[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1892-1894]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00254]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68575; File No. SR-BOX-2012-024]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fee Schedule for Trading on BOX

January 3, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on December 21, 2012, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the

Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend its Fee Schedule
relating to the fees assessed by FINRA in connection with use of its
Central Registration Depository (``CRD System''). While changes to the
Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing,
the changes will become operative on January 2, 2013. The text of the
proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the
Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the
Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section V of its Fee Schedule to
reflect a recent fee change made by FINRA,\5\ relating to the CRD
system.\6\ The fees assessed under Section V are collected and retained
by FINRA via the CRD system for the registration of associated persons
of Exchange members that are not also FINRA members. The Exchange
originally adopted the fees under Section V to mirror the fees assessed
by FINRA on its members for use of the CRD system in connection with
the Exchange's participation in Web CRD.\7\ FINRA recently amended the
fees assessed for use of the CRD system, which will become effective
January 2, 2013.\8\ The CRD system fees are use-based and there is no
distinction in the cost incurred by FINRA if the user is a FINRA member
or a member of an exchange that is not a FINRA member. Accordingly, the
Exchange is proposing to amend the fees under Section V.B. to mirror
those assessed by FINRA, which will be implemented concurrently with
the amended FINRA fees on January 2, 2013.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67247 (June 25,
2012), 77 FR 38866 (June 29, 2012) (SR-FINRA-2012-030).
    \6\ The CRD system is the central licensing and registration
system for the U.S. securities industry. The CRD system enables
individuals and firms seeking registration with multiple states and
self-regulatory organizations (``SRO'') to do so by submitting a
single form, fingerprint card and a combined payment of fees to
FINRA. Through the CRD system, FINRA maintains the qualification,
employment and disciplinary histories of registered associated
persons of broker-dealers.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66979 (May 14, 2012)
77 FR 29740 (May 18, 2012) (Notice of Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Adopt the Fee Schedule For Trading on BOX).
See also, Section 4(b)(3) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws.
    \8\ Supra note 5.
    \9\ The Exchange notes that it is not adopting all of the
changes made in the FINRA filing. Certain fees and requirements are
specific to FINRA and the Exchange elected to not adopt them because
either such fees did not apply to Exchange-only members or such fees
did not directly cover the costs associated with the use of the CRD
system. For example, under FINRA Section 4(h) of Schedule A, FINRA
assesses a fee of $10 per day, up to $300 for each day that a new
disclosure event or a change in the status of a previously reported
disclosure event is not timely filed on an initial or amended Form
U5 or an amended Form U4. This fee provides a financial incentive to
a FINRA member to file its Forms U4 and U5 timely. The Exchange
elected to not adopt such a fee applicable to its members that are
not also FINRA members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to increasing the existing CRD system fees, FINRA
adopted a disclosure processing fee for each initial or amended Form BD
that includes the initial reporting, amendment, or certification of one
or more disclosure events or proceedings.\10\ BOX Options Participants
use the Form BD to, among other things, report disclosure matters in
which they or a control affiliate have been involved. Prior to the
adoption of this fee, FINRA did not have a fee designed to cover the
costs associated with the review of Form BD, notwithstanding that the
review is similar to that performed of Options Participants' Forms U4
and U5. Such reviews include confirming that the matter is properly
reported; reviewing any documentation submitted and determining whether
additional documentation is required; conducting any necessary
independent research; and, depending on the matter reported, analyzing
whether the event or proceeding subjects the individual or member to a
statutory disqualification pursuant to Section 3(a)(39) of the Act.\11\
FINRA adopted a $110 fee for the review of a Form BD, which mirrors the
increased fee adopted for the review of Forms U4 and U5. As such, the
Exchange is amending its Fee Schedule to reflect the $110 disclosure
processing fee for FINRA's review of disclosure information submitted
by BOX Options Participants that are not members of FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. [sic]
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(39).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA currently collects a fee of $27.50 to process the first and
third fingerprint submission by a member, either electronically or via
a hard copy fingerprint card. And the fee is $13.00 for the second
fingerprint card submission. FINRA is increasing the processing fee for
the first and third fingerprint submission to $29.50 if submitted
electronically, and $44.50 if submitted by a hard copy fingerprint
card. And the fee collected by FINRA is increasing for the second
submission, to $15.00 for an electronic submission, and $30.00 for a
hard copy, respectively. In addition to processing fingerprints
submitted by members, FINRA also processes fingerprint results where
the member had fingerprints processed through another SRO. FINRA is
increasing this fee from $13.00 to $30.00. As a result of these FINRA
fingerprint processing fee increases, the Exchange also proposes to
amend its Fee Schedule to reflect these changes.
    The Exchange is proposing that the implementation date of the
proposed rule change will be January 2, 2013. Specifically, the
proposed initial/transfer registration, disclosure filing, and
fingerprint fees would become effective for filings or fingerprints
submitted on or after January 2, 2013. Lastly, the proposed system
processing fee would become effective for the 2013 Renewal Program.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As part of FINRA's 2013 Renewal Program, Preliminary
Renewal Statements reflecting the proposed $45 system processing fee
will be made available to members in the fourth quarter of 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \14\ and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in
particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other

persons using any facility or system which the Exchange operates or
controls, and it does not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers. All similarly situated Options
Participants are subject to the same fee structure, and every firm must
use the CRD system for registration and disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The change is reasonable because the proposed fees are identical to
those adopted by FINRA for use of the CRD system for disclosure and the
registration of associated persons of FINRA members. As FINRA noted in
amending its fees, it believed the fees are reasonable based on the
increased costs associated with operating and maintaining the CRD
system, and listed a number of enhancements made to the CRD system
since the last fee increase, including: (1) Incorporation of various
uniform registration form changes; (2) electronic fingerprint
processing; (3) Web EFTTM, which allows subscribing firms to
submit batch filings to the CRD system; (4) increases in the number and
types of reports available through the CRD system; and (5) significant
changes to BrokerCheck, including making BrokerCheck easier to use and
expanding the amount of information made available through the system.
These increased costs are similarly borne by FINRA when a BOX Options
Participant that is not a member of FINRA uses the CRD system.
Accordingly, the fees collected for such use should likewise increase
in lockstep with the fees assessed FINRA members, as is proposed by the
Exchange.
    The proposed change, like FINRA's proposal, is consistent with an
equitable allocation of fees because the fees will apply equally to all
individuals and Options Participants required to report information to
the CRD system. Thus, those Options Participants that register more
individuals or submit more filings through the CRD system will
generally pay more in fees than those that use the CRD system to a
lesser extent.

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

    FINRA's CRD system is the central licensing and registration system
for the U.S. securities industry and the proposed change will simply
provide notice to BOX Options Participants of a FINRA fee change that
will apply across all registered industry participants. As such, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
additional burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\17\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge applicable only to a member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Exchange Act. If the
Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved
or disapproved.

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-BOX-2012-024 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2012-024. 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 Exchange's principal office. 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-BOX-2012-024, and should be
submitted on or before January 30, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00254 Filed 1-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 30481]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12919]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4220-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002]

West Virginia; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-4220-DR), dated May 18,
2015, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 18, 2015.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated May 18, 2015, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of West Virginia resulting from severe storms, flooding, landslides,
and mudslides during the period of April 8-11, 2015, is of
sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of West Virginia.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

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

    Braxton, Brooke, Doddridge, Gilmer, Jackson, Lewis, Marshall,
Ohio, Pleasants, Ritchie, Tyler, and Wetzel Counties for Public
Assistance.
    All areas within the State of West Virginia are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-12919 Filed 5-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: December 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 247)]
[Notices]
[Page 68617-68622]
[DOCID:fr28de09-70]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0817; FRL-9095-3]

Stakeholder Input; Stormwater Management Including Discharges
From New Development and Redevelopment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing its
plans to initiate national rulemaking to establish a comprehensive
program to reduce stormwater discharges from new development and
redevelopment and make other regulatory improvements to strengthen its
stormwater program. The purpose of this notice is to request input from
the public to help EPA shape such a comprehensive program and to
announce EPA's intent to hold several public ``listening sessions'' in
January 2010. EPA seeks input on this undertaking regarding
performance, effectiveness and cost of stormwater control measures;
ecological data, including ecological benefits from stormwater
controls; technical information on design, implementation and operation
and maintenance of stormwater control measures; suggestions for how the
existing program may be modified to better meet the goals of the Clean
Water Act; and any other information that may help EPA develop
improvements to the existing program, including better control of
pollutants in stormwater from the built environment created by
development and redevelopment.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before February 26,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2009-0817, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2009-0817.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Water Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Mail code: 4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0817.
     Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA West
Building Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0817. 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-2009-
0817. 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
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the notice,
contact Jonathan Angier, EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of
Wastewater Management at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Public Listening Sessions: EPA will hold several informal public
listening sessions in January 2010 to gather input on possible
regulatory changes to the stormwater program. The public listening
sessions will provide a review of EPA's current regulatory approach to
permitting stormwater discharges, a summary of the recommendations from
the National Research Council report Urban Stormwater Management in the
United States (The National Academies Press, 2009), and potential
considerations for regulatory changes to strengthen the program. The
public listening sessions will afford an opportunity for the public to
provide input on regulatory actions that EPA is considering. Brief oral
comments (three minutes or less) will be accepted at the sessions, and
written statements will be accepted. The dates and locations of the
listening sessions are as follows:
     January 19, 2010, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. at EPA Region 5
Office, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604
     January 20, 2010, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. at EPA Region 9
Office, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105
     January 25, 2010, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. at EPA Region 8
Office, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129
     January 26, 2010, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. at EPA Region 6
Office, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202
     January 28, 2010, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. at EPA HQ Office,
Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004
    In order to provide adequate seating for those wishing to attend
EPA's public listening sessions, interested individuals must register
to attend by January 15, 2010 on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/
npdes/stormwater/rulemaking.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0817. 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. Although
all documents in the docket are listed in an index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Publicly available docket materials are
available 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
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202)
566-2426.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. Electronic versions of this
notice and other stormwater documents are available at EPA's stormwater
Web site http://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/rulemaking.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that
are available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search'',
then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. EPA policy is that copyrighted material will not be
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket
facility identified in Section I.A.1.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark all of the information that you
claim to be CBI. For CBI information on computer discs mailed to EPA,
mark the surface of the disc as CBI. Also identify electronically the
specific information contained in the disc or that you claim is CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the specific information claimed as
CBI, you must submit a copy that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI for inclusion in the public document. Information so
marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set
forth in 40 CFR Part 2.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public input,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives
them and without change, unless the input contains copyrighted
material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. When EPA identifies any input containing copyrighted material,
EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the
document that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire
printed submittal, including the copyrighted material, will be
available in the public docket.
    Documents submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered
to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket.
Input that is mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and
placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical
objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in
EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written
by the docket staff.

B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Input?

    You may submit input electronically, by mail, through hand
delivery/courier, or in person by attending one of the 5 listening
sessions. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate

docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of
your input. Please ensure that your input is submitted within the
specified comment period.
    1. Electronically. If you submit electronic input as prescribed
below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and
an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your
comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any
disk or CD-ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the
disk or CD-ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your submittal due to technical difficulties or needs
further information on the substance of your input. EPA's policy is
that EPA will not edit your input, and any identifying or contact
information provided in the body of the text will be included as part
of the input that is placed in the official public docket, and made
available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your
submittal due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your input.
    i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to
provide input to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for
receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/
edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting input. Once
in the system, select ``search'', and then key in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2009-0817. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact
information unless you provide it.
    ii. E-mail. Input may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to ow-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0817. In
contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not
an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail directly to the
Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-
mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are
included as part of the submittal that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    iii. Disk or CD-ROM. You may submit input on a disk or CD-ROM that
you mail to the mailing address identified in this section. These
electronic submissions will be accepted in Microsoft Word or ASCII file
format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
    2. By Mail. Send the original and three copies of your input to:
Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 4101T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0817.
    3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your input to: Public
Reading Room, Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0817.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays).

II. Background

Statutory and Regulatory Overview

    Under section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act, the Environmental
Protection Agency regulates stormwater discharges from municipal
separate storm sewer systems (publicly owned conveyances or systems of
conveyances that discharge to waters of the U.S. and are designed or
used for collecting or conveying storm water, are not combined sewers,
and are not part of a publicly owned treatment works), stormwater
discharges associated with industrial activity, and stormwater
discharges from construction sites of one acre or larger. See 40 CFR
122.26(a). Under EPA's regulations, these stormwater discharges are
required to be covered by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits.
    EPA developed the stormwater regulations under section 402(p) in
two phases, as directed by the statute. In the first phase, under
section 402(p)(4), EPA promulgated regulations establishing application
requirements for NPDES permits for stormwater discharges from medium
and large municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) (serving
populations of 100,000 or more) and stormwater discharges associated
with industrial activity. EPA published the final Phase I rule on
November 16, 1990 (55 FR 47990). See 40 CFR 122.26. The Phase I rule,
among other things, defined ``stormwater discharges associated with
industrial activity'' to include construction sites of five acres or
larger. 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x). In the second phase, under section
402(p)(5) and (6), EPA was required to conduct a study to identify
other stormwater discharges that needed further controls to protect
water quality, report to Congress on the results of the study, and to
designate for regulation additional categories of stormwater discharges
not regulated in Phase I. EPA promulgated the Phase II rule on December
8, 1999, designating small MS4s and small construction sites (1-5
acres) and requiring NPDES permits for these discharges. 64 FR 68722.
    With respect to MS4s, the Phase I regulations are primarily
application requirements that identify components that must be
addressed in permit applications from large and medium MS4s. The
regulations require these MS4s to develop a stormwater management
program (SWMP), track and oversee industrial facilities regulated under
the NPDES stormwater program, conduct monitoring, and submit periodic
reports.
    Under the Phase II rule, regulated small MS4s are generally defined
as any MS4 that is not already covered by the Phase I program and that
are located within the urbanized area boundary as determined by the
U.S. Decennial Census. Separate storm sewer systems such as those
serving military bases, universities, large hospital or prison
complexes, and highways are also included in the definition of ``small
MS4.'' 40 CFR 122.26(b)(16). In addition, a small MS4 located outside
of an urbanized area may be designated as a regulated small MS4 if the
NPDES permitting authority determines that its discharges cause, or
have the potential to cause, an adverse impact on water quality. See 40
CFR 122.32(a)(2), 123.35(b)(3).
    Phase II stormwater regulations also require that the MS4, under
the permit, implement stormwater management programs (SWMPs), and
require that the SWMPs include six minimum control measures. The
minimum control measures are: Public education and outreach, public
participation and involvement, illicit discharge detection and
elimination, construction site runoff control, post construction runoff
control, pollution prevention and good housekeeping. Regulations
applicable to Phase II MS4 permits are found in 40 CFR 122.30-122.37.
In general, Phase II MS4 permits are general permits, although small
MS4s may apply for individual permits under the Phase I rule's
application provisions in 40 CFR 122.26(d).
    Under section 402(p)(6), EPA is authorized to designate additional
stormwater discharges to be regulated other than those already
regulated, and to establish a comprehensive program to regulate them.
In addition, under EPA's stormwater regulations, EPA (or States
authorized to administer the NPDES program) may require NPDES permits

for currently unregulated stormwater discharges by designating
discharges pursuant to 40 CFR 122.26(a)(9)(i)(C) or (D).

National Research Council Report

    In 2006, EPA asked the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a
review of its stormwater program, considering all entities regulated
under the program, i.e., municipal, industrial and construction. In
October 2008, the National Research Council released the report Urban
Stormwater Management in the United States (The National Academies
Press, 2009) finding, among other things, that ``the rapid conversion
of land to urban and suburban areas has profoundly altered how water
flows during and following storm events, putting higher volumes of
water and more pollutants into the nation's rivers, lakes, and
estuaries. These changes have degraded water quality and habitat in
virtually every urban stream system.''
    This report recommends a number of actions, including conserving
natural areas, reducing hard surface cover (e.g., roads and parking
lots--impervious surface areas), and retrofitting urban areas with
features that hold and treat stormwater (NRC, Report in Brief, 2008).
EPA takes seriously the significant findings and recommendations
included in the NRC Report, and continues to evaluate how the Agency's
stormwater program can be strengthened in light of the report. The
Report in Brief can be accessed at: http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_
briefs/stormwater_discharge_final.pdf. A full copy of the report can
be obtained from The National Academies Press, http://books.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=12465. A prepublication copy is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/nrc_stormwaterreport.pdf.
    EPA shares the NRC Committee's perspective that it is imperative
that the stormwater regulations be as effective as possible in
protecting water quality. The NRC Report has provided EPA with the
opportunity to reexamine the effectiveness of its stormwater programs,
some of which are nearly 20 years old. For instance, EPA is interested
in assessing the level of accountability that the regulations and the
permits issued under the regulations provide to MS4s to minimize the
discharge of pollutants in stormwater. The role of MS4s in reducing
stormwater impacts from the built environment is crucial and growing,
given that these sources of adverse water quality impacts are
continually expanding. As the urban, suburban and exurban human
environment expands, there is an increase in impervious land cover and
therefore an increase in stormwater discharges. This increase in
impervious land cover reduces or eliminates the natural infiltration of
precipitation, which greatly increases the volume of stormwater
discharges. This increased volume of stormwater discharges results in
the scouring of rivers and streams; degrading the physical integrity of
aquatic habitats, stream function and overall water quality. In
addition, the increase in impervious land cover results in the increase
of the pollutant load discharged from storm sewers. As precipitation
moves across roads, rooftops, and other impervious surfaces, it picks
up pollutants that are then discharged, either directly or through
storm sewers, to our Nation's waters.
    To address the degradation of water quality caused by stormwater
discharges from impervious cover, EPA is exploring regulatory options
that would strengthen the stormwater program, including establishing
specific post construction requirements for stormwater discharges from,
at a minimum, new development and redevelopment. EPA does not currently
regulate stormwater discharges from new development and redevelopment
directly. However, both Phase I MS4s and Phase II MS4s are required
through the MS4 permit to address stormwater discharges from new
development and redevelopment in their SWMPs, but the regulations do
not include specific management practices or standards to be
implemented. Among the Phase I requirements for a SWMP is a
``comprehensive master plan to develop, implement, and enforce controls
to reduce the discharge of pollutants from municipal storm sewers,
which receive discharges from areas of new development and significant
redevelopment. Such plan shall address controls to reduce pollutants in
discharges from municipal separate storm sewers after construction is
completed.'' (40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(A)(2)).
    Phase II regulations include post construction requirements as one
of the six minimum control measures to be addressed in the SWMP. Small
MS4s must ``develop, implement, and enforce a program to address''
stormwater discharges from new development and redevelopment projects
of one acre or greater to ``ensure that controls are in place that
would prevent or minimize water quality impacts.'' 40 CFR 122.34(b)(5).
The program must include strategies including structural and/or non-
structural best management practices (BMPs) appropriate for the
community; use of ordinances or other regulatory mechanisms to the
extent allowable under State, Tribal or local law; and measures to
ensure adequate long-term operation and maintenance of BMPs. The Phase
II rule recommends (but does not require) that the program to address
stormwater from new development and redevelopment should attempt to
maintain pre-development runoff conditions by installing and
implementing stormwater control measures.
    As stated in the report, the NRC found that ``stormwater permits
leave a great deal of discretion to the regulated community to set
their own standards and to self-monitor.'' As a result, across the
Nation there is inconsistency in the NPDES program and in stormwater
management programs required by NPDES permit with respect to stormwater
discharges from MS4s caused by stormwater discharges from development.
Despite the lack of specificity in the current regulations, some
permitting authorities have required controls for stormwater discharges
from developed property that neutralize the impacts from stormwater by
promoting practices that retain stormwater on-site through
infiltration, evapotranspiration, or stormwater reuse. To help make
permitting more consistent and robust nationally, EPA is considering
ways to strengthen the MS4 permit regulations, including establishing
specific requirements for stormwater discharges from, at a minimum, new
development and redevelopment; expanding the area defined as MS4s to
include rapidly developing areas; and devising a single set of
consistent regulations for all MS4s. In addition, EPA is exploring
regulatory options to directly address stormwater discharges from new
development and redevelopment, including new and redeveloped sites
outside the MS4 boundary, that may be contributing to waterbody
impairment, through the designation of an additional category or
categories of discharges under CWA section 402(p)(6).

Proposed Information Collection Request (ICR)

    EPA has proposed an Information Collection Request (ICR) to collect
data to support this effort to strengthen the stormwater regulations
(published October 30, 2009, 74 FR 56191). The proposed ICR discusses
the administration of three questionnaires: The first for the owners,
operators, developers, and contractors of new development and
redevelopment; the second for the owners and operators of MS4s
(including those not federally

regulated); and the third for the States and territories. The data
collected through this ICR would support EPA's rulemaking activities by
providing EPA with information to characterize the current level of
stormwater controls and stormwater control measures; the area currently
covered by federal and state stormwater requirements; the current
burden and expenditures by States and MS4s associated with existing
requirements; and technical, financial, and environmental data needed
to quantify the incremental pollutant removals, compliance costs, and
impacts for various regulatory options that EPA might consider. Under
the proposed ICR, EPA seeks any available information concerning
current stormwater control practices, including those referred to as
green infrastructure or low-impact development. For further
information, see: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/rulemaking.

III. Input on Stormwater Practices and Considerations for Modifying
Regulations

    Today's notice is being issued to make the public aware of
opportunities to provide input on current stormwater practices and to
inform the public of and solicit comment on EPA's preliminary
considerations for modifying or supplementing EPA's stormwater
regulations. EPA is accepting information during the listening sessions
and/or by submission of written comments in order to gain early public
input on stormwater practices and regulations.

A. Solicitation for Additional Input Regarding Stormwater Control
Practices

    1. In addition to the information collection request described
above, EPA is soliciting comment and input from the general public
concerning current stormwater control practices, as well as information
concerning innovative approaches to stormwater control. In particular,
EPA is seeking information on the following aspects of structural
approaches to stormwater control: design, performance, operation and
maintenance, capital and lifetime cost, and environmental and economic
benefit information on practices that retain stormwater on-site through
infiltration, evapotranspiration, or stormwater reuse. EPA solicits
comment and input on these retention practices that have been used for
``green field'' development, redevelopment (where there was some pre-
existing infrastructure), and retrofitting existing development. While
a significant amount of data has been collected and is available (see,
EPA's Urban BMP Performance Tool (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/
urbanbmp) or the International Stormwater BMP Database (http://
www.bmpdatabase.org)), EPA is accepting any more recent information
that is not already available in these databases.
    2. Cost comparisons of different stormwater management approaches
for specific sites. EPA solicits comment and input on different
stormwater management approaches, including comparison of stormwater
management systems that rely primarily on conveyance and detention of
excess discharge with stormwater management systems that relies
primarily on on-site retention. Cost comparisons should preferably be
between similar sized projects and/or between individual management
methods of similar scope and capability.
    3. Design, performance, operation and maintenance, capital and
lifetime costs, and environmental and economic benefit information for
communities and/or site owners or operators that have elected to modify
or retrofit their stormwater management practices for existing
development, as a separate effort that is not in conjunction with
redevelopment. This may occur if the existing stormwater management
practices were insufficient to reduce pollutants, restore habitat and
stabilize stream morphology, or to correct past mistakes. This may also
occur as part of a larger watershed restoration plan. EPA is also
soliciting comments and input on: where retrofit practices have been
installed, what the drivers were for the project, and information on
the specific retrofit practices that were installed.
    4. EPA is also soliciting comments and input on monitoring
information that may have been collected to show the impacts of
stormwater control measures on water quality and/or flow rates in the
receiving waterbody. This includes information on the effects of
retrofits for existing discharges (before and after installation, if
possible), as well as any water monitoring information obtained before
and after new development and redevelopment.

B. Preliminary Considerations for Modifying/Supplementing EPA's
Stormwater Regulations

    By today's notice, EPA is informing the public of its preliminary
considerations for modifying or supplementing EPA's stormwater
regulations and soliciting public input on these considerations. The
following are ideas that EPA is considering for strengthening the
stormwater requirements and for which EPA seeks input:
    1. Expand the area subject to federal stormwater regulations. EPA
currently requires MS4s within Census-designated urbanized areas to
apply for permit coverage (see http://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/
urbanmaps for maps of all urbanized areas). Based on the 1990 Census,
there are 405 urbanized areas in the United States that cover 2% of
total U.S. land area and contain approximately 63 percent of the
Nation's population. Under the present regulations, development that is
occurring outside currently regulated MS4s may not be subject to
federal controls to protect water quality notwithstanding the fact that
the resulting stormwater discharges may be contributing to waterbody
impairment. For example, for Phase II MS4s, only the portion of the
municipal jurisdiction (i.e. township) that is within the Census-
designated urbanized area is required to be regulated, which may leave
stormwater discharges in parts of the jurisdiction unregulated.
    EPA solicits comments and input from the public on the need for
expanding the area subject to federal regulation, and, if needed, how
to expand the coverage of the federal stormwater program beyond the
Census urbanized area boundary. EPA would be interested in views on (1)
How to identify the appropriate jurisdictional boundaries for permit
coverage, including the township, county, sewer district, or others;
(2) how to identify areas that should be covered based on development
pressures and to protect water quality; and (3) whether EPA should
consider regulating stormwater discharges from particular types or
sizes of development that are not covered by an MS4 permit.
    2. Establish specific requirements to control stormwater discharges
from new development and redevelopment. EPA is considering establishing
specific requirements, including standards, to control stormwater
discharges from new development and redevelopment. EPA welcomes
comments on what standard or standards could apply to new development
and redevelopment that promote sustainable practices that mimic natural
processes to (1) Infiltrate and recharge, (2) evapotranspire, and/or
(3) harvest and reuse precipitation. For example, there could be a
national requirement for on-site stormwater controls such that post
development hydrology mimics predevelopment hydrology on a site-
specific basis. EPA could establish a suite of specific options of
standards for meeting such a requirement, for example, on-site
retention of a specific size storm event in an area, limits on the
amount of

effective impervious surfaces (defined as impervious surfaces with
direct hydraulic connection to the downstream drainage (or stream)
system, also referred to as directly connected impervious area), use of
site-specific calculations to determine predevelopment hydrology, and/
or use of regional specific standards to reflect local circumstances.
EPA could require these standards as part of the MS4 permit on a site-
specific basis. EPA is interested in input regarding the need for and
the type of standards to set. Should the standard be different for
discharges from new development versus redevelopment and, if so, how
should it differ? Are there specific circumstances in which (for
example) a requirement for new development and redevelopment to
maintain pre-development hydrology would not be advisable or would
cause other environmental impacts? Finally, EPA is interested in input
regarding responsibility for maintaining stormwater control measures
that infiltrate, evapotranspirate and/or reuse water.
    The impacts from stormwater discharges from new and redevelopment
occur not only within the MS4 but also from sources outside the MS4
regulated areas. EPA is interested in input regarding the appropriate
framework for implementing standards for new and redevelopment outside
of the MS4 regulations.
    3. Develop a single set of consistent requirements for Phase I and
Phase II MS4s. EPA's Phase I regulations primarily contain application
requirements that identify components that must be addressed in permit
applications. The Phase II regulations establish six ``minimum
measures'' that must be included in an MS4 permit that were more
specific than Phase I. Many Phase I and Phase II permits address issues
that are virtually identical. EPA requests input on whether EPA should
modify the regulations to develop a consistent set of requirements that
would apply to all regulated MS4s. For example, should EPA apply the
six minimum measures to all MS4s? Should EPA add other measures? For
instance, Phase I MS4s are required to implement a program to control
discharges for industrial facilities in their service area. Should this
requirement be extended to all MS4s? EPA also requests input on any
other modifications to improve the stormwater regulations.
    4. Require MS4s to address stormwater discharges in areas of
existing development through retrofitting of the sewer system, drainage
area, or individual structures with improved stormwater control
measures. Stormwater discharge from large areas of impervious cover in
developed areas is a significant contributor to water quality
impairments in the receiving waters of urban areas. Changes to the
stormwater management practices in areas of existing development will
reduce these impacts. In some states, MS4 permits now require the MS4
to install retrofit practices that infiltrate or otherwise retain
stormwater in areas of existing development to reduce these impacts.
EPA requests input on whether it should consider requirements for the
retrofit of existing development to address stormwater. In particular,
EPA requests comment on requiring MS4s to develop a long-term retrofit
implementation plan that is targeted to addressing stormwater problems
in urban waters.
    5. Whether EPA should include additional changes to the stormwater
regulations (for example, requiring permits to include buffer
requirements) in sensitive areas. EPA is interested in views on whether
it should consider making any other changes to the current regulatory
program (e.g., specific structural or nonstructural stormwater control
measures) in addition to the ones described above to protect
waterbodies in sensitive areas.

    Dated: December 17, 2009.
Peter Silva,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. E9-30627 Filed 12-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P