the programs covered by the application and
will use electronic document receiving systems that meet the applicable
subpart D requirements.
    On December 22, 2016, the Montana Department of Environmental
Quality (MT DEQ) submitted an application titled ``Compliance
Monitoring Data Portal'' for revision to its EPA-approved drinking
water program under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA
reviewed MT DEQ's request to revise its EPA-authorized program and,
based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the
standards for approval of authorized program revision set out in 40 CFR
part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of
EPA's decision to approve Montana's request to revise its Part 142--
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program to
allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR part 141 is being published in
the Federal Register.
    MT DEQ was notified of EPA's determination to approve its
application with respect to the authorized program listed above.
    Also, in today's notice, EPA is informing interested persons that
they may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the State
of Montana's request to revise its authorized public water system
program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(f).
Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of
publication of today's Federal Register notice. Such requests should
include the following information:
    (1) The name, address and telephone number of the individual,
organization or other entity requesting a hearing;
    (2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in EPA's
determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a hearing,
and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA to
consider when determining whether to grant the request;
    (3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the
request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the
signature of a responsible official of the organization or other
entity.
    In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide
notice of the hearing in the Federal Register not less than 15 days
prior to the scheduled hearing date. Frivolous or insubstantial
requests for hearing may be denied by EPA. Following such a public
hearing, EPA will review the record of the hearing and issue an order
either affirming today's determination or

rescinding such determination. If no timely request for a hearing is
received and granted, EPA's approval of the State of Montana's request
to revise its part 142--National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Implementation program to allow electronic reporting will become
effective 30 days after today's notice is published, pursuant to
CROMERR section 3.1000(f)(4).

Matthew Leopard,
Director, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2017-04758 Filed 3-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P