[Federal Register: September 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 53923-53924]
[DOCID:fr17se08-154]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activity Seeking OMB Approval

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) revision of a current
information collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of
information was published on June 19, 2008, vol. 73, no. 119, page
36869. Certain organizations may apply to perform certification
functions on behalf of the FAA. These functions may include approving
data, issuing various kinds of aircraft and organization certificates,
and other functions.

DATES: Please submit comments by October 17, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Organization Designation Authorization--Part 183, Subpart D.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0704.
    Forms(s) 8100-11, 8100-12, 8100-13.
    Affected Public: An estimated 83 Respondents.
    Frequency: This information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 30 hours per
response.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 5,158 hours annually.
    Abstract: Certain organizations may apply to perform certification
functions on behalf of the FAA. These functions may include approving
data, issuing various kinds of aircraft and organization certificates,
and other functions.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to Nathan Lesser, Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/
FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 9, 2008.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. E8-21512 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 213 (Monday, November 6, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51367-51369]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23808]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1038; Product Identifier 2017-CE-024-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Viking Air Limited Models DHC-6-1, DHC-6-100, DHC-6-200, DHC-6-300, and
DHC-6-400 airplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as aileron
cable wear or fouling at the wing root rib, fuselage skin, and wing
root rib fairlead, or fraying of the cable from the root rib fairlead.
We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 21,
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 De Havilland Way, Sidney,
British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; telephone: (North America) (866)
492-8527; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected];
Internet: http://www.vikingair.com/support/service-bulletins. You may
review this referenced service information at the FAA, Policy and
Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816)
329-4148.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
1038; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Hulverson, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Boston ACO Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-1038;
Product Identifier 2017-CE-024-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite

comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by
the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those
comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has
issued AD Number CF-2017-20, dated June 7, 2017 (referred to after this
as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for Viking Air Limited
Models DHC-6-1, DHC-6-100, DHC-6-200, DHC-6-300, and DHC-6-400
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    There have been reports of accelerated aileron cable wear
because of contact with the fuselage skin cut-out or the wing root
rib. Wear that is not detected can lead to failure of the aileron
cable and loss of control of the aeroplane.
    The root cause of this problem has not yet been identified. This
[Transport Canada] AD requires inspection of the aeroplane and
reporting of the inspection results to Viking Air Ltd. This
[Transport Canada] AD is considered an interim action and further AD
action may follow.
    Aileron cables are typically replaced at intervals of 60 months
in accordance with the DHC-6 maintenance schedule.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
1038.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Viking Air Limited has issued DHC-6 Twin Otter Service Bulletin
Number: V6/0022, Revision B, dated June 13, 2014. The service
information describes procedures for initial and repetitive inspections
of the aileron cable for aileron cable wear or fouling at the wing root
rib, fuselage skin, and wing root rib fairlead, or fraying of the cable
from the root rib fairlead, and replacement of the aileron cables as
necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this
NPRM.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 141 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 20 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $239,700, or $1,700 per product.
    In addition, the following is an estimate of possible necessary
follow-on replacement actions. We have no way of determining the number
of products that may need these actions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Labor cost                       Cost per
                     Action                        Work-hours *     (@$85/hour)     Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace 1 cable.................................               6            $510            $244            $754
Replace 2 cables (on the same wing).............               8             680             458           1,138
Replace 2 cables (one on each wing).............              12           1,020             488           1,508
Replace all 4 cables (2 per wing)...............              16           1,360             916           2,336
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Work-hours includes access, testing, and close-up.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD
is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed AD has
been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and
includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting
associated with this proposed AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the
accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should
be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC
20591. ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes and domestic
business jet transport airplanes to the Director of the Policy and
Innovation Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a

substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Viking Air Limited: Docket No. FAA-2017-1038; Product Identifier
2017-CE-024-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 21, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Viking Air Limited Models DHC-6-1, DHC-6-100,
DHC-6-200, DHC-6-300, and DHC-6-400 airplanes, all serial numbers,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as aileron cable
wear or fouling at the wing root rib, fuselage skin, and wing root
rib fairlead, or fraying of the cable from the root rib fairlead. We
are issuing this AD to identify and correct wear on the aileron
cable fuselage skin cut-out and on the wing root rib fairlead, and
any fraying of the cable from the root rib fairlead, which could
lead to failure of the aileron cable and loss of control.

 (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (5) of this AD:
    (1) Within the next 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the
effective date of this AD or before the aileron cables have
accumulated 300 hours TIS, whichever occurs later, inspect the
aileron cables following the Accomplishment Instructions in Viking
Air Limited Service Bulletin V6/0022, Revision B, dated June 13,
2014 (SB V6/0022, Revision B). Inspect repetitively thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS, but not to exceed five
inspections (the initial and four repetitives).
    (2) If any discrepancies are found during any of the inspections
required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight,
replace the aileron cable(s) following the Accomplishment
Instructions in SB V6/0022, Revision B.
    (3) Upon completion of the initial and four repetitive
inspections detailed in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, resume the
inspections specified in the maintenance program.
    (4) Within 30 days after completion of each inspection detailed
in paragraphs (f)(1) of this AD, report the results of each
inspection to Viking Air Limited in accordance with the reporting
instructions in SB V6/0022, Revision B.
    (5) Installation of new aileron cables or re-installation of
existing cables that have been removed for any reason re-starts the
inspections required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Erin Hulverson, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Boston
ACO Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone:
(781) 238-7655; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or Viking Air Limited's Transport
Canada Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA,
the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Transport Canada AD Number CF-2017-20, dated June
7, 2017, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2017-1038. For service information related to this
AD, contact Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 De Havilland
Way, Sidney, British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; telephone: (North
America)<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]; Internet: http://www.vikingair.com/support/service-bulletins. You may review this referenced service
information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 20, 2017.
Pat Mullen,
Acting Deputy Director, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-23808 Filed 11-3-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 67 (Thursday, April 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17987-17988]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7941]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61828; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. Relating
to Order Price Protection

April 1, 2010.
    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 31, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1080, Commentary .07, to
provide for an Order Price Protection feature on Phlx XL, the
Exchange's enhanced electronic trading platform for options.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59995 (May 28,
2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    In order to address risks to market participants of human error in
entering orders at unintended prices, the Exchange has developed a
program in the Phlx XL system known as Phlx XL Order Price Protection
(``OPP''). OPP is a feature of Phlx XL that would prevent certain
orders from executing or being placed on the book at prices outside
pre-set standard limits. The Phlx XL system would reject such orders
rather than executing them automatically. The operation of the Phlx XL
system would be set forth in new Commentary .07 to Phlx Rule 1080, Phlx
XL and Phlx XL II.
    The OPP feature would prevent certain day limit, good til
cancelled, immediate or cancel, and all-or-none orders at prices
outside of certain pre-set limits from being accepted by the system.
OPP would apply to all options, but would not apply to market orders,
stop limit orders, Intermarket Sweep Orders, or complex orders. OPP
would be operational each trading day after the opening until the close
of trading, except during trading halts. The Exchange would also be
able to temporarily deactivate OPP from time to time on an intraday
basis at its discretion if it determined that volatility warranted
deactivation. Members would be notified of intraday OPP deactivation
due to volatility and any subsequent intraday reactivation by the
Exchange through the issuance of system status messages.
    The OPP will help users of Phlx XL control risk by checking each
order, before it is accepted into the system, against certain
parameters established by Rule 1080, Commentary .07. It would compare
price instructions on the order against the current contra-side NBBO,
and would automatically reject the order if it is priced outside the
range established in Rule 1080, Commentary .07.
    The range of permissible orders depends on whether the contra-side
of an incoming order is greater than $1.00, or equal to or less than
$1.00. If the NBBO on the contra-side of an incoming order were greater
than $1.00, orders with a limit more than 50% through such contra-side
NBBO would be rejected by Phlx XL upon receipt. For example, if the
NBBO on the offer side were $1.10, an order to buy options for more
than $1.65 would be rejected. Similarly, if the NBBO on the bid side
were $1.10, an order to sell options for less than $0.55 would be
rejected.
    If the NBBO on the contra-side of an incoming order were less than
or equal to $1.00, orders with a limit more than 100% through such
contra-side NBBO would be rejected by Phlx XL upon receipt. For
example, if the NBBO on the offer side were $1.00, an order to buy
options for more than $2.00 would be rejected. However, if the NBBO of
the bid side of an incoming order to sell were less than or equal to
$1.00, the OPP limits set forth above would result in all incoming sell
orders being accepted regardless of their limit. To illustrate, if the
NBBO on the bid side were equal to $1.00, the OPP limits provide
protection such that all orders to sell with a limit less than $0.00
would be rejected.
    The Exchange anticipates implementing the OPP feature on May 1,
2010. The Exchange will notify members through the issuance of an
Options Trader Alert when the feature becomes operational and the rule
becomes operative.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \5\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest,
by mitigating risks to market participants of human error in entering
orders at clearly unintended prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \7\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-52 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-52. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,\8\ 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, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-52 and should be submitted on or before April
29, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-7941 Filed 4-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 213 (Wednesday, November 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68354-68361]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28067]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76310; File No. 4-551]

Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to
Rule 17d-2; Notice of Filing and Order Approving and Declaring
Effective an Amendment to the Plan for the Allocation of Regulatory
Responsibilities Among NYSE MKT LLC, BATS Exchange, Inc., BOX Options
Exchange LLC, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated, the Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated, the EDGX Exchange, Inc., the
International Securities Exchange LLC, ISE Gemini, LLC, Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., NYSE Arca, Inc., The NASDAQ Stock
Market LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., the NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc., and Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC Concerning Options-Related
Market Surveillance

October 29, 2015.
    Notice is hereby given that the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') has issued an Order, pursuant to Section 17(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ approving and declaring
effective an amendment to the plan for allocating regulatory
responsibility (``Plan'') filed on October 27, 2015, pursuant to Rule
17d-2 of the Act,\2\ by NYSE MKT LLC (``MKT''), BATS Exchange, Inc.,
(``BATS''), the BOX Options Exchange LLC (``BOX''), C2 Options
Exchange, Incorporated (``C2''), the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE''), the EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') the
International Securities Exchange LLC (``ISE''), ISE Gemini, LLC
(``Gemini''), Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Arca''), The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq''), NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX''), NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.
(``PHLX''), and Miami International Securities Exchange (``MIAX'')
(collectively, ``Participating Organizations'' or ``parties'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.

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

I. Introduction

    Section 19(g)(1) of the Act,\3\ among other things, requires every
self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') registered as either a national
securities exchange or national securities association to examine for,
and enforce compliance by, its members and persons associated with its
members with the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the
SRO's own rules, unless the SRO is relieved of this responsibility
pursuant to Section 17(d) \4\ or Section 19(g)(2) \5\ of the Act.
Without this relief, the statutory obligation of each individual SRO
could result in a pattern of multiple examinations of broker-dealers
that maintain memberships in more than one SRO (``common members'').
Such regulatory duplication would add unnecessary expenses for common
members and their SROs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(1).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17(d)(1) of the Act \6\ was intended, in part, to eliminate
unnecessary multiple examinations and regulatory duplication.\7\ With
respect to a common member, Section 17(d)(1) authorizes the Commission,
by rule or order, to relieve an SRO of the responsibility to receive
regulatory reports, to examine for and enforce compliance with
applicable statutes, rules, and regulations, or to perform other
specified regulatory functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d)(1).
    \7\ See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to Accompany S.
249, S. Rep. No. 94-75, 94th Cong., 1st Session 32 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules:
Rule 17d-1 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act.\8\ Rule 17d-1 authorizes the
Commission to name a single SRO as the designated examining authority
(``DEA'') to examine common members for compliance with the financial
responsibility requirements imposed by the Act, or by Commission or SRO
rules.\9\ When an SRO has been named as a common member's DEA, all
other SROs to which the common member belongs are relieved of the
responsibility to examine the firm for compliance with the applicable
financial responsibility rules. On its face, Rule 17d-1 deals only with
an SRO's obligations to enforce member compliance with financial
responsibility requirements. Rule 17d-1 does not relieve an SRO from
its obligation to examine a common member for compliance with its own
rules and provisions of the federal securities laws governing matters
other than financial responsibility, including sales practices and
trading activities and practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17d-1 and 17 CFR 240.17d-2, respectively.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12352 (April 20,
1976), 41 FR 18808 (May 7, 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address regulatory duplication in these and other areas, the
Commission adopted Rule 17d-2 under the Act.\10\ Rule 17d-2 permits
SROs to propose joint plans for the allocation of regulatory
responsibilities with respect to their common members. Under paragraph
(c) of Rule 17d-2, the Commission may declare such a plan effective if,
after providing for notice and comment, it determines that the plan is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection
of investors, to foster cooperation and coordination among the SROs, to
remove impediments to, and foster the development of, a national market
system and a national clearance and settlement system, and is in
conformity with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act.
Commission approval of a plan filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2 relieves an
SRO of those regulatory responsibilities allocated by the plan to
another SRO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12935 (October 28,
1976), 41 FR 49091 (November 8, 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The Plan

    On December 11, 2007, the Commission declared effective the
Participating Organizations' Plan for allocating regulatory
responsibilities pursuant to Rule 17d-2.\11\ On April 11, 2008, the
Commission approved an amendment to the Plan to include NASDAQ as a
participant.\12\ On October 9, 2008, the Commission approved an
amendment to the Plan to clarify that the term Regulatory
Responsibility for options position limits includes the examination
responsibilities for the delta hedging exemption.\13\ On February 25,
2010, the Commission approved an amendment to the Plan to add BATS and
C2 as SRO participants and to reflect the name changes of the American
Stock Exchange LLC to the NYSE Amex LLC, and the Boston Stock Exchange,
Inc. to the NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.\14\ On May 11, 2012, the Commission
approved an amendment to the Plan to add BOX as a participant to the
Plan.\15\ On December 5, 2012, the Commission approved an amendment to
the Plan to add MIAX as a participant to the Plan.\16\ On July 23,
2013, the Commission approved an amendment to the Plan to add Topaz
Exchange, LLC as a Participant to the Plan.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56941 (December 11,
2007), 72 FR 71723 (December 18, 2007) (File No. 4-551).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57649 (April 11,
2008), 73 FR 20976 (April 17, 2008) (File No. 4-551).
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58765 (October 9,
2008), 73 FR 62344 (October 20, 2008) (File No. 4-551).
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61588 (February 25,
2010), 75 FR 9970 (March 4, 2010) (File No. 4-551).
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66975 (May 11,
2012), 77 FR 29712 (May 18, 2010) (File No. 4-551).
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68362 (December 5,
2012), 77 FR 73719 (December 11, 2012) (File No. 4-551).
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70052 (July 26,
2013), 78 FR 46665 (August 1, 2013) (File No. 4-551).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan is designed to reduce regulatory duplication for common
members by allocating regulatory responsibility for certain options-
related market surveillance matters among the Participating
Organizations. Generally, under the Plan, a Participating Organization
will serve as the Designated Options Surveillance Regulator (``DOSR'')
for each common member assigned to it and will assume regulatory
responsibility with respect to that common member's compliance with
applicable common rules for certain accounts. When an SRO has been
named as a common member's DOSR, all other SROs to which the common
member belongs will be relieved of regulatory responsibility for that
common member, pursuant to the terms of the Plan, with respect to the
applicable common rules specified in Exhibit A to the Plan.

III. Proposed Amendment to the Plan

    On October 27, 2015, the parties submitted a proposed amendment to
the Plan. The primary purpose of the amendment is to add EDGX as a
Participant to the Plan and to change the name of Topaz Exchange, LLC
to ISE Gemini, LLC. The text of the proposed amended 17d-2 plan is as
follows (additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed]):
* * * * *
AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG NYSE MKT LLC, BATS EXCHANGE, INC., EDGX EXCHANGE
INC., BOX OPTIONS EXCHANGE LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX, INC., C2 OPTIONS
EXCHANGE, INCORPORATED, THE CHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS EXCHANGE,
INCORPORATED, THE INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE LLC, ISE GEMINI,
LLC, FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY, INC., NYSE ARCA, INC.,
THE NASDAQ STOCK MARKET LLC, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, INC., AND MIAMI
INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES

EXCHANGE, LLC [AND TOPAZ EXCHANGE, LLC] PURSUANT TO RULE 17d-2 UNDER
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

    This agreement (this ``Agreement''), by and among NYSE MKT LLC
(``MKT''), BATS Exchange, Inc., (``BATS''), the EDGX Exchange, Inc
(``EDGX''), the C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (``C2''), the Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''), the International
Securities Exchange LLC (``ISE''), Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Arca''), The NASDAQ
Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), BOX Options Exchange LLC (``BOX''),
NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX''), NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``PHLX''), Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX'') and [Topaz Exchange]
ISE Gemini, LLC (``[Topaz] Gemini'') is made this 10th day of October
2007, and as amended the 31st day of March 2008, the 1st day of October
2008, the 3rd day of February 2010, the 25th day of April 2012, and the
19th day of November 2012, and the 30th day of May 2013, and the 16th
day of October 2015 pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Exchange Act''), and Rule 17d-2
thereunder (``Rule 17d-2''), which allows for a joint plan among self-
regulatory organizations (``SROs'') to allocate regulatory obligations
with respect to brokers or dealers that are members of two or more of
the parties to this Agreement (``Common Members''). MKT, BATS, C2,
CBOE, EDGX, ISE Gemini, ISE, FINRA, Arca, Nasdaq, BOX, BX, PHLX, and
MIAX [and Topaz] are collectively referred to herein as the
``Participants'' and individually, each a ``Participant.'' This
Agreement shall be administered by a committee known as the Options
Surveillance Group (the ``OSG'' or ``Group''), as described in Section
V hereof. Unless defined in this Agreement or the context otherwise
requires, the terms used herein shall have the meanings assigned
thereto by the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
    Whereas, the Participants desire to eliminate regulatory
duplication with respect to SRO market surveillance of Common Member
\1\ activities with regard to certain common rules relating to listed
options (``Options''); and
    Whereas, for this purpose, the Participants desire to execute and
file this Agreement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``SEC'' or ``Commission'') pursuant to Rule 17d-2.
    Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained
in this Agreement, the Participants agree as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the case of the BX and BOX, members are those persons who
are Options Participants (as defined in the BOX Options Exchange LLC
Rules and NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, each Participant
shall assume Regulatory Responsibility (as defined below) for the
Common Members that are allocated or assigned to such Participant in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement and shall be relieved of
its Regulatory Responsibility as to the remaining Common Members. For
purposes of this Agreement, a Participant shall be considered to be the
Designated Options Surveillance Regulator (``DOSR'') for each Common
Member that is allocated to it in accordance with Section VII.
    II. As used in this Agreement, the term ``Regulatory
Responsibility'' shall mean surveillance, investigation and enforcement
responsibilities relating to compliance by the Common Members with such
Options rules of the Participants as the Participants shall determine
are substantially similar and shall approve from time to time, insofar
as such rules relate to market surveillance (collectively, the ``Common
Rules''). For the purposes of this Agreement the list of Common Rules
is attached as Exhibit A hereto, which may only be amended upon
unanimous written agreement by the Participants. The DOSR assigned to
each Common Member shall assume Regulatory Responsibility with regard
to that Common Member's compliance with the applicable Common Rules for
certain accounts.\2\ A DOSR may perform its Regulatory Responsibility
or enter an agreement to transfer or assign such responsibilities to a
national securities exchange registered with the SEC under Section 6(a)
of the Exchange Act or a national securities association registered
with the SEC under Section 15A of the Exchange Act. A DOSR may not
transfer or assign its Regulatory Responsibility to an association
registered for the limited purpose of regulating the activities of
members who are registered as brokers or dealers in security futures
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Certain accounts shall include customer (``C'' as classified
by the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')) and firm (``F'' as
classified by OCC) accounts, as well as other accounts, such as
market maker accounts as the Participants shall, from time to time,
identify as appropriate to review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The term ``Regulatory Responsibility'' does not include, and each
Participant shall retain full responsibility with respect to:
    (a) Surveillance, investigative and enforcement responsibilities
other than those included in the definition of Regulatory
Responsibility;
    (b) any aspects of the rules of a Participant that are not
substantially similar to the Common Rules or that are allocated for a
separate surveillance purpose under any other agreement made pursuant
to Rule 17d-2. Any such aspects of a Common Rule will be noted as
excluded on Exhibit A.
    With respect to options position limits, the term Regulatory
Responsibility shall include examination responsibilities for the delta
hedging exemption. Specifically, the Participants intend that FINRA
will conduct examinations for delta hedging for all Common Members that
are members of FINRA notwithstanding the fact that FINRA's position
limit rule is, in some cases, limited to only firms that are not
members of an options exchange (i.e., access members). In such cases,
FINRA's examinations for delta hedging options position limit
violations will be for the identical or substantively similar position
limit rule(s) of the other Participant(s). Examinations for delta
hedging for Common Members that are non-FINRA members will be conducted
by the same Participant conducting position limit surveillance. The
allocation of Common Members to DOSRs for surveillance of compliance
with options position limits and other agreed to Common Rules is
provided in Exhibit B. The allocation of Common Members to DOSRs for
examinations of the delta hedging exemption under the options position
limits rules is provided in Exhibit C.
    III. Each year within 30 days of the anniversary date of the
commencement of operation of this Agreement, or more frequently if
required by changes in the rules of a Participant, each Participant
shall submit to the other Participants, through the Chair of the OSG,
an updated list of Common Rules for review. This updated list may add
Common Rules to Exhibit A, shall delete from Exhibit A rules of that
Participant that are no longer identical or substantially similar to
the Common Rules, and shall confirm that the remaining rules of the
Participant included on Exhibit A continue to be identically or
substantially similar to the Common Rules. Within 30 days from the date
that each Participant has received revisions to Exhibit A from the
Chair of the OSG, each Participant shall confirm in writing to the
Chair of the OSG whether that Participant's rules listed in Exhibit A
are Common Rules.
    IV. Apparent violation of another Participant's rules discovered by
a DOSR, but which rules are not within the scope of the discovering
DOSR's

Regulatory Responsibility, shall be referred to the relevant
Participant for such action as is deemed appropriate by that
Participant.
    Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing contained herein shall
preclude a DOSR in its discretion from requesting that another
Participant conduct an investigative or enforcement proceeding
(``Proceeding'') on a matter for which the requesting DOSR has
Regulatory Responsibility. If such other Participant agrees, the
Regulatory Responsibility in such case shall be deemed transferred to
the accepting Participant and confirmed in writing by the Participants
involved. Additionally, nothing in this Agreement shall prevent another
Participant on whose market potential violative activity took place
from conducting its own Proceeding on a matter. The Participant
conducting the Proceeding shall advise the assigned DOSR. Each
Participant agrees, upon request, to make available promptly all
relevant files, records and/or witnesses necessary to assist another
Participant in a Proceeding.
    V. The OSG shall be composed of one representative designated by
each of the Participants (a ``Representative''). Each Participant shall
also designate one or more persons as its alternate representative(s)
(an ``Alternate Representative''). In the absence of the
Representative, the Alternate Representative shall assume the powers,
duties and responsibilities of the Representative. Each Participant may
at any time replace its Representative and/or its Alternate
Representative to the Group.\3\ A majority of the OSG shall constitute
a quorum and, unless otherwise required, the affirmative vote of a
majority of the Representatives present (in person, by telephone or by
written consent) shall be necessary to constitute action by the Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Participant must give notice to the Chair of the Group of
such a change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Group will have a Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary. A different
Participant will assume each position on a rotating basis for a one-
year term. In the event that a Participant replaces a Representative
who is acting as Chair, Vice Chair or Secretary, the newly appointed
Representative shall assume the position of Chair, Vice Chair, or
Secretary (as applicable) vacated by the Participant's former
Representative. In the event a Participant cannot fulfill its duties as
Chair, the Participant serving as Vice Chair shall substitute for the
Chair and complete the subject unfulfilled term. All notices and other
communications for the OSG are to be sent in care of the Chair and, as
appropriate, to each Representative.
    VI. The OSG shall determine the times and locations of Group
meetings, provided that the Chair, acting alone, may also call a
meeting of the Group in the event the Chair determines that there is
good cause to do so. To the extent reasonably possible, notice of any
meeting shall be given at least ten business days prior to the meeting
date. Representatives shall always be given the option of participating
in any meeting telephonically at their own expense rather than in
person.
    VII. No less frequently than every two years, in such manner as the
Group deems appropriate, the OSG shall allocate Common Members that
conduct an Options business among the Participants (``Allocation''),
and the Participant to which a Common Member is allocated will serve as
the DOSR for that Common Member. Any Allocation shall be based on the
following principles, except to the extent all affected Participants
consent to one or more different principles:
    (a) The OSG may not allocate a Common Member to a Participant
unless the Common Member is a member of that Participant.
    (b) To the extent practicable, Common Members that conduct an
Options business shall be allocated among the Participants of which
they are members in such manner as to equalize as nearly as possible
the allocation among such Participants, provided that no Common Members
shall be allocated to FINRA. For example, if sixteen Common Members
that conduct an Options business are members only of three
Participants, none of which is FINRA, those Common Members shall be
allocated among the three Participants such that no Participant is
allocated more than six such members and no Participant is allocated
less than five such members. If, in the previous example, one of the
three Participants is FINRA, the sixteen Common Members would be
allocated evenly between the remaining Participants, so that the two
non-FINRA Participants would be allocated eight Common Members each.
    (c) To the extent practicable, Allocation shall take into account
the amount of Options activity conducted by each Common Member in order
to most evenly divide the Common Members with the largest amount of
activity among the Participants of which they are members. Allocation
will also take into account similar allocations pursuant to other plans
or agreements to which the Common Members are party to maintain
consistency in oversight of the Common Members.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For example, if one Participant was allocated a Common
Member by another regulatory group that Participant would be
assigned to be the DOSR of that Common Member, unless there is good
cause not to make that assignment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) To the extent practicable, Allocation of Common Members to
Participants will be rotated among the applicable Participants such
that a Common Member shall not be allocated to a Participant to which
that Common Member was allocated within the previous two years. The
assignment of DOSRs pursuant to the Allocation is attached as Exhibit B
hereto, and will be updated from time to time to reflect Common Member
Allocation changes.
    (e) The Group may reallocate Common Members from time-to-time, as
it deems appropriate.
    (f) Whenever a Common Member ceases to be a member of its DOSR, the
DOSR shall promptly inform the Group, which shall review the matter and
allocate the Common Member to another Participant.
    (g) A DOSR may request that a Common Member to which it is assigned
be reallocated to another Participant by giving 30 days written notice
to the Chair of the OSG. The Group, in its discretion, may approve such
request and reallocate the Common Member to another Participant.
    (h) All determinations by the Group with respect to Allocation
shall be made by the affirmative vote of a majority of the Participants
that, at the time of such determination, share the applicable Common
Member being allocated; a Participant shall not be entitled to vote on
any Allocation relating to a Common Member unless the Common Member is
a member of such Participant.
    VIII. Each DOSR shall conduct routine surveillance reviews to
detect violations of the applicable Common Rules by each Common Member
allocated to it with a frequency (daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly,
semi-annually or annually as noted on Exhibit A) not less than that
determined by the Group. The other Participants agree that, upon
request, relevant information in their respective files relative to a
Common Member will be made available to the applicable DOSR. In
addition, each Participant shall provide, to the extent not otherwise
already provided, information pertaining to its surveillance program
that would be relevant to FINRA or the Participant(s) conducting
routine examinations for the delta hedging exemption.
    At each meeting of the OSG, each Participant shall be prepared to
report on the status of its surveillance program

for the previous quarter and any period prior thereto that has not
previously been reported to the Group. In the event a DOSR believes it
will not be able to complete its Regulatory Responsibility for its
allocated Common Members, it will so advise the Group in writing
promptly. The Group will undertake to remedy this situation by
reallocating the subject Common Members among the remaining
Participants. In such instance, the Group may determine to impose a
regulatory fee for services provided to the DOSR that was unable to
fulfill its Regulatory Responsibility.
    IX. Each Participant will, upon request, promptly furnish a copy of
the report or applicable portions thereof relating to any investigation
made pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement to each other
Participant of which the Common Member under investigation is a member.
    X. Each Participant will routinely populate a common database, to
be accessed by the Group relating to any formal regulatory action taken
during the course of a Proceeding with respect to the Common Rules
concerning a Common Member.
    XI. Any written notice required or permitted to be given under this
Agreement shall be deemed given if sent by certified mail, return
receipt requested, to any Participant to the attention of that
Participant's Representative, to the Participant's principal place of
business or by email at such address as the Representative shall have
filed in writing with the Chair.
    XII. The costs incurred by each Participant in discharging its
Regulatory Responsibility under this Agreement are not reimbursable.
However, any of the Participants may agree that one or more will
compensate the other(s) for costs incurred.
    XIII. The Participants shall notify the Common Members of this
Agreement by means of a uniform joint notice approved by the Group.
Each Participant will notify the Common Members that have been
allocated to it that such Participant will serve as DOSR for that
Common Member.
    XIV. This Agreement shall be effective upon approval of the
Commission. This Agreement may only be amended in writing duly approved
by each Participant. All amendments to this Agreement, excluding
changes to Exhibits A, B and C, must be filed with and approved by the
Commission.
    XV. Any Participant may manifest its intention to cancel its
participation in this Agreement at any time upon providing written
notice to (i) the Group six months prior to the date of such
cancellation, or such other period as all the Participants may agree,
and (ii) the Commission. Upon receipt of the notice the Group shall
allocate, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, those
Common Members for which the canceling Participant was the DOSR. The
canceling Participant shall retain its Regulatory Responsibility and
other rights, privileges and duties pursuant to this Agreement until
the Group has completed the reallocation as described above, and the
Commission has approved the cancellation.
    XVI. The cancellation of its participation in this Agreement by any
Participant shall not terminate this Agreement as to the remaining
Participants. This Agreement will only terminate following notice to
the Commission, in writing, by the then Participants that they intend
to terminate the Agreement and the expiration of the applicable notice
period. Such notice shall be given at least six months prior to the
intended date of termination, or such other period as all the
Participants may agree. Such termination will become effective upon
Commission approval.
    XVII. Participation in the Group shall be strictly limited to the
Participants and no other party shall have any right to attend or
otherwise participate in the Group except with the unanimous approval
of all Participants. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any national
securities exchange registered with the SEC under Section 6(a) of the
Act or any national securities association registered with the SEC
under section 15A of the Act may become a Participant to this Agreement
provided that: (i) Such applicant has adopted rules substantially
similar to the Common Rules, and received approval thereof from the
SEC; (ii) such applicant has provided each Participant with a signed
statement whereby the applicant agrees to be bound by the terms of this
Agreement to the same effect as though it had originally signed this
Agreement and (iii) an amended agreement reflecting the addition of
such applicant as a Participant has been filed with and approved by the
Commission.
    XVIII. This Agreement is wholly separate from the multiparty
Agreement made pursuant to Rule 17d-2 by and among the NYSE MKT LLC,
the BATS Exchange, Inc., the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., the C2
Options Exchange, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., the
International Securities Exchange, LLC, Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Inc., the New York Stock
Exchange, LLC, the NYSE Arca, Inc., the Philadelphia Stock Exchange,
Inc., Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC and the Topaz
Exchange, LLC involving the allocation of regulatory responsibilities
with respect to common members for compliance with common rules
relating to the conduct by broker-dealers of accounts for listed
options or index warrants entered into on [November 19, 2012] June 21,
2013, and as may be amended from time to time.

Limitation of Liability

    No Participant nor the Group nor any of their respective directors,
governors, officers, employees or representatives shall be liable to
any other Participant in this Agreement for any liability, loss or
damage resulting from or claimed to have resulted from any delays,
inaccuracies, errors or omissions with respect to the provision of
Regulatory Responsibility as provided hereby or for the failure to
provide any such Regulatory Responsibility, except with respect to such
liability, loss or damages as shall have been suffered by one or more
of the Participants and caused by the willful misconduct of one or more
of the other Participants or its respective directors, governors,
officers, employees or representatives. No warranties, express or
implied, are made by the Participants, individually or as a group, or
by the OSG with respect to any Regulatory Responsibility to be
performed hereunder.

Relief From Responsibility

    Pursuant to Section 17(d)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act and Rule 17d-2,
the Participants join in requesting the Commission, upon its approval
of this Agreement or any part thereof, to relieve the Participants that
are party to this Agreement and are not the DOSR as to a Common Member
of any and all Regulatory Responsibility with respect to the matters
allocated to the DOSR.
    This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all such counterparts
shall together constitute one and the same Agreement.
    In Witness Whereof, the Participants hereto have executed this
Agreement as of the date and year first above written.
* * * * *

Exhibit A

Options Surveillance Group 17d-2 Agreement
COMMON RULES as of [July 1, 2013] September 1, 2015

   Violation I--Expiring Exercise Declarations (EED)--For Listed and FLEX Equity Options [Expiring: The Third
            Saturday Following the Third Friday of a Month, Quarterly, AND for Listed FLEX Options.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           SRO                  Description of rule         Exchange rule No.           Frequency of review
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BATS.....................  Exercise of Options           Rule 23.1..............  At Expiration.
                            Contracts.
BOX......................  Exercise of Options           Rule 9000..............  At Expiration.
                            Contracts.
C2.......................  Exercise of Options           Rule 11.1..............  At Expiration.
                            Contracts.
CBOE.....................  Exercise of Options           Rule 11.1..............  At Expiration.
                            Contracts.
EDGX.....................  Exercise of Options           Rule 23.1..............  At Expiration.
                            Contracts.
FINRA....................  Exercise of Options           Rule 2360(b)(23).......  At Expiration.
                            Contracts.
ISE......................  Exercise of Options           Rule 1100..............  At Expiration.
                            Contracts.
ISE Gemini [Topaz].......  Exercise of Options           Rule 1100..............  At Expiration.
                            Contracts.
MIAX.....................  Exercise of Options           Rule 700...............  At Expiration.
                            Contracts.
Nasdaq...................  Exercise of Options           Ch. VIII, Sect.1.......  At Expiration.
                            Contracts.
Nasdaq OMX BX............  Exercise of Options           Ch. VII, Sect.1........  At Expiration.
                            Contracts.
Nasdaq OMX PHLX..........  Exercise of Equity Options    Rule 1042..............  At Expiration.
                            Contracts.
NYSE Arca................  Exercise of Options           Rule 6.24..............  At Expiration.
                            Contracts.
NYSE MKT.................  Exercise of Options           Rule 980...............  At Expiration.
                            Contracts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Violation II--Position Limits (PL)--For Listed Equity Options [Expiring: The Third Saturday Following the Third
                                          Friday of a Month, Quarterly]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Description of rule (For
           SRO              review as they apply to PL)     Exchange rule No.           Frequency of review
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BATS.....................  Position Limits.............  Rule 18.7..............  Daily.
                           Exemptions from Position....  Rule 18.8..............  As Needed.
                           Liquidation Positions.......  Rule 18.11.............  As Needed.
BOX......................  Position Limits.............  Rule 3120..............  Daily.
                           Exemptions from Position      Rule 3130..............  As Needed.
                            Limits.
                           Liquidation Positions.......  Rule 3160..............  As Needed.
C2.......................  Position Limits.............  Rule 4.11..............  Daily.
                           Liquidation of Positions....  Rule 4.14..............  As Needed.
CBOE.....................  Position Limits.............  Rule 4.11..............  Daily.
                           Liquidation of Positions....  Rule 4.14..............  As Needed.
EDGX.....................  Position Limits.............  Rule 18.7..............  Daily.
                           Exemptions from Position....  Rule 18.8..............  As Needed.
                           Liquidation Positions.......  Rule 18.11.............  As Needed.
FINRA....................  Position Limits.............  Rule 2860(b)(3)........  Daily.
                           Liquidation of Positions and  Rule 2860(b)(6)........  As Needed.
                            Restrictions on Access.
ISE......................  Position Limits.............  Rule 412...............  Daily.
                           Exemptions from Position      Rule 413...............  As Needed.
                            Limits.
                           Liquidating Positions.......  Rule 416...............  As Needed.
ISE Gemini [Topaz].......  Position Limits.............  Rule 412...............  Daily.
                           Exemptions from Position      Rule 413...............  As Needed.
                            Limits.
                           Liquidating Positions.......  Rule 416...............  As Needed.
MIAX.....................  Position Limits.............  Rule 307...............  Daily.
                           Exemptions from Position      Rule 308...............  As Needed.
                            Limits.
                           Liquidating Positions.......  Rule 311...............  As Needed.
Nasdaq...................  Position Limits.............  Ch. III, Sect. 7.......  Daily.
                           Exemptions from Position      Ch. III, Sect. 8.......  As Needed.
                            Limits.
                           Liquidating Positions.......  Ch. III, Sect. 11......  As Needed.
Nasdaq OMX BX............  Position Limits.............  Ch. III, Sect. 7.......  Daily.
                           Exemptions from Position      Ch. III, Sect. 8.......  As Needed.
                            Limits.
                           Liquidating Positions.......  Ch. III, Sect. 11......  As Needed.
Nasdaq OMX PHLX..........  Position Limits.............  Rule 1001..............  Daily.
                           Liquidation of Position.....  Rule 1004..............  As Needed.
NYSE Arca................  Position Limits.............  Rule 6.8...............  Daily.
                           Liquidation of Position.....  Rule 6.7...............  As Needed.
NYSE MKT.................  Position Limits.............  Rule 904...............  Daily.
                           Liquidating Positions.......  Rule 907...............  As Needed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Violation III--Large Options Position Report (LOPR)--For Listed and FLEX Equity Options and ETF Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Description of rule  (For
           SRO                review as they apply to       Exchange rule No.           Frequency of review
                                       LOPR)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BATS.....................  Reports Related to Position   Rule 18.10.............  Yearly.
                            Limits.
BOX......................  Reports Related to Position   Rule 3150..............  Yearly.
                            Limits.
C2.......................  Reports Related to Position   Rule 4.13(a)...........  Yearly.
                            Limits.
                           Reports Related to Position   Rule 4.13(b)...........  Yearly.
                            Limits.
                           Reports Related to Position   Rule 4.13(d)...........  Yearly.
                            Limits.
CBOE.....................  Reports Related to Position   Rule 4.13(a)...........  Yearly.
                            Limits.
                           Reports Related to Position   Rule 4.13(b)...........  Yearly.
                            Limits.
                           Reports Related to Position   Rule 4.13(d)...........  Yearly.
                            Limits.
EDGX.....................  Reports Related to Position   Rule 18.10.............  Yearly.
                            Limits.
FINRA....................  Options.....................  Rule 2360(b)(5)........  Yearly.
ISE......................  Reports Related to Position   Rule 415...............  Yearly.
                            Limits.
ISE Gemini [Topaz].......  Reports Related to Position   Rule 415...............  Yearly.
                            Limits.
MIAX.....................  Reports Related to Position   Rule 310...............  Yearly.
                            Limits.
Nasdaq...................  Reports Related to Position   Ch. III, Sect. 10......  Yearly.
                            Limits.
Nasdaq OMX BX............  Reports Related to Position   Ch. III, Sect. 10......  Yearly.
                            Limits.
Nasdaq OMX PHLX..........  Reporting of Options          Rule 1003..............  Yearly.
                            Positions.
NYSE Arca................  Reporting of Options          Rule 6.6...............  Yearly.
                            Positions.
NYSE MKT.................  Reporting of Options          Rule 906...............  Yearly.
                            Positions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Violation IV--Options Clearing Corporation (OCC) Adjustment Process
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Description of rule (as they
                           apply to OCC adjustments/by-
           SRO               laws Article V, Section 1      Exchange rule No.          Frequency of  review
                                 .01(a) and .02))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BATS.....................  Adherence to Law............  Rule 18.1..............  Yearly.
BOX......................  Adherence to Law............  Rule 3010..............  Yearly.
C2.......................  Adherence to Law............  Rule 4.2...............  Yearly.
CBOE.....................  Adherence to Law............  Rule 4.2...............  Yearly.
EDGX.....................  Adherence to Law............  Rule 18.1..............  Yearly.
FINRA....................  Violation of By-Laws and      Rule 2360(b)(21).......  Yearly.
                            Rules of FINRA or The OCC.
ISE......................  Adherence to Law............  Rule 401...............  Yearly.
ISE Gemini [Topaz].......  Adherence to Law............  Rule 401...............  Yearly.
MIAX.....................  Adherence to Law............  Rule 300...............  Yearly.
Nasdaq...................  Adherence to Law............  Ch. III, Sect. 1.......  Yearly.
Nasdaq OMX BX............  Adherence to Law............  Ch. III, Sect. 1.......  Yearly.
Nasdaq OMX PHLX..........  Violation of By-Laws And      Rule 1050..............  Yearly.
                            Rules Of OCC.
NYSE Arca................  Adherence to Law and Good     Rule 11.1..............  Yearly.
                            Business Practice.
NYSE MKT.................  Business Conduct............  Rule 16................  Yearly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing. 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 4-551 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 4-551. 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 plan that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
plan between the Commission and any person, other than those that may
be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5
U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the plan also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal offices of MKT, BATS, C2, CBOE, EDGX, Gemini,
ISE, FINRA, Arca, NASDAQ, BOX, BX, Phlx, and MIAX. 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 4-551 and should be submitted
on or before November 25, 2015.

V. Discussion

    The Commission continues to believe that the Plan, as proposed to
be amended, is an achievement in cooperation among the SRO
participants. The Plan, as amended, will reduce unnecessary regulatory
duplication by allocating to the designated SRO the responsibility for
certain options-related market surveillance matters that would
otherwise be performed by multiple SROs. The Plan promotes efficiency
by reducing costs to firms that are members of more than one of the SRO
participants. In addition, because the SRO participants coordinate
their regulatory functions in accordance with the Plan, the Plan
promotes, and will continue to promote, investor protection. Under
paragraph (c) of Rule 17d-2, the Commission may, after appropriate
notice and comment, declare a plan, or any part of a plan, effective.
In this instance, the Commission believes that appropriate notice and
comment can take place after the proposed amendment is effective. The
primary purpose of the amendment is to add EDGX as a Participant to the
Plan and to change the name of Topaz Exchange, LLC to ISE Gemini, LLC.
By declaring it effective today, the amended Plan can become effective
and be implemented without undue delay.\17\ In addition, the Commission
notes that the prior version of this Plan was published for comment,
and the Commission did not receive any comments thereon.\18\ Finally,
the Commission does not believe that the amendment to the Plan raises
any new regulatory issues that the Commission has not previously
considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ On August 7, 2015, the Commission approved EDGX's rules
governing options trading on the EDGX Options Market. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 75650, 80 FR 48600 (August 13, 2015).
    \18\ See supra note 17 (citing to Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 70052).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    This order gives effect to the amended Plan submitted to the
Commission that is contained in File No. 4-551.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Act, that
the Plan, as amended by and between MKT, BATS, C2, CBOE, EDGX, Gemini,
ISE, FINRA, Arca, NASDAQ, BOX, BX, Phlx, and MIAX, filed with the
Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-2 on October 27, 2015 is hereby
approved and declared effective.
    It is further ordered that those SRO participants that are not the
DOSR as to a particular common member are relieved of those regulatory
responsibilities allocated to the common member's DOSR under the
amended Plan to the extent of such allocation.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-28067 Filed 11-3-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District

2003 NPDES Permit Renewal

Infeasibility Analyses

June 17, 2003

Introduction

These infeasibility analyses and resulting requests for compliance
schedule and interim limits are submitted to the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) by Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District to demonstrate
the District’s inability to comply with the proposed water-quality
based effluent limits for copper, mercury, cyanide, dichorobromomethane,
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, 4,4’-DDE, and dieldrin.

Background

The Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface
Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California (known as the State
Implementation Policy (SIP), March, 2000) establishes statewide policy
for NPDES permitting.  The SIP provides for the situation where an
existing NPDES discharger cannot immediately comply with an effluent
limitation derived from a California Toxics Rule (CTR) or Basin Plan
criterion.  The SIP allows for the adoption of interim effluent limits
and a schedule to come into compliance with the final limit in such
cases.  To qualify for interim limits and a compliance schedule, the SIP
requires that an existing discharger demonstrate that it is infeasible
to achieve immediate compliance with the CTR- or Basin Plan-based limit.

The term “infeasible” is defined in the SIP as “not capable of
being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of
time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and
technological factors.”

The SIP requires that the following information be submitted to the
Regional Board to support a finding of infeasibility:

documentation that diligent efforts have been made to quantify pollutant
levels in the discharge and sources of the pollutant in the waste
stream, including the results of those efforts;

documentation of source control and/or pollution minimization efforts
currently under way or completed;

a proposed schedule for additional or future source control measures,
pollutant minimization or waste treatment; and

a demonstration that the proposed schedule is as short as practicable.

Pollutants to be Evaluated

The pollutants for which interim limits are needed for the District are
as follows:

copper

mercury

cyanide

dichlorobromomethane

bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

4,4’-DDE

Dieldrin

Effluent Limit Attainability

The proposed final and interim effluent limits contained in the draft
tentative order for copper, mercury, cyanide, dichlorobromomethane, bis
(2 ethylhexyl)phthalate, 4,4’-DDE, and dieldrin are compared to the
maximum observed effluent concentrations for these constituents in Table
1.

Table 1.  Proposed Effluent Limits for Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District

Pollutant	Water Quality Based Effluent Limits	Performance-Based Interim
Effluent Limits 	Fairfield-Suisun

Effluent Quality

	AMEL1	MDEL2	Daily Max.	Monthly Avg.	MEC3

Copper	4.7	7.5	12.3

10

Mercury	0.021	0.040

0.023	0.021

Cyanide	0.4	1.0	32

28

Dichlorobromomethane	46	88	75

55

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate	5.9	11.8	13

13

4,4’-DDE	0.00059	0.00118	0.05

<0.001

Dieldrin	0.00014	0.00028	0.01

<0.002

All values in µg/L.

1AMEL: average monthly effluent limit

2MDEL: maximum daily effluent limit

3MEC: maximum effluent concentration

The final effluent limits shown above are calculated using procedures
described in Section 1.4 of the SIP.  Background values are based on
Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) data collected at the Sacramento River
Station.  Dilution was taken as zero and the receiving water was
classified as estuarine (i.e., lowest of freshwater and saltwater
criteria is used for effluent limit calculation).  Hardness, where
applicable, was assumed to be 268 mg/L.  Other variables in the effluent
limit calculation included coefficients of variation for different
pollutants in different effluents.

Maximum observed effluent concentrations are based on recent plant
effluent quality data (2000-2002).  As shown in the table above, the
District will not be able to immediately comply with proposed effluent
limits for copper, mercury, cyanide, dichlorobromomethane,
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, 4,4’-DDE, and dieldrin. The feasibility
analyses for these constituents are discussed below.

Source Control and Pollution Prevention Efforts

In addition to its pretreatment program which regulates 11 industries
and 3 groundwater remediation sites, the District has an active
pollution prevention program that has been in place since 1992.
Currently, the District considers mercury, organophosphate pesticides,
perchloroethylene, copper, nickel, lead and zinc to be pollutants of
concern.  Mercury has the highest priority (A) while pesticides and
perchloroethylene are assigned a B priority and the metals are priority
C.  The District has implemented a variety of activities targeting these
pollutants over the years. Some of these activities are highlighted in
Table  2.

Table 2.  Fairfield-Suisun Pollution Prevention Program Activities

Pollutant of Concern	Source Control Activities

Mercury	Thermometer exchanges, Dental outreach

Organophosphate pesticides	Restaurant IPM inspections, school outreach,
theatre slides, public events, PCO workshops

Perchloroethylene	Dry cleaner inspections

Copper, nickel, lead, zinc	Inspections/ BMPs for vehicles service
facilities,  metal fabricators, and industry; surface cleaner workshops

Several of the activities listed above have been conducted in
cooperation with other local agencies in Vacaville, Vallejo, Fairfield
and Suisun City.  The District is also an active participant and
supporter of several regional groups and programs, including:

Bay Area Pollution Prevention Group (BAPPG)

Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA)

Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA)

North Bay Source Control Group

Napa/ Solano Regional Environmental Public Education Group

Solano County Environmental Management Local Task Force

Napa/Solano Air Resource Team

Additional information on pollution prevention activities targeting each
constituent requiring interim effluent limits is discussed below.

Copper

The maximum observed effluent concentration for copper is 10 µg/L
(measured in June 2000) which would exceed a final MDEL of 7.5.  The
maximum average monthly copper value of 8.5 (measured January 2001)
exceeds the proposed final AMEL of 4.7.  In addition, 3 of 78 samples
taken between January 2000 and December 2002 have copper concentrations
that would exceed 7.5 (the proposed final MDEL) and 14 of 36 calculated
monthly average values would exceed 4.7 (the proposed final AMEL).  The
District will not be able to immediately comply with the proposed final
limits.

The District has identified copper as a priority C pollutant of concern
and has conducted pollution prevention targeting copper sources
including corrosion of copper plumbing, root control products, vehicle
service facilities, mobile surface cleaners, and metal fabricators.
Pollution prevention activities have contributed to a 34% reduction in
copper influent levels between 1992 (59 µg/L) and 2000 (39 µg/L). The
District has conducted source control for most of the common copper
sources so it is not clear how much more reduction may be achieved.  The
District will review its current copper pollution prevention activities
and modify as needed.

Mercury

The maximum observed effluent concentration for mercury is 0.021 µg/L
(measured in October 2002) which is equal to the proposed final AMEL of
0.021 µg/L.  The maximum average monthly mercury value of 0.015 µg/L
(measured in October 2002) does not exceed the final AMEL of 0.021. The
District will have difficulty consistently complying with the proposed
effluent limits.

Mercury is a 303(d)-listed parameter and is the subject of a TMDL
currently nearing completion. Final effluent limits for this pollutant
will be derived from the wasteload allocation established under the
TMDL.  The final effluent limit listed above for this pollutant is
projected to change based on the results of the TMDL and wasteload
allocation.  Available information indicates that mercury is a legacy
pollutant in San Francisco Bay resulting from past activities and that
ongoing loadings from POTWs are not a significant source of this
pollutant.  As a result, costly measures for either advanced treatment
or zero discharge to control mercury loading from POTWs are not expected
to be required.

Given that POTWs are not a significant source of mercury in the Bay, in
addition to the District’s existing high quality effluent, residential
service area, and favorable discharge location, it is not immediately
evident the extent to which additional pollution prevention efforts
would be effective or have any detectable beneficial impact on the
receiving water.  Certainly, the highest value measured by the District
is below the water quality objective.  Reasonable potential was only
triggered by background ambient data.

However, the District has a identified mercury as a pollutant of concern
and has conducted pollution prevention activities for mercury sources
including thermometer exchange programs in cooperation with other local
agencies, and outreach to dentists in the District’s service area.  In
addition, the District conducted a study of the impact of its effluent
on methyl mercury levels in Suisun Marsh. The District will continue its
efforts targeting mercury sources.  Specifically, the District has
surveyed local dentists regarding their amalgam waste management
practices and will develop future outreach based on the results of the
survey.

Cyanide

The maximum observed effluent concentration for cyanide is 28 µg/L
(measured in June 2001) which would exceed a final MDEL of 1.0 µg/L.
The maximum average monthly cyanide value of 17 (measured June 2001)
exceeds the proposed final AMEL of 0.4 µg/L..  In addition, 32 of 74
samples taken between January 2000 and December 2002 have cyanide
concentrations that would exceed 1.0 (the proposed final MDEL), one
sample has a cyanide concentration of 1 µg/L, and the remaining 41
samples have cyanide concentrations below the detection limit of 3
µg/L.  All the calculated monthly average values would exceed 0.4 µg/L
(the proposed final AMEL).  The District will not be able to immediately
comply with the proposed final limits and will have difficulty
consistently complying with the proposed interim limits.

Cyanide has been detected occasionally (i.e., 6 of 30 samples from
January 2000 – December 2002) but not consistently in the District’s
influent. Typically, cyanide is not present in wastewater influent but
is generated in the treatment plant disinfection process.  For example,
based on a review of the literature1 (including a study being conducted
by water Environment Research Foundation (WERF)), effluent cyanide
levels may be due to chlorination processes or may be the result of
analytical interferences.

The District has not previously identified cyanide as a pollutant of
concern and, therefore, has not conducted source investigations for this
constituent.  In addition, as noted above, it is unlikely that these
investigations would be fruitful based on the influent data. A special
study is being conducted under a region-wide effort to develop a
site-specific objective for cyanide which is expected to more closely
represent actual water quality conditions than current water quality
objectives.  The District is participating in this study.  In addition,
in accordance with the requirements of its NPDES permit, the District
conducted a Cyanide Reduction Study focusing on determining if cyanide
was being generated in the treatment process.  The study determined that
it was likely that cyanide levels in the effluent were an artifact of
the chlorination/dechlorination process.   This study was submitted to
the Regional Board in February 2000.

Dichlorobromomethane

The maximum observed effluent concentration for dichlorobromomethane is
55 µg/L (measured in September 2002) which would exceed the proposed
final AMEL of 46 µg/L..  Of the 6 samples taken between January 2000
and December 2002, two have dichlorobromomethane concentrations that
would exceed 46 µg/L (the proposed final AMEL).  The District will not
be able to immediately comply with the proposed final limits.

Dichlorobromomethane is generated as a byproduct of chlorination of
water and wastewater and does not typically have influent sources.  The
District has not previously identified dichlorobromomethane as a
pollutant of concern and, therefore, has not conducted pollution
prevention activities for this constituent.  Influent levels of
dichlorobromomethane average less than 1 µg/L  and have not exceeded
2.1 µg/L.  Therefore, it is unlikely that there are significant sources
of dichlorobromomethane in the influent, making source investigations
and source control activities unlikely to be fruitful.  With only six
influent and effluent samples in 3 years, there is not enough
information to completely assess the District’s ability to comply with
the proposed interim or final limits.  Should reductions be necessary,
the District will evaluate its treatment plant processes to determine if
there are opportunities to optimize its processes to reduce generation
of dichlorobromomethane.

Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate

The maximum observed effluent concentration for
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is 13 µg/L which exceeds the proposed final
MDEL of 11.8 µg/L and the proposed final AMEL of 5.9 µg/L..  Only 7
data points are available for January 2000 through December 2002 with
the two earliest samples having high detection limits (i.e., 25 µg/L).
The District will have difficulty complying with the proposed interim
and final limits but insufficient data are available to assess
compliance with any certainty.

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (Bis-2) is a plasticizer.  Approximately 97%
of the Bis-2 produced annually is used as a plasticizer for PVC and
other plastics.  Because of the widespread use of plastics in every
facet of everyday life, Bis-2 is ubiquitous. Influent levels of Bis-2
average 30 µg/L.  The District has not previously identified Bis-2 as a
pollutant of concern and, therefore, has not conducted pollution
prevention activities for this constituent. With only seven effluent
samples in 3 years and six influent samples, there is not enough
information to completely assess the District’s ability to comply with
the proposed interim or final limits.  Since high levels of Bis-2 in
POTW effluent are usually associated with sampling and/or laboratory
analysis conditions, the District proposes to conduct a special study to
determine if cleaner sampling and analysis techniques can reduce the
amount of Bis-2 in the effluent.

4,4’-DDE, Dieldrin

The chlorinated pesticides, 4,4’-DDE and dieldrin , have not been
detected in the District’s effluent and have been below reporting
limits of 0.01 µg/L. The reporting limits and the detection limits
(0.001 µg/L for 4,4’-DDE and 0.002 µg/L for dieldrin) exceed the
proposed final limits for both constituents.  Therefore, there is
insufficient information to determine if the District is able to comply
with the proposed effluent limits.

4,4’-DDE is a decomposition product of DDT, which was banned in the US
for most uses in 1972 and all remaining uses in 1988.  Dieldrin was
banned for most uses in 1974 and all remaining uses in 1987.  Dieldrin
is also a decomposition product of Aldrin whose use was also
discontinued in the late 1980’s.  The District has not previously
identified 4,4’-DDE or dieldrin as pollutants of concern and,
therefore, has not conducted pollution prevention activities that
directly target these constituents.  However, the District has an
ongoing pesticide pollution prevention program that includes a
restaurant Integrated Pest Management (IPM) education program,
residential outreach (theatre slides, bus boards, public events), school
outreach and PCO workshops.  As noted above, there is insufficient
information to completely assess the District’s ability to comply with
the proposed effluent limits for 4,4’-DDE and dieldrin.  Since
reasonable potential for these constituents is triggered only by
background ambient conditions, the District will continue existing
efforts for pesticides generally.

Summary

This evaluation indicates that immediate compliance with projected final
effluent limits for copper, mercury, cyanide, bromodichloromethane,
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, 4,4’-DDE and dieldrin is not feasible for
the District.

In accordance with the requirements of the SIP, the District requests
that the Regional Board refrain from the adoption of final effluent
limits for these constituents.  In lieu of final limits, the NPDES
permit should include the interim performance based limits with which
the District can comply.  Proposed source control actions are shown in
Table 3 below.

Table 3.  Proposed Source Control Actions

Constituent	Proposed Action	Estimated Time to Complete

Copper	Existing outreach to municipal water supply agencies, plumbers,
vehicle service facilities, metal fabricators, and surface cleaners
Ongoing

Mercury	No additional activity since RP triggered by background data	N/A

Cyanide	Participate in study to develop site-specific objective	June,
2003

Dichlorobomomethane	Conduct source identification across plant processes
Three years after permit adoption

Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate	Conduct study to evaluate clean sampling
Three years after permit adoption

4,4’-DDE	No additional activity since RP triggered by background data
N/A

Dieldrin	No additional activity since RP triggered by background data
N/A

 PAGE

 PAGE   7