[Federal Register: June 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 106)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26782]
[DOCID:fr04jn09-6]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 239 and 274

[Release Nos. 33-8998A; IC-28584A; File No. S7-28-07]
RIN 3235-AJ44

Enhanced Disclosure and New Prospectus Delivery Option for
Registered Open-End Management Investment Companies

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: In connection with rules adopted in Release No. 33-8998
(January 13, 2009), which appeared in the Federal Register on January
26, 2009 (74 FR 4546), the Securities and Exchange Commission is making
technical corrections to Form N-1A and Form N-4. Specifically, the
Commission is correcting certain cross-references appearing in each
Form and correcting a citation appearing in Form N-1A. The citation
being corrected was originally adopted in its incorrect form in Release
No. IC-23064 (Mar. 13, 1998), which appeared in the Federal Register on
March 23, 1998 (63 FR 13916).

DATES: Effective Date: June 4, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kieran G. Brown, Senior Counsel,
Office of Disclosure Regulation, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Division of
Investment Management, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-5720.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission is making the following
corrections to Release No. 33-8998 (January 13, 2009), which was
published in FR Doc E9-1035 appearing on page 4546 in the Federal
Register on January 26, 2009:

    Note:  The text of the form does not, and these amendments will
not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    1. On page 4588, second column, amendment 13, paragraph m.ii.,
beginning on line four, revise the reference ``Items 17(d) and 22(b)''
to read ``Items 17(d) and 23(b)''.
    2. On page 4588, second column, amendment 13, paragraph m.iii., on
the second line, revise ``reference'' to read ``references'', and on
the third line, revise the reference ``Item 22(a)'' to read ``Item
23(a)''.
    3. On page 4593, second column, add amendment 13(a) to read as
follows:
    13(a). Form N-1A (referenced in Sec. Sec.  239.15A and 274.11A) is
amended by:
    a. In the General Instructions, revising the citation ``[15 U.S.C.
80a-24f-2]'' in paragraph B.3. to read ``[15 U.S.C. 80a-24(f)]''; and
    b. In newly redesignated Item 17(c)(2), revising the reference
``paragraph (d)(1)'' to read ``paragraph (c)(1)''.
    4. On page 4593, second column, amendment 14, beginning on the
fourth line and continuing on to the third column, revise the reference
``Item 27(b)(ii) of Form N-1A'' to read ``Item 26(b)(4) of Form N-1A'';
in the third column on the third line, revise the reference ``Item
27(b)(ii) equation'' to read ``Item 26(b)(4) equation''; and in the
third column on the fourth line, revise the reference ``Item
20(b)(ii)'' to read ``Item 21(b)(ii)''.

    Dated: May 28, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-12956 Filed 6-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: September 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 55510]
[DOCID:fr25se08-40]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8718-3; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0245]

Draft Toxicological Review of Ethylene Glycol Mono Butyl Ether
(EGBE): In Support of the Summary Information in the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Peer Review Workshop.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing that Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), an
EPA contractor for external scientific peer review, will convene an
independent panel of experts and organize and conduct an external peer
review workshop to review the external review draft document titled,
``Toxicological Review of Ethylene Glycol Mono Butyl Ether (EGBE): In
Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS)'' (EPA/635/R-08/006A). EPA previously announced the 60-
day public comment period (ending June 24, 2008) for the draft document
in the Federal Register on April 25, 2008 (73 FR 22372-22373). EPA will
consider public comments and recommendations from the expert panel
workshop as EPA finalizes the draft document.
    The public comment period and the external peer review workshop are
separate processes that provide opportunities for all interested
parties to comment on the document. EPA intends to forward public
comments submitted in accordance with the Federal Register notice (73
FR 22372-22373) to ERG for consideration by the external peer review
panel prior to the workshop.
    EPA is releasing this draft document solely for the purpose of pre-
dissemination peer review under applicable information quality
guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It
does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency
policy or determination.
    The public may attend this workshop as observers through a
registration process, and time will be set aside for observers to give
brief oral comments at the workshop regarding the draft document under
review. The draft document and EPA's peer review charge are available
via the Internet on NCEA's home page under the Recent Additions and the
Data and Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea. When finalizing
the draft document, EPA intends to consider the comments and
recommendations from the external peer review workshop and any public
comments that EPA receives in accordance with 73 FR 22372-22373, April
25, 2008. Public comments submitted during the 60-day public comment
period ending June 24, 2008, may be observed at http://
www.regulations.gov under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0245.

DATES: The peer review workshop will begin on October 16, 2008, at
approximately 8:30 a.m. and end at approximately 5 p.m., Eastern time.
Observers must register by Thursday, October 9, 2008. Indicate at the
time of registration if you wish to make brief oral comments at the
workshop.

ADDRESSES: The peer review workshop will be held at the Environmental
Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Dr., RTP, NC 27709. ERG is
organizing, convening, and conducting the peer review workshop. To
attend the workshop as an observer, register by Thursday, October 9,
2008, via the Internet at https://www2.ergweb.com/projects/conferences/
peerreview/register-egbe.htm. You may also register by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(subject line: EGBE Workshop), by phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by faxing a registration request to
781-674-2906 (please reference the ``EGBE Peer Review Workshop'' and
include your name, title, affiliation, full address and contact
information).
    The draft ``Toxicological Review of Ethylene Glycol Mono Butyl
Ether (EGBE): In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS)'' is available via the Internet on the
National Center for Environmental Assessment's (NCEA) home page under
the Recent Additions and the Data and Publications menus at http://
www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of paper copies are available from
NCEA's Technical Information Staff, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:
703-347-8691. If you are requesting a paper copy, please provide your
name, mailing address, and the document title. Copies are not available
from ERG.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the peer review
workshop, contact ERG, 110 Hartwell Avenue, Lexington, MA 02421-3136;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(subject line: EGBE). If you have questions about the
document, contact Angela Howard, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, (B-243-01), U.S. EPA, 109 T.W. Alexander Dr. RTP, NC 27709;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of Information About the Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS)

    IRIS is a database that contains potential adverse human health
effects information that may result from chronic (or lifetime) exposure
to specific chemical substances found in the environment. The database
(available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/iris) contains
qualitative and quantitative health effects information for more than
540 chemical substances that may be used to support the first two steps
(hazard identification and dose-response evaluation) of a risk
assessment process. When supported by available data, the database
provides oral reference doses (RfDs) and inhalation reference
concentrations (RfCs) for chronic health effects, and oral slope
factors and inhalation unit risks for carcinogenic effects. Combined
with specific exposure information, government and private entities can
use IRIS data to help characterize public health risks of chemical
substances in a site-specific situation and thereby support risk
management decisions designed to protect public health.

II. Workshop Information

    Members of the public may attend the workshop as observers, and
there will be a limited time for oral comments from the public. Pre-
registration is strongly recommended as space is limited, and
registrations will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. The
deadline for pre-registration is October 9, 2008. If space allows,
registrations will continue to be accepted after this date, including
on-site registrations. Time will be set aside to hear comments from
observers, and individuals will be limited to a maximum of five minutes
during the morning session of peer review workshop. Please let ERG know
if you wish to make comments during the workshop by registering on the
Web site at https://www2.ergweb.com/projects/conferences/peerreview/
register-egbe.htm and indicating your intent to make oral comments.

    Dated: September 16, 2008.
Peter W. Preuss,
Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. E8-22538 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 110 (Friday, June 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34417-34419]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13508]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69682; File No. SR-MIAX-2013-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the
Allocation of Directed Orders in Specific Limited Situations

June 3, 2013.
    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 May 22, 2013, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX''
or ``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 self-regulatory
organization. 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 is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 514 to
modify the allocation of Directed Orders in specific limited
situations.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, 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
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 514 to modify the
allocation of Directed Orders \3\ to provide a Directed Lead Market
Maker (``DLMM'') a minimum participation allocation of one (1) contract
in certain situations where the DLMM participation entitlement
allocation results in an allocation of zero due to the fact that the
Exchange System rounds down any fractional contract size allocations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A `Directed Order' is an order entered into the System by an
Electronic Exchange Member with a designation for a Lead Market
Maker (referred to as a ``Directed Lead Market Maker''). See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69507 (May 3, 2013), 78 FR 27269
(May 9, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange Rule 514(h)(1) provides the formula used to calculate the
DLMM participation entitlement. Specifically, the DLMM participation
entitlement is equal to the greater of: (i) The proportion of the total
size at the best price represented by the size of its quote; (ii) sixty
percent (60%) of the contracts to be allocated if there is only one (1)
other Market Maker quotation at the NBBO; or (iii) forty percent (40%)
if there are two (2) or more other Market Maker quotes at the NBBO.\4\
The DLMM participation entitlement algorithm works well when applied to
Directed Orders of a contract size of three (3) or more. However, for
Directed Orders of a contract size of two (2) or less, the DLMM
participation entitlement allocation may result in an allocation of
zero due to the fact that the Exchange

System rounds down any fractional contract size allocations.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Rule 514(h)(1).
    \5\ For example, the Exchange System will round down any
fractional contract sizes in the following way: 3.7 contracts to 3
contracts; 1.7 contracts to 1 contract; or 0.7 contract size to zero
contracts.
    The Exchange notes that other competing exchanges may round up
in certain situations where there is a fractional contract size
allocation. Rounding up fractional contract sizes in this situation
would result in a 0.7 contract size equaling 1 contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example 1:
    Three (3) Lead Market Makers (LMMs) quoting at the NBBO; no orders
resting on the Exchange System; and the DLMM participation entitlement
overlay is in effect.

LMM1 Quote: 1.00 (35) x 1.10 (10)
LMM2 Quote: 1.00 (35) x 1.10 (10)
LMM3 Quote: 1.00 (10) x 1.10 (10)
MIAX Market: 1.00 (80) x 1.10 (30)

    Incoming Directed Order: Sell 3 contracts @ 1.00 directed to LMM3.
    The Exchange System operates as follows:
     LMM3 is entitled to the greater of: (i) pro-rata
allocation, 0.375 contract (10/80 x 3 contracts); or (ii) 40%, 1.2
contract (40% x 3 contracts). LMM3 would receive a DLMM participation
entitlement of 1 contract.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Since, the Exchange System is designed to round fractional
allocations down, LMM3's DLMM participation entitlement of 1.2
contracts is rounded down to 1 contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     LMM1 and LMM2 would each receive 1 contract.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ With two contracts remaining to be allocated, the Exchange
System applies the pro-rata allocation logic of Exchange Rule
514(c)(2), which allocates one (1) contract at a time on a price-
size-time priority because the Directed Order (two contracts) cannot
be evenly allocated between LMM1 and LMM2. See Exchange Rule
514(c)(2). LMM3 would be excluded from receiving a pro-rata
allocation, because LMM3 has already been allocated a participation
entitlement. See Exchange Rule 514(e)(1). LMM1 and LMM2 are bidding
at the same price, so priority is then determined by size. LMM1 and
LMM2 are displaying the same bid size, so priority for the first
contract is determined by time. LMM1 is allocated the first contract
assuming LMM1 has the time priority. The next contract is allocated
in the same fashion. LMM1 and LMM2 are bidding at the same price, so
priority is determined by size. At that point, LMM2 is displaying
the most size and is allocated the last contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example 2:
    Three (3) Lead Market Makers (LMMs) quoting at the NBBO; no orders
resting on the Exchange System; and the DLMM participation entitlement
overlay is in effect.

LMM1 Quote: 1.00 (35) x 1.10 (10)
LMM2 Quote: 1.00 (35) x 1.10 (10)
LMM3 Quote: 1.00 (10) x 1.10 (10)
MIAX Market: 1.00 (80) x 1.10 (30)

    Incoming Directed Order: Sell 2 contracts @ 1.00 directed to LMM3.
    The Exchange System operates as follows:
     LMM3 is entitled to the greater of: (i) pro-rata
allocation, 0.25 contract (10/80 x 2 contracts); or (ii) 40%, 0.8
contract (40% x 2 contracts). LMM3 would receive a DLMM participation
entitlement of zero.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Since, the Exchange System is designed to round fractional
allocations down, LMM3's DLMM participation entitlement of 0.8
contracts is rounded down to zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     LMM1 and LMM2 would each receive 1 contract.\9\

    \9\ With two contracts remaining to be allocated, the Exchange
System applies the pro-rata allocation logic of Exchange Rule
514(c)(2), which allocates one (1) contract at a time on a price-
size-time priority because the Directed Order (two contracts) cannot
be evenly allocated among LMM1, LMM2, and LMM3. See Exchange Rule
514(c)(2). LMM3 would be included in the pro-rata allocation
calculation, because LMM3 was not allocated a participation
entitlement. See Exchange Rule 514(e)(1). LMM1, LMM2, and LMM3 are
bidding at the same price, so priority is then determined by size.
LMM1 and LMM2 are displaying the same bid size (both greater than
the bid size of LMM3), so priority for the first contract is
determined by time. LMM1 is allocated the first contract assuming
LMM1 has the time priority. The next contract is allocated in the
same fashion. LMM1, LMM2, and LMM3 are bidding at the same price, so
priority is determined by size. At that point, LMM2 is displaying
the most size and is allocated the last contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

LMM3, who succeeded in drawing the Directed Order to the Exchange, does
not receive a contract allocation.
    The Exchange proposes to modify the allocation of Directed Orders
to provide a DLMM a minimum participation allocation of one (1)
contract in situations where the DLMM participation allocation
currently results in an allocation of zero due to the fact that the
Exchange System rounds down any fractional contract size allocations.
Specifically, the Exchange seeks to remedy these situations by adding
``or (iii) one (1) contract'' to the DLMM participation entitlement
formula of Exchange Rule 514(h)(1). Thus, the DLMM would be entitled to
the greatest of: (i) the pro-rata share; (ii) 40% or 60% of the
incoming Directed Order (depending on the number of other Market Makers
quoting along with the DLMM); or (iii) one (1) contract. The following
example, using the same facts as Example 2 above, illustrates the
impact of the proposed change.
    Example 3:
    Three (3) LMMs quoting at the NBBO; no orders resting on the
Exchange System; and the DLMM participation entitlement overlay is in
effect.

LMM1 Quote: 1.00 (35) x 1.10 (10)
LMM2 Quote: 1.00 (35) x 1.10 (10)
LMM3 Quote: 1.00 (10) x 1.10 (10)
MIAX Market: 1.00 (80) x 1.10 (30)

    Incoming Directed Order: Sell 2 contracts @ 1.00 directed to LMM3.

The Exchange System would operate as follows:
     LMM3 would be entitled to the greater of: (i) Pro-rata
allocation, 0.25 contract (10/80 x 2 contracts); (ii) 40%, 0.8 contract
(40% x 2 contracts); or (iii) one (1) contract. LMM3 would receive a
DLMM participation entitlement of one (1) contract.
     LMM1 would receive one (1) contract.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The remaining contract would be allocated pursuant to the
pro-rata allocation logic. The remaining contract would be allocated
to LMM1 on time priority as both LMM1 and LMM2 had equally priced
bids of the same size. LMM3 would be excluded from receiving a pro-
rata allocation, because LMM3 has already been allocated a
participation entitlement. See Exchange Rule 514(e)(1). Thus, there
is no risk in the LMM3 potentially receiving 100% of the Directed
Order (e.g., one (1) contract during the participation entitlement
and one (1) contract for being first in line for pro-rata allocation
of the remainder because of price-size-time priority).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change preserves the
integrity of its Directed Order program by enabling the DLMM to receive
a minimum of one (1) contract in situations where the allocation would
be zero due to the Exchange System's practice of rounding down
fractional allocations. By choosing to enter a Directed Order over a
non-directed order, an Electronic Exchange Member (``EEM'') actively
intends to trade with the particular quote of the designated DLMM. In
most situations when the DLMM participation entitlement applies, the
EEM's Directed Order interacts and executes at least partially with the
quote of the DLMM. However, when applying the DLMM participation
entitlement to Directed Orders of a contract size of two (2) or less,
such interaction with the quote of the DLMM may never occur because of
the rounding down of fractional contract size by the Exchange System.
The Exchange's proposal would fix these scenarios and ensure that the
EEM's Directed Order would trade a minimum of one contract with the
quote of the DLMM, when the DLMM participation entitlement applies. The
Exchange believes this proposal to be fair because it preserves the
original purpose of the Directed Order, to trade with the particular
quote of the DLMM, and also correspondingly enables the DLMM to be
rewarded with an allocation for having attracted the Directed Order to
the Exchange.
    Because of the technology changes associated with this rule
proposal, the Exchange will announce the implementation date of the
proposal in a Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 30 days
after the publication of the approval order in the Federal Register.
The implementation date will be no later than 30 days following
publication of the Regulatory Circular

announcing publication of the approval order in the Federal Register.
2. Statutory Basis
    MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ in particular, in that it is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal to establish a one (1) contract minimum for the DLMM
participation entitlement promotes just and equitable principles of
trade by enabling DLMM to be eligible for a participation entitlement
regardless if the order is for three (3) contracts or more, or for two
(2) contracts or less, in a manner that protects investors and the
public interest. In addition, the proposal fosters cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities by fulfilling the intention of a Directed Order in a manner
that provides additional certainty to both the EEM that initiates and
the DLMM that receives a Directed Order in situations where the DLMM
participation entitlement applies. The proposal is also designed to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market by providing additional certainty of execution of an EEM's
Directed Order in a manner that encourages additional liquidity and
order flow to the Exchange, improves overall market quality, and thus
benefits all market participants. The Exchange notes that the proposal
will have no effect on the existing participation entitlement program,
except in the minority of situations where the DLMM participation
entitlement is applied to Directed Orders of a contract size of two (2)
or less. The Exchange also notes that Priority Customers will be
unaffected by the proposal, as Priority Customer orders will continue
to be allocated before the DLMM participation entitlement in a manner
that promotes the protection of investors and the public interest.

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. The Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily direct order flow to competing venues who offer similar
functionality. As to inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that
other competing exchanges may already operate Directed Order programs
which function in a similar manner, depending upon whether those
exchanges choose to round up or round down fractional contract
allocations. As to intra-market competition, the Exchange believes the
proposal to be fair as it only applies to Directed Orders, which by
their definition possess an intention by the EEM to trade with the
quote of a particular DLMM. The Exchange notes that the proposal will
have no effect on the existing participation entitlement program,
except in the minority of situations where the DLMM participation
entitlement is applied to Directed Orders of a contract size of two (2)
or less. The Exchange believes it is appropriate and fair to preserve
that intention by assuring that the Directed Order will trade at least
one (1) contract with the DLMM.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (a) by order approve
or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (b) institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2013-21 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-MIAX-2013-21. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2013-21 and should be
submitted on or before June 28, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-13508 Filed 6-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 67 (Friday, April 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20870-20871]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8259]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66709; File No. SR-NYSE-2012-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change Amending the Definition of Approved
Person To Exclude Foreign Affiliates, Eliminating the Application
Process for Approved Persons, and Making Related Technical and
Conforming Changes

April 2, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On February 14, 2012, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a
proposed rule change to amend the definition of approved person to
exclude foreign affiliates, eliminate the application process for
approved persons, and make related technical and conforming changes.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on March 1, 2012.\4\ The Commission received no comments on
the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66462 (February 24,
2012), 77 FR 12626 (March 1, 2012) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposed to amend the definition of ``approved
person'' in NYSE Rule 2 to revise the definition of which entities are
deemed to be under ``common control'' with a member organization.
    The Exchange proposed several additional amendments to its Rules.
The Exchange proposed to amend paragraphs (3) and (4) of NYSE Rule 21
to provide that a member of the Exchange's Board of Directors or an
authorized committee who is associated with a member organization
cannot participate in the deliberations concerning the listing of a
security if the Director knows that an affiliate of the member
organization directly or indirectly owns one percent or more of any
class of stock of the issuer or has a contract, option, or privilege to
purchase the security to be listed. The Exchange proposed to amend NYSE
Rule 22 to provide that a member of certain NYSE boards and committees
may not participate in the consideration of any matter if there are
certain types of indebtedness between the board or committee member and
a member organization's affiliate or other related parties. The
Exchange proposed to amend NYSE Rule 98A, which provides that no
issuer, or partner or subsidiary thereof, may become an approved person
of a Designated Market Maker (``DMM'') unit that is registered in the
stock of that issuer, to provide instead that a DMM unit may not be
registered in a stock of an issuer, or a partner or subsidiary thereof,
if such entity is either an approved person or an affiliate of the DMM
unit's member organization. The Exchange proposed to amend
Supplementary Material .30(c) of Rule 402 to provide that when
securities are callable in part under the Rule, a member organization
may not allocate any called securities to the account of an affiliate
until all customer positions have been satisfied.
    The Exchange also proposed to amend its rules to remove the
requirement that the Exchange affirmatively approve each application to
become an approved person, and accordingly, to remove all references to
an approval process and the submission of an application for such
approval from NYSE Rules 304, 308, and 311. The Exchange also proposed
to eliminate use of the Forms AP-1 and AD-G.
    The Exchange proposed to amend NYSE Rule 304 to provide
specifically that a member organization would be required to identify
all of its approved persons to the Exchange and each such approved
person would continue to be required to consent to the Exchange's
jurisdiction. The Exchange also proposed to make technical and
conforming changes to other rules.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b) \5\ of the Act, in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \6\ in particular in that it is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange noted that the
proposed approved person definition and consent to jurisdiction process
would remove unnecessary complexities and excessive informational
requirements and create a more efficient and less burdensome process
for membership applicants and member organizations while maintaining
appropriate regulatory standards.\7\ As such, the Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change would contribute to removing impediments
to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a
national market system.\8\ The Commission believes that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act and should reduce the
burdens on Exchange members while preserving the Exchange's
jurisdiction over approved persons and maintaining appropriate controls
over approved persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ Notice, 77 FR at 12628.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has reviewed the record for the proposed rule change
and believes that the record does not contain any information to
indicate that the proposed rule would have a significant effect on
efficiency, competition, or capital formation. In light of the record,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation and has concluded that the proposed
rule is unlikely to have any significant effect.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

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

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2012-06) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8259 Filed 4-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 112)]
[Notices]
[Page 28100-28101]
[DOCID:fr12jn09-119]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7165; FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-
2002-12294; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-19477;
FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2007-27333]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA previously announced its decision to renew the
exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety

Regulations for 24 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt
individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will
not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemptions will provide a level of safety that will be equivalent to,
or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The comment
period ended on May 28, 2009.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    The Agency has not received any adverse evidence on any of these
drivers that indicates that safety is being compromised. Based upon its
evaluation of the 24 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal
vision exemptions for Carl W. Adams, Charles C. Chapman, Jeffrey W.
Cotner, Everett A. Doty, John K. Fank, Bobby G. Fletcher, Heather M.B.
Gordon, Randolph D. Hall, Raymond G. Hayden, Robert E. Hendrick, Gene
A. Lesher, Jr., Wallace F. Mahan, Sr., Anthony R. Miles, Kenneth L.
Nau, David W. Peterson, Randel G. Pierce, Steven A. Proctor, Frederick
G. Robbins, Manuel H. Sanchez, Jose C. Sanchez-Sanchez, David M. Stout,
Kenneth E. Suter, Jr., Thaddeus E. Temoney, and Daniel R. Viscaya.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each renewal
exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with
the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: June 5, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-13786 Filed 6-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


MEMORANDUM

TO:		Public Record for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule
		EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274 (www.regulations.gov)

FROM:		Carey A. Johnston, P.E.
            USEPA/OECA/OC
            ph:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
DATE:		14 September 2015

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT:	Notes from Technical Meeting with States (12 February 2015) [DCN 0220]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview

      This was the eighteenth meeting between EPA and individual representatives from authorized NPDES programs. These meetings provided greater clarity regarding public comments on the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (eRule). Participants are listed below in Tables 1 and 2. EPA is summarizing the notes from these discussions for the docket in order to provide transparency on EPA's outreach during the rulemaking process (see Table 3). EPA also met with other stakeholders to discuss public comments.

Meeting Notes

     EPA (Mr. Carey Johnston) started the meeting by reminding state participants that in addition to raising questions during these meetings, states can email their questions on the proposed rule (including the data elements) to EPA. Questions on all aspects of the proposed rule can be sent to Mr. Johnston. Mr. Johnston also reminded everyone that this outreach does not constitute a decision-making body (see "Quick Reminder" section below).

     Mr. Johnston started the technical discussion by reading the name of each state compliance monitoring, violation determination, and enforcement action data element along with the corresponding data description and regulatory or policy citation. After reading about five to ten elements at a time, Mr. Johnston asked for input from meeting participants. Below are some questions and comments from the meeting participants.

* Several state representatives suggested that EPA update the data element descriptions to indicate when data can be system generated or are conditional or optional depending on other data submissions. EPA has updated the data element descriptions to be more descriptive as requested.
* Several state representatives asked for clarification on the "Compliance Monitoring Activity" and "Compliance Monitoring Type" data elements. In the final rule EPA added clarifying language to the two descriptions for these data elements.

* Several state representatives had questions on the difference between "Enforcement Action Sub-activity" and milestones. EPA clarified in the final rule that some sub-activities are system required and some can be system generated and that, "Data on sub-activities that are not milestones are optional."

* Several state representatives also requested we add a note to Appendix A to clarify when construction stormwater Single Event Violation (SEV) data must be reported to EPA. In the final rule, EPA provided the following clarification, "Note: Single Event Violation (SEV) data elements are mandatory for construction stormwater inspections that identify CWA violations that result in a regulatory authority taking a formal enforcement action. SEV data elements are optional for other construction stormwater inspections."

* A representative from Alabama suggested that we eliminate the "Enforcement Action Name" data element. EPA did not include this data element in the final rule as other data can be used to unique track and describe enforcement actions.

* A representative from Oklahoma and a number of other suggested that EPA add data elements to collect information on supplemental environmental projects (SEPs). In the final rule, EPA has included the following three SEP data elements:

      o Supplemental Environmental Project Identifier: The unique identifier for each supplemental environmental project. This data element can be system generated. Source: 123.27, 123.41(a), and CWA Section 309
      o Supplemental Environmental Project Amount: The assessed cost, in dollars, of the one or more of the defendant's Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs). This is the dollar amount that is assessed either in addition to civil penalties or in lieu of civil penalties. This data element is only required if there is a SEP and may be entered at a later date when the data is available. Source: 123.27, 123.41(a), and CWA Section 309
      o Supplemental Environmental Project Description: This text field summarizes the Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) that the respondent has completed in response to an enforcement action. This data element is only required if there is a SEP and may be entered at a later date when the data is available. Source: 123.27, 123.41(a), and CWA Section 309

Following the meeting, EPA received additional e-mails from individual state government representatives on the data elements reviewed in this meeting. These are listed in Attachment 1.

Quick Reminder
   *    The technical workgroup is not a decision-making body. Members of the workgroup provide clarity on their comments and suggest options for consideration by EPA and state senior management.

   *    There are no formal quorum rules for the workgroup. Scheduled teleconferences will proceed with whichever workgroup members call in to participate.

   *    There will be no voting or consensus of the workgroup. Instead, members of the workgroup are providing individual input reflecting their various perspectives.

   *    Summaries of the workgroup's discussions will be prepared for and reviewed by the workgroup, for presentation to EPA senior management and other states and the rulemaking record.

Table 1: State Technical Workgroup Members - 12 February 2015

                                 Main Contact
                             State or Organization
                              Main Contact Email
                         State/Org. Present? (Yes/No)
                                 Sean  Rolland
                                     ACWA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Karen Lechner
                                      AK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Christy Monk
                                      AL
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Eric Cleckler

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  Glenda Dean

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Teresa Marks
                                      AR
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                   Pat Goff

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                   Mo Shafii

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Karen Bassett

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 David Ramsey

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Ellen Carpenter

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Wendy LeStarge
                                      AZ
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Robin Belley

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  David Lelsz

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                         Darren Polhemus
                                      CA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                       Renee Purdy

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                        Deborah Smith

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                       Vicky Whitney

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  Andy Putnam
                                      CO
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Elisa Willard

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Bob Zimmerman
                                      DE
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                   Tom Tyler
                                     ECOS
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                  Chris Klena
                                      FL
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                              Jessica Kleinfelter

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Edward Smith

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

                               Frances Carpenter
                                      GA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                Scott Miyashiro
                                      HI
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Tom Easterly
                                      IN
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                               Jeremy Chenevert

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Mark Stanifer

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                               Courtney Cswercko
                                      IA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Ed Dillingham
                                      KS
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Steve Caspers

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                             Shelly Shores-Miller

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Shawn Hokanson
                                      KY
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Grace Scott
                                      MI
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                Carla Davidson

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Ruth Wallace
                                      MO
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Walter Fett

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                              Christopher Miller

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  Tamara Dahl
                                      MN
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Paul Scheirer

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  John Murphy
                                    NEIWPCC
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                        Deborah Gore
                                      NC
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                        Bradley Bennett

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Jason Lonardo
                                      NJ
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Julio Collazo

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Robert Wither
                                      NY
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Joseph DiMura

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                      Alan Tinney
                                  Dave Gaskin
                                      NV
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                    Brian Hall
                                      OH
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                     Erin Sherer

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                             Shellie Chard-McClary
                                      OK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Roy Walker

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 David Pruitt

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Jim Billings
                                      OR
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Sean Furjanic
                                      PA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                Kent Woodmansey
                                      SD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                   Tim Flor

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Albert Spangler

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                               Lawrence Bunting
                                      TN
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                      Yes
                                 Yatasha Moore

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

                                  Kim Wilson
                                      TX
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                               Rebecca Villalba

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Lynley Doyen

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                               Kimberly Shepard

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Jeff Studenka
                                      UT
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Jerome Brooks
                                      VA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                Deborah Debiasi

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  Phani Eturu

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Stephen Bernath
                                      WA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Dave Knight

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  Nancy Kmet

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Table 2: EPA Technical Workgroup Members

                                     Name
                                  EPA Office
                                     Email
                               Present? (Yes/No)
                                John Dombrowski
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                  Andy Hudock
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                Rochele Kadish
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                Carey Johnston
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Jackie Clark
                                  OW/OWM/WPD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Roy Chaudet
                                 OEI/OIC/IESD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Aditi Prabhu
                                    OGC/WLO
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 David Apanian
                                   Region 4
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Sandra Chew
                                   Region 9
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Glynis Hill
                                 OP/ORPM/PRAD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No

Table 3: State Technical Workgroup Discussions to Discuss Public Comments

                                      DCN
                                     Date
Topic
Data Source
                                   DCN 0219
                                  02/05/2015
Basic Facility and Permit Data
Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs
                                   DCN 0220
                                  02/12/2015
Basic Violation and Enforcement Action Data
States & Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs
                                   DCN 0221
                                  02/26/2015
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Information
Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs & MS4 Program Report
                                   DCN 0222
                                  03/05/2015
Construction and Industrial Stormwater Information
Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs
                                   DCN 0223
                                  03/12/2015
CSO & Collection System Information & Sewer Overflow Data
Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs & Sewer Overflow Event Reports
                                   DCN 0224
                                  03/19/2015
Pretreatment Data
Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs & Annual POTW Pretreatment Program Reports, CIU/SIU Reports When EPA or State is Control Authority
                                   DCN 0225
                                  03/26/2015
Cooling Water and Thermal Variance Data
Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs
                                   DCN 0226
                                  04/02/2015
Biosolids Data
States & Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs & Annual Biosolids Reports
                                   DCN 0227
                                  04/09/2015
CAFO Data
Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs & Annual Biosolids Reports
                                   DCN 0228
                                  05/13/2015
Review of Appendix A
All NPDES program data
                                   DCN 0229
                                  05/27/2015
Review of State Representative Questions to EPA
All NPDES program data

   Attachment 1 - Emails from Representatives from Authorized NPDES Programs
E-mail from Lawrence Bunting<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Fri 2/13/2015 5:22 PM
TDEC concurs that it would be good to clearly identify the required data elements from those that are conditionally required when triggered by another data element.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA has updated the data element descriptions to be more descriptive as requested.
For the Compliance Category and Compliance Monitoring Type, do these share reference table values with AIR?  If so, is there an easy way to make sure there is no confusion over which code applies to which program.  TDEC DWR is interested in seeing Compliance Monitoring Types suggested by TX or other states.
EPA RESPONSE: The reference tables for these two data elements are specific to NPDES.
Violation Code  -  it would be good to note in the description that the only one that could be created and sent by a state is a single event violation (SEV).
EPA RESPONSE: EPA has updated this data description to read as follows. "Violation Code: The unique code/description that identifies each type of violation that has occurred at the facility (e.g., D80 = Required Monitoring DMR Value Non-Receipt, E90 = Effluent Violation, C20 = Schedule Event Achieved Late). This includes single event violations (SEVs) and violations that are system generated based upon DMRs, schedules, etc."
Violation Date, Single Event Violation Date, Single Event Violation Start Date  -  Why do we have to report all these?  For those that are system generated, it is a non-issue.  For the single event violation reported by the state the situation is that it is either single day or multi-day violation.  For single day violation the Single Event Violation date should also serve as the Violation Date.  For multi-day violations, the single event violation start date can also serve as the violation date.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA requires these data elements to adequately describe each violation. EPA has provided clarification on when these data should be reported and when they can be system generated. In particular, EPA has update the "Violation Date" data element to read as follows: "This is the date of the violation, which varies depending on the type of violation. The date must be provided in YYYY-MM-DD format where YYYY is the year, MM is the month, and DD is the day. This data element may be system generated and does not apply to single event violation dates."
TDEC agrees that the Enforcement Action Name should not be part of the required data elements in Appendix A. TDEC will populate and use this field for reports so they are human readable and look nice, but the tracking numbers (Enforcement Action Identifier) are sufficient to identify the records.  A free text field for the name is not necessary as a required data element.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA has not included "Enforcement Action Name" in the final rule.
It may be good to clarify in the description for "Milestones/ Sub-activities" that these apply to the regulatory milestones that are met and reported by the regulatory agency and not the permit holder. Similarly, the header for "Compliance Schedule" should be clarified that these items are items done/reported by the permit holder that has a compliance schedule.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA has provided the requested clarifying language in the final rule.
Penalty section for Appendix A.  TDEC supports addition of fields in ICIS-NPDES for penalty assessed / penalty collected that will include supplemental environmental projects (SEP).   A Penalty Assessed should not reflect a perpetually uncollected amount whenever a SEP is part of what the permit holder must do yet the SEP is effort of the permit holder that should not be ignored either.  TDEC does not want enforcement actions amounts assessed that reflect SEP effort as some amount that was uncollected.  TDEC supports the addition to Appendix A for a data element to indicate that a SEP is/is not part of the total Civil Penalty Amount Assessed and to conditionally require a SEP amount collected where the SEP is present as part of the penalty assessed.  If there are suggestions from other states that have a better way to handle this, perhaps you could distribute it to the group.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA has included three data elements to collect SEP information.
Thanks for your work on coordinating these calls.
EPA RESPONSE:  EPA appreciates the efforts by state government representatives to provide helpful suggestions for the final rule.
E-mail from Elisa Willard<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mon 3/9/2015 9:44 AM
We ask that ICIS be modified to accept an optional data field for entering SEP amounts that are assessed either in addition to civil penalties or in lieu of civil penalties.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA has included three data elements to collect SEP information.