[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 122 (Friday, June 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37171-37173]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15927]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0103]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt twenty-four individuals
from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes
mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions are effective June 24, 2011. The exemptions
expire on June 24, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Room W64-224,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey

Avenue, SE., 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.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other
entity). You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on
January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

Background

    On May 5, 2011, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal
diabetes exemption applications from twenty-four individuals and
requested comments from the public (76 FR 25769). The public comment
period closed on June 6, 2011 and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the twenty-four applicants
and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current standard for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible.
    The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441) Federal Register notice in
conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777) Federal Register
notice provides the current protocol for allowing such drivers to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    These twenty-four applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 34
years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions
resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years.
In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has
demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her
diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management,
and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other
disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications.
Each meets the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the May 5, 2011, Federal Register
notice and they will not be repeated in this notice.

Discussion of Comment

    FMCSA did not receive any comments in this proceeding.

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants
to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes
of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to
manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other
adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is
related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide
a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that
each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to
the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep
a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-
employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when
driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the twenty-four exemption
applications, FMCSA exempts, Alfonso L. Abeyta, Perfecto Aquino, James
C. Ayotte, John C. Beason, Jr., Charles A. Best, Gregory E. Bichsel,
II., Raymond D. Dubose, Adam Errickson, Jon M. Greiner, Gregory M.
Hoyt, Robert E. Jackson, Kimm D. Jacobson, Daryl D. Jibben, Jimmy G.
Lee, Jr., Daniel S. May, Gerald D. McElya, Michael L. Moore, Stacey W.
Nelson, Ervin W. Ponto, Donald B. Ramaley, Bart H. Rideout, Floyd M.
Tyler, Richard G. Wunderlich and Mathew E. Yeates from the ITDM
standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), subject to the conditions listed under
``Conditions and Requirements'' above.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption will
be valid for two 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(e) and 31315. If the exemption is still
effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to
FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.

    Issued on: June 15, 2011.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-15927 Filed 6-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 26, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66143-66145]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27794]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R06-RCRA-2018-0395; FRL-9987-30-Region 6]

Louisiana: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On September 5, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) published a notice of proposed rulemaking to approve a revision
to the State of Louisiana hazardous waste program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and provided for a thirty-day
public comment period. The public comment period closed on October 5,
2018, and EPA received fifteen comments. The EPA has reviewed and
analyzed all submitted comments, and now issues this final rule. After
consideration of all comments, EPA confirms that the program revisions
to the State of Louisiana hazardous waste program satisfy all
requirements needed to qualify for final authorization.

DATES: This final authorization is effective December 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R06-RCRA-2018-0395. All documents in the docket are listed in
www.regulation.gov index. Although listed in the index, some of the
information is not publicly available. e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulation.gov or in hard copy. You can view and copy Louisiana's
application and associated publicly available materials from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following locations:
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, 602 N Fifth Street,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884-2178, phone number<PHONE_NUMBER> and EPA,
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, phone
number<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional
Authorization/Codification Coordinator, Permit Section (6MM-RP),
Multimedia Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, and Email address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. What revisions is EPA authorizing with this action?

    On March 13, 2018, LDEQ submitted a final complete program revision
application seeking authorization of its program revision in accordance
with 40 CFR 271.21. EPA now makes a final decision that LDEQ's
hazardous waste program revisions satisfy all the requirements
necessary to qualify for final authorization. EPA will continue to
implement and enforce Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA) provisions for which the State is not authorized. For a list of
rules that become effective with this Final Rule, please see the
Proposed Rulemaking published in the September 5, 2018, Federal
Register at 83 FR 45061.

B. What were the comments and responses to EPA's proposal?

    EPA received fifteen comments. Twelve comments were supportive of
EPA to grant the State of Louisiana portions of the Subtitle C
Hazardous Waste Management Program and two were irrelevant to the
proposed rulemaking. EPA received a written adverse comment from TD*X
Associates LP, Beaumont Texas, (TD*X) requesting that EPA not authorize
the State of Louisiana to implement the regulatory provisions commonly
known as the ``Verified Recycler Exemption,'' or ``VRE.'' EPA received
only one adverse comment, from TD*X, opposing EPA's proposal to
authorize revisions to Louisiana's hazardous waste regulations. The
full set of comments can be found in the docket for this action. The
commenter asserts that the

Louisiana program that employs both the VRE and the associated Verified
Reclamation Facility (VRF) variance is not protective of human health
and the environment, and does not implement the State's legally
mandated requirement to enforce regulations for the management of
designated hazardous waste materials that are at least as stringent as
the RCRA regulations. TD*X's extensive comments address two issues
related to (1) EPA's proposed authorization of the Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) revised hazardous waste management
program as published in the Federal Register on September 5, 2018, at
83 FR 45061, and (2) Louisiana's April 19, 2018, proposal to issue a
site-specific feedstock variance from the classification as a solid
waste to Thermaldyne LLC--Thermaldyne Port Allen Facility, in
accordance with the Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) 33:V.105.O.1.b
and 105.O.2.b [analogs to 40 CFR 260.30(b) and 260.31(b)] (Further
information about the LDEQ proposal to issue a site-specific variance
to Thermaldyne LLC can be found at http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/public-notices). In accordance with the approval process found at 40 CFR part
271, EPA provides the following responses to comments regarding
authorization of Louisiana's requested program revision:
    1. The commenter stated that EPA Region 6 should either: Not
authorize the LDEQ State program if it includes any of the court
vacated VRE language and conditions; or issue a limited program
authorization that excludes any reference to either the VRE or VRF
variance process. Specifically, the commenter argued that if Louisiana
is authorized, including any of the VRE language, then all references
to LDEQ being allowed to issue a VRF variance should be struck and that
a specific reference or condition should be included in the EPA
authorization requiring that LDEQ not issue any VRF variance for a
``recycling'' facility that employs a treatment method that EPA has
designated as requiring a specific RCRA permit. The commenter also
requested EPA to eliminate the following statement in the Federal
Register at 83 FR 45061 (September 5, 2018), on page 45066, Section G:
``For the purposes of RCRA section 3009, the Agency has determined that
the broader in scope provisions are more protective/stricter, thus
being within the State's authority to maintain them as part of the
State's RCRA program.'' For the reasons set forth below, EPA does not
agree with the commenter.
    EPA did not propose to authorize Louisiana for the VRE requirements
that were vacated by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 862 F.3d 50 (D.C. Cir. 2017) and
Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 883F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 2018). On page 83 FR
45066, column 3 of the proposed rulemaking, EPA specified that the
Agency considers the Louisiana VRE requirements broader in scope than
EPA regulations. EPA further clarified that the LDEQ provisions that
are broader in scope than the federal regulations are not part of the
proposed program authorization because EPA cannot enforce requirements
that are broader in scope, even if compliance with such provisions is
required by Louisiana law. LDEQ may implement these state regulations
because they are at least as stringent as federal law, but because they
are broader in scope than federal law, they are not federally
enforceable. EPA addressed this question in the Final Rule, ``Response
to Vacatur of Certain Provisions of the Definition of Solid Waste
Rule'' in the Federal Register at 83 FR 24664, 24666, May 30, 2018:
``For states that have adopted rules similar to the verified recycler
exclusion and the 2015 definition of legitimate recycling, but have not
yet been authorized for them, the vacatur of the federal rules will not
change the authorization status of the state program. . . . The
vacaturs and subsequent reinstatement of various provisions of the
prior federal rules will result in state provisions that are broader in
scope than the federal program as it pertains to the specific vacated
provisions.''
    With respect to the issuance of variances, if the material receives
an exclusion or variance from being a solid waste, it is by definition
not a hazardous waste and does not have to be treated as such, subject
to any conditions in the exclusion or variance. The State of Louisiana
has the authority to issue site-specific variances from classification
as a solid waste under 40 CFR 260.30(a) through (c) and 260.31(a)
through (c) in lieu of EPA since EPA first authorized the state for the
initial Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) final rule (50 FR 614, January
4, 1985; as amended by the final rules published at 50 FR 14216, April
11, 1985; and 50 FR 33541, August 20, 1985). In accordance with 40 CFR
260.30 and 260.31, the granting of variances for reclaimed materials is
site-specific and the variances are granted on a case-by-case basis. In
granting variances, an authorized state must evaluate the particular
waste material managed and types of processing operations conducted.
Authorized states that implement hazardous waste programs have
reasonable flexibility to evaluate case-by-case situations within their
state.
    Finally, RCRA 3009 states that nothing prohibits a state from
imposing ANY requirements which are more stringent than our rules.
Also, under 40 CFR 271.1(i), states are not precluded from having
requirements that are more stringent or more extensive; or operating a
program with a greater scope of coverage but the greater in scope
coverage is not part of federally approved program. For the purposes of
federal authorization and enforcement, the EPA RCRA hazardous waste
regulations distinguish between these two kinds of allowable state
requirements. While state requirements that are more stringent may be
authorized as part of the state's RCRA program, broader in scope state
provisions cannot be authorized. The preamble of the 2015 DSW rule (80
FR 1694; January 13, 2015) documented in detail the additional
requirements that must be met to qualify for the state's verified
recycler exclusion, compared to the transfer-based exclusion that was
reinstated by the court. EPA stated in the preamble that the changes to
the standards and criteria for variances from classification as a solid
waste discussed in section IX (Revisions to Solid Waste Variances and
Non-Waste Determinations) are more stringent than the existing federal
hazardous waste program, including the transfer-based exclusion (see 80
FR 1732--1735; January 13, 2015). Based on the EPA guidance document,
``Determining Whether State Hazardous Waste Requirements are More
Stringent or Broader in Scope than the Federal RCRA Program'' (December
23, 2014), as discussed in Section G.1 of the proposed rulemaking
preamble, EPA affirms that the LDEQ provisions that are broader in
scope than the federal regulations are not part of the program proposed
to be authorized by the September 5, 2018, Federal Register document
(83 FR 45061). EPA cannot enforce requirements that are broader in
scope, although compliance with such provisions is required by
Louisiana law.
    2. The commenter presented an example involving LDEQ's proposal to
issue a VRF variance to the Thermaldyne facility in Port Allen,
Louisiana, as an example of why EPA should not authorize LDEQ for the
VRE requirements. The commenter stated that the Thermaldyne facility
uses a hazardous waste combustor to treat RCRA regulated listed and
characteristic hazardous waste materials, and that

``the facility embodies all of the aspects of sham recycling that the
1989 Lowrance Memo [RO 11426], and both the 2008 and 2015 DSW
rulemakings were intended to prohibit.'' EPA responds to this comment
as follows:
    Issues regarding individual facilities are beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. The purpose of the proposed rulemaking published at 83 FR
45061, September 5, 2018, was not to evaluate recycling activities at
particular facilities or VRF variance applications. The Louisiana
proposed rulemaking addresses regulations that the state adopted and
EPA reviewed. EPA concluded that the state regulations, except for the
court vacated provisions, are equivalent and consistent with the
federal RCRA Subtitle C program, as amended through April 17, 2015. EPA
reiterates that the Agency determined the Louisiana VRE standard is
broader in scope than the federal regulations and, accordingly, did not
propose to authorize the State of Louisiana for the VRE standard.

C. Final Action

    Based on the comments received in response to the proposed
authorization of the State of Louisiana hazardous waste program, EPA's
responses to the comments, and consideration of the administrative
record, EPA is granting final authorization of the state's program,
except for the VRE and other state provisions which are broader in
scope than federal rules and remain unaffected by the vacaturs ordered
by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, on July 7, 2017, as modified on March 6, 2018. EPA retains its
authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013 and 7003 which include,
among others, authority to: (1) Take enforcement actions regardless of
whether the state has taken its own action, (2) enforce RCRA
requirements and suspend or revoke permits; and (3) perform
inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports.

D. What is codification and is the EPA codifying Louisiana's hazardous
waste program as authorized in this rule?

    Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and
regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste
program into the CFR. We do this by referencing the authorized State
rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272
subpart T for this authorization of Louisiana's program changes until a
later date. In this authorization application, the EPA is not codifying
the rules documented in this Federal Register notice.

E. Administrative Requirements

    This final authorization revises Louisiana's authorized hazardous
waste management program pursuant to RCRA section 3006 and imposes no
requirements other than those currently imposed by state law. For
further information on how this authorization complies with applicable
executive orders and statutory provisions, please see the proposed
rulemaking published in the Federal Register (83 FR 45061, September 5,
2018).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste
transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:  This action is issued under the authority of
sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
as amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: December 18, 2018.
Anne Idsal,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2018-27794 Filed 12-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 03/11/2008 05:55 PM

To

Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

"Schwab, Margo"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject

Faxed change pages look good

Lydia and Karen,

We're comfortable with the change pages you faxed over (5 pages plus cover)

heidi


[Federal Register: December 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 74070-74071]
[DOCID:fr14de05-111]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52922; File Nos. SR-DTC-2005-16, SR-FICC-2005-19, and
SR-NSCC-2005-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company,
Fixed Income Clearing Corporation, and National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes to Require Members
to Purchase Shares of the Common Stock of The Depository Trust &
Clearing Corporation

December 7, 2005.

I. Introduction

    On October 4, 2005, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC''), the
Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC''), and the National
Securities Clearing Corporation filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') proposed rule changes SR-DTC-2005-16, SR-
FICC-2005-19, and SR-NSCC-2005-14 pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'').\1\ Notices of the proposals
were published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2005.\2\ The
Commission received one comment letter in response to the proposed rule
change filed by DTC \3\ and one comment letter in response to the
proposed rule change filed by FICC.\4\ For the reasons discussed below,
the Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 52665 (October 25,
2005), 70 FR 62357 [SR-DTC-2005-16]; 52663 (October 25, 2005), 70 FR
62359 [SR-FICC-2005-19]; and 52664 (October 25, 2005), 70 FR 62364
[SR-NSCC-2005-14].
    \3\ Letter from Stewart A. Levin, Ph.D., Geophysics Research
Fellow, Landmark Graphics Corp. (Oct. 29, 2005).
    \4\ Letter from Kelly S. McEntire, Retired State of Utah
Administrator, (Dec. 6, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (``DTCC'') is a holding
company parent of DTC, FICC, and NSCC. Pursuant to DTCC's current
Shareholders Agreement (``Shareholders Agreement''), substantially all
members and participants of DTC, FICC, and NSCC (collectively
``Participants'') are entitled but are not required to purchase DTCC
common shares. Participants are allocated an entitlement to purchase
DTCC common shares on the basis of their relative use of the services
of DTC, FICC, and NSCC. As of the last periodic allocation of share
entitlements in 2003, approximately 1,100 Participants had a right to
purchase DTCC common shares; however, only 190 Participants currently
own any DTCC common shares and of these only 86 own DTCC common shares
up to the full amounts of their share entitlements.
    DTCC has obtained the consent of its common shareholders to amend
the Shareholders Agreement pursuant to which Participants of DTC, FICC,
and NSCC that make full use of the services of one or more of these
clearing agency subsidiaries of DTCC would be required to purchase DTCC
common shares (``Mandatory Purchaser Participants'') \5\ in accordance
with the terms of the amended Shareholders Agreement while preserving
the right but not the obligation of other Participants that make only
limited use of the services of one or more of the clearing agencies to
purchase DTCC common shares (``Voluntary Purchaser Participants'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Pursuant to the amendments to the Shareholders Agreement, a
Mandatory Purchaser Participant that is a Participant in more than
one clearing agency will be required to purchase DTCC common shares
based upon its relative use of the services of all clearing agencies
of which it is a Participant. For DTC, a Mandatory Purchaser
Participant includes all participants of DTC other than Limited
Participants. For FICC, this term includes Netting Members of FICC's
Government Securities Division. For NSCC, this term includes all
Members other than Mutual Fund/Insurance Services Members.
    \6\ The DTCC Shareholders Agreement marked to show the proposed
amendments is attached to the proposed rule change as Exhibit 3 and
is available on DTC's Web site at http://www.dtc.org/impNtc/mor/index.html, FICC's Web site at http://www.ficc.com/gov/

gov.docs.jsp?NS-query=, and NSCC's Web site at http://www.nscc.com/legal.

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

    Holders of DTCC common shares are entitled to elect all of the
directors of DTCC other than two directors that DTCC preferred
shareholders are entitled to elect.\7\ DTCC common shareholders are
entitled to vote on all other matters submitted to a vote of DTCC
shareholders, and each DTCC common shareholder is entitled to one vote
per DTCC common share. DTCC common shareholders are entitled to
cumulative voting in the election of directors. In addition, DTCC
common shareholders are entitled to receive out of the assets of DTCC,
when and if declared by the Board of Directors of DTCC, dividends
payable in cash or stock or otherwise. However, since DTC, FICC, and
NSCC provide their services to their Participants on a cost-basis with
revenues in excess of expenses and necessary reserves rebated or
provide their services on a discounted basis, as a matter of policy and
practice DTCC does not pay any dividends on DTCC common shares. The
amendments to the Shareholders Agreement will have no effect on these
rights of DTCC common shareholders and preferred shareholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In connection with the 1999 integration of DTC and NSCC and
formation of DTCC, the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') and the
National Association of Securities Dealers (``NASD''), the then
coowners of NSCC, each received 10,000 DTCC preferred shares in
exchange for their NSCC common stock. DTCC preferred shareholders
have no right to vote on any matters submitted to a vote of DTCC
shareholders except that each of the two DTCC preferred shareholders
are entitled to elect one director. DTCC preferred shareholders have
no right to receive any dividends. In the event of any liquidation,
dissolution or winding up of the affairs of DTCC, DTCC preferred
shareholders are entitled to a liquidation preference of $300 per
share of DTCC preferred stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to certain covenants in the Shareholders Agreement, a
person elected as a director of DTCC also serves as a director of DTC,
FICC, and NSCC. The amendments to the Shareholders Agreement will have
no effect on these covenants.
    The system for allocating entitlements to purchase shares in the
Shareholders Agreement was first implemented by DTC with respect to DTC
common shares in 1973. At that time, the bank users of DTC's services
purchased their DTC common shares, but for logistical and other reasons
the NYSE, the NASD, and the American Stock Exchange (``AMEX'')
(collectively ``Self-Regulatory

Organizations'') purchased the DTC common shares allocated to the
broker-dealer users of DTC services that were their members. It was
anticipated that over time as broker-dealers exercised their right to
purchase DTC common shares, the number of DTC common shares held by
broker-dealers directly would increase, and the number of DTC common
shares held by the Self-Regulatory Organizations would correspondingly
decrease, potentially to zero, since the share entitlements of the
Self-Regulatory Organizations were a function of the unexercised share
entitlements of their members.
    Notwithstanding the passage of time and the opportunity afforded
broker-dealer Participants to purchase DTCC common shares, the Self-
Regulatory Organizations continue to hold a significant block of DTCC
common shares. NYSE holds approximately 29% of the outstanding DTCC
common shares, and the NASD and the AMEX each holds approximately 3.7%.
It is also the case that a significant number of Participants other
than broker-dealers have not purchased any DTCC common shares or have
not purchased DTCC common shares commensurate with their share
entitlements. Accordingly, a total of approximately 36.4% of the
outstanding DTCC common shares are not held by Participants but rather
are held by the Self-Regulatory Organizations. Ownership of DTCC common
shares (and previously ownership of DTC common shares) is not a
financial investment but instead is a vehicle for supporting each
registered clearing agency and influencing its policies and operations
through the election of directors.
    By providing that all DTCC common shares are owned by Participants,
DTC, FICC, and NSCC believe that the proposed rule changes \8\ and the
proposed amendments to the Shareholders Agreement will guarantee that
Participants continue to govern and to control the activities of DTC,
FICC, and NSCC, including the services provided and the service fees
charged. In particular, Participants will be in a position to assure
that DTC, FICC, and NSCC continue the practices of establishing fees
that are cost-based and use-based and of returning to Participants in
the form of cash rebates or discounts revenues in excess of expenses
and necessary reserves. Finally, because they introduce the greatest
risks to the clearing agencies and obtain the greatest benefits from
clearing agency services, it is appropriate to require those
Participants making full use of the services of DTC, FICC, and NSCC to
contribute to DTCC's capital through the purchase of its common shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The proposals add a new provision to each of DTC, FICC, and
NSCC's rules that requires Mandatory Purchaser Participants to
purchase and own DTCC common shares in accordance with the terms of
the Shareholders Agreement. The new provisions are DTC Rule 31, NSCC
Rule 64, FICC's Government Securities Division Rule 49, and FICC's
Mortgage-Backed Securities Division Article V, Rule 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Letters

    The Commission received two comment letters.\9\ Both commenters
opposed the proposed rule change. One commenter stated that if DTC
needed to raise capital it should offer the shares to the general
public or participants in DTC's Direct Registration System. The
commenter also suggested that share ownership by DTC participants
provides a financial disincentive for such participants to share
information with the Commission and other regulators regarding criminal
or unethical practices. The other commentator suggested that requiring
participants to purchase common shares in DTCC could be used as a means
to separate small investors from large investors based on their net
assets and subject smaller investors to potential abuse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Supra notes 3 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion

    Section 17A(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that the rules of a
clearing agency be designed to assure fair representation in the
selection of its directors and the administration of its affairs.\10\
The Commission finds that DTC, FICC, and NSCC's proposed rule changes
are consistent with this requirement because the proposed changes serve
to increase the number of Participants that have input in the selection
of DTCC's board of directors and thus the boards of directors of DTC,
FICC, and NSCC. This increased participation of Participants should
help DTC, FICC, and NSCC assure that their Participants have fair
representation in the selection of its directors and the administration
of their affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the proposed rule changes are not to raise capital
for DTC, FICC, and NSCC as suggested by one of the commenters, but
rather to redistribute common share ownership from having a significant
portion held by the Self-Regulatory Organizations to having all shares
held by the Participants in order to increase Participants' role in the
selection of directors and the administration of DTC, FICC, and NSCC's
affairs. With respect to the other commenter's fear that some
``investors'' would not be able to purchase DTCC common shares, neither
DTC, FICC, nor NSCC have been informed by any of their Participants
that they would have difficulty or be unable to pay for the allocation
of shares.

V. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act
and in particular section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\11\ that the proposed rule changes (File Nos. SR-DTC-2005-16, SR-
FICC-2005-19, and SR-NSCC-2005-14) be and hereby is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-7305 Filed 12-13-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 91235-91237]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30254]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79526; File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2016-71]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule
21.5 of Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. To Extend Through June 30, 2017, the
Penny Pilot Program in Options Classes in Certain Issues

December 12, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 30, 2016, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange''
or ``EDGX'') 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
Exchange has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to extend through June 30, 2017, the
Penny Pilot Program (``Penny Pilot'') in options classes in certain
issues (``Pilot Program'') previously approved by the Commission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The rules of EDGX Options, including rules applicable to
EDGX Options' participation in the Penny Pilot, were approved on
August 7, 2015. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75650
(August 7, 2015), 80 FR 48600 (August 13, 2015) (SR-EDGX-2015-18).
EDGX Options commenced operations on November 2, 2015. The Penny
Pilot was extended for EDGX Options through December 31, 2016. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78052 (June 13, 2016), 81 FR
39731 (June 17, 2016) (SR-BatsEDGX-2016-22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, 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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to extend the Penny Pilot, which was
previously approved by the Commission, through June 30, 2017, and to
provide revised dates for adding replacement issues to the Pilot
Program. The Exchange proposes that any Pilot Program issues that have
been delisted may be replaced on the second trading day following
January 1, 2017. The replacement issues will be selected based on
trading activity for the most recent six month period excluding the
month immediately preceding the replacement (i.e., beginning June 1,
2016, and ending November 30, 2016).
    The Exchange represents that the Exchange has the necessary system
capacity to continue to support operation of the Penny Pilot. The
Exchange believes the benefits to public customers and other market
participants who will be able to express their true prices to buy and
sell options have been demonstrated to outweigh the increase in quote
traffic.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ In particular, the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \7\ because it
would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system. The Exchange believes that the Pilot
Program promotes just and equitable principles of trade by enabling
public customers and other market participants to express their true
prices to buy and sell options. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that
the proposal is consistent with the Act because it will allow the
Exchange to extend the Pilot Program prior to its expiration on
December 31, 2016. The Exchange notes that this proposal does not
propose any new policies or provisions that are unique or unproven, but
instead relates to the continuation of an existing program that
operates on a pilot basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard, the Exchange
notes that the rule change is being proposed in order to continue the
Pilot Program, which is a competitive response to analogous programs
offered by other options exchanges. The Exchange believes this proposed
rule change is necessary to permit fair competition among the options
exchanges.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by
its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed or such shorter time as the Commission may designate it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and
paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\9\ the Exchange has
designated this rule filing as non-controversial. The Exchange has
given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (1)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection
of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal 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 No. SR-BatsEDGX-2016-71 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 No. SR-BatsEDGX-2016-71. 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 will also 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 No. SR-BatsEDGX-2016-71 and should be
submitted on or before January 6, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-30254 Filed 12-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Auxiliary 1 Database and Documentation Production Release 5.0.1 Contract No. 68 W 99 002 Task Order No. 007 Product Control No. SDC 0002 007 SK 2011C April 24, 2000 SDC 0002 07 SK 2011C April 24, 2000 AUXILIARY 1 DATABASE AND DOCUMENTATION PRODUCTION RELEASE 5.0.1 CONTRACT NO. 68 W 99 002 TASK ORDER NO. 007 Prepared for:

United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water 401 M St., SW. Washington, DC 20460 Task Order Project Officer:

Edward A. Cottrill Prepared by:

Systems Development Center Science Applications International Corporation 6565 Arlington Boulevard Falls Church, VA 22042 SDC 0002 07 SK 2011C April 24, 2000 iii CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.0 SUMMARY OF FUNCTIONALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.0 DEGREE OF FUNCTIONALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1 Software Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2 Requirements Met . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3 Special Software Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.0 CAUTIONARY NOTES REGARDING THE AUXILIARY 1 DATABASE . . . . . . 6 4.1 Giardia and Cryptosporidium Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2 Total Trihalomethane ( TTHM) Distribution System Measurements . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.0 INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1 Microsoft ® AccessJ Version of the Auxiliary 1 Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 APPENDIX A List of Files and Creation Dates SDC 0002 07 SK 2011C April 24, 2000 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water ( OGWDW) is responsible for implementing the Public Water System Supervision ( PWSS) Program established under the auspices of the Safe Drinking Water Act ( SDWA) of 1974 ( Public Law 93 523) and the 1996 reauthorization of the Act. Two of OGWDW's major responsibilities under the Act are to set national standards for drinking water quality and to ensure that the states that have assumed primary enforcement responsibility are enforcing these standards.

In February 1994, OGWDW proposed an Information Collection Rule ( ICR), requiring certain Public Water Systems ( PWS) to generate and provide the Agency with specific microbiological contaminant and Disinfection By Product ( DBP) monitoring data, general water quality data, and treatment plant design and operating information characterizing their water systems. OGWDW began developing a Data Management System ( DMS) to support the PWSS Program Information Systems Modernization ( ISM) effort. The purpose was to provide contractor support to complete the development of and provide support for the following automated systems:

The ICR Water Utility Database System.

The ICR Laboratory Quality Control ( QC) Database System.

The ICR Federal Database System.

ICR Data Analysis Database 1 ( i. e., Auxiliary 1 Database) and accompanying Query Tool.

These systems are described collectively as the ICR DMS. The ICR Water Utility Database System allows water utilities to report required data via software directly to EPA. The Laboratory QC Database System enables analytical laboratories that are approved to perform sample analyses under the ICR report data directly to the Agency. Capabilities of the ICR Federal Database System include data population, or the capability to upload data from utilities and laboratories to the central database; validation of Sample Analytical Result ( SAR) data, according to standards established by EPA; and support for tracking the approval status of analytical laboratories. SDC 0002 07 SK 2011C April 24, 2000 2 After data are loaded into the ICR Federal Database System and validated, the data must be analyzed by a number of researchers and analysts. The analysts use the ICR data to develop regulations to assure public health protection from disease causing microbes ( pathogens), including cryptosporidium, virus, giardia, and DBPs. The ICR DMS Team was tasked with developing the Auxiliary 1 Database, which stores a subset of data extracted from the ICR Federal Database System. The Auxiliary 1 Database provides researchers and analysts with a smaller, yet still comprehensive, version of the ICR Federal Database System.

This document presents the release notes for Production Release 5.0.1 of the Auxiliary 1 Database.

1.2 Scope The Task Order Project Officer ( TOPO) tasked the ICR DMS Team with delivering the Auxiliary 1 Database ( a Microsoft ® AccessJ database containing all of the Auxiliary 1 Database tables).

The data contained in the Auxiliary 1 Database represents data that were extracted from the ICR Federal Database System using the Auxiliary 1 Database software. The release notes for the Auxiliary 1 Database reflect the amount and scope of the development effort that has completed successful Integration/ Acceptance Testing ( I/ AT).

To support the release of the Auxiliary 1 Database, the Auxiliary 1 Database software was run against the ICR Federal Database System to create an Oracle ® version of the Auxiliary 1 Database. Each table in the Oracle ® Auxiliary 1 Database was exported as an American Standard Code for Information Interchange ( ASCII) text file. Each ASCII text file was imported into a corresponding Microsoft ® AccessJ table to create the Microsoft ® AccessJ version of the Auxiliary 1 Database.

The following data types are stored in the Auxiliary 1 Database:

EntitiesCPersons, places, things, or concepts that have characteristics of interest to the ICR stakeholders ( e. g., TUXSAMPLE). An entity is represented by a table. Each column in the table consists of an attribute, while each row consists of a record or instance.

AttributesCCharacteristics or properties that can be described in terms of a value that entities of a given type possess ( e. g., EVENT_ ID). An attribute is usually a data item containing a single piece of information about an entity instance. All attributes of a given type have the same format, interpretation, and range of acceptance values. An attribute is represented by a column in a table, or entity. SDC 0002 07 SK 2011C April 24, 2000 3

RelationshipsCReasons ( of relevance to the ICR stakeholders) why entities from two entity types are associated ( e. g., one record in TUXSAMPLE may be associated with one record in TUXDBP). A relationship is represented by a named connection or association between entity types that embodies some relevant information of value to an ICR stakeholder and generally characterizes a business rule.

1.3 References The following documents are applicable to this release. They include government, industry, and ICR project documents, standards, specifications, plans, regulations, manuals, and other materials used to develop this document.

Note: The documents are listed in reverse chronological order.

Auxiliary 1 Database and Documentation, Production Release 5.0 Systems Development Center ( SDC); SDC 0002 007 HB 2011B; April 21, 2000

Auxiliary 1 Database and Documentation, Production Release 4.0. SDC; SDC 0002 007 MS 2007; January 7, 2000.

Auxiliary 1 User Documentation, Version 3.0. SDC; SDC 0002 007 EB 1026A; September 22, 1999.

Year 2000 Calendar Date Standard Waiver, ICR, Contract: 68 W 99 002, Task Order 007, Mod: 09, August 12, 1999.

Auxiliary 1 User Documentation, Version 2.0. SDC; SDC 0002 007 EB 1026; July 28, 1999.

Auxiliary 1 User Documentation. SDC; SDC 0002 007 EB 1005B; June 7, 1999.

Auxiliary 1 User Documentation ( Beta Version). SDC; SDC 0002 007 EB 1005A; February 28, 1999.

Project Plan for Information Systems Development and User Support for the Public Water System Supervision ( PWSS) Program's Information Collection Rule ( ICR). EPA SDC; SDC 0002 007 HB 1001A; December 22, 1998.

Information Collection Rule ( ICR) Auxiliary Database 2 Design Documentation. EPA SDC; SDC 0055 083 MS 8008; December 18, 1998. SDC 0002 07 SK 2011C April 24, 2000 4

Information Collection Rule ( ICR) Auxiliary Database 6 Design Documentation. EPA SDC; SDC 0055 083 MS 8012; December 18, 1998.

Information Collection Rule ( ICR) Auxiliary Database 3 Design Documentation. EPA SDC; SDC 0055 083 MS 8009; December 11, 1998.

Information Collection Rule ( ICR) Auxiliary Database 4 Design Documentation. EPA SDC; SDC 0055 083 MS 8010; December 11, 1998.

Information Collection Rule ( ICR) Auxiliary Database 5 Design Documentation. EPA SDC; SDC 0055 083 MS 8011; December 11, 1998.

Information Collection Rule ( ICR) Auxiliary Database 7 Design Documentation. EPA SDC; SDC 0055 083 MS 8013; December 11, 1998.

Final Information Collection Rule ( ICR) Data Management System ( DMS) System Manual. EPA SDC; SDC 0055 083 MH 7035; September 30, 1998.

Chapters 3 through 9 of the Information Collection Rule ( ICR) Data Analysis Requirements Specification. EPA SDC; SDC 0055 083 EB 7031; September 29, 1998.

Technical Summary for the Information Collection Rule ( ICR) Data Extraction Joint Application Design ( JAD) Meeting, August 17 19, 1998. EPA SDC; SDC 0055 083 BN 7027; September 23, 1998.

Primary Auxiliary Database Chapter of the Information Collection Rule ( ICR) Data Extraction Design Specification, EPA SDC; SDC 0055 083 FH 7026; August 21, 1998.

Primary Auxiliary Database Chapter of the Information Collection Rule ( ICR) Data Extraction Requirements Specification. EPA SDC; SDC 0055 083 EB 7022A; July 24, 1998.

Technical Summary for the Information Collection Rule ( ICR) Data Extraction Joint Application Design ( JAD) Meeting, June 15 17, 1998. EPA SDC; SDC 0055 083 MH 7023; July 6, 1998.

Technical Summary for the Information Collection Rule ( ICR) Data Extraction Joint Requirements Planning ( JRP) Meeting, May 19 20, 1998. EPA SDC; SDC 0055 083 MH 7021; June 1, 1998. SDC 0002 07 SK 2011C April 24, 2000 5

Revised Technical Summary for the Information Collection Rule ( ICR) Data Extraction Joint Requirements Planning ( JRP) Meeting, April 14 16, 1998. EPA SDC; SDC 0055 083 EB 7019A; May 22, 1998.

Information Collection Rule ( ICR) Data Extraction Joint Requirements Planning ( JRP) Meeting, February 20, 1998. EPA SDC; SDC 0055 083 MH 7015; March 6, 1998.

Project Plan for Information Systems Development and User Support for the Public Water System Supervision ( PWSS) Program's Information Collection Rule ( ICR). EPA SDC; SDC 0055 083 MC 6043A; August 27, 1997.

IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., IEEE Std 830 1993; April 8, 1994.

2.0 SUMMARY OF FUNCTIONALITY The release of the Auxiliary 1 Database software incorporates all functions listed as requirements in the document, Auxiliary 1 Database and Documentation, Production Release 5.0 SDC; SDC 0002 007 HB 2011B; April 21, 2000.

The files comprising this release of the Auxiliary 1 Database are listed and defined in Appendix A.

3.0 DEGREE OF FUNCTIONALITY This section presents the software limitations noted as a result of the I/ AT efforts of the ICR DMS Team, in response to software changes coordinated and approved through the Change Control Board ( CCB) process. No changes have been made to the Auxiliary 1 Database extraction software since the completion of testing for Release 4.0 on January 7, 2000.

3.1 Software Limitations There are no outstanding SIRs associated with the Auxiliary 1 Database.

3.2 Requirements Met The following activities were conducted to ensure that the Auxiliary 1 Database conforms to all requirements specified by EPA and selected members of the user community: SDC 0002 07 SK 2011C April 24, 2000 6

Representatives of the development team, EPA, the water utility industry, and the analytical laboratories supporting the industry previously refined the requirements in three Joint Requirements Planning ( JRP) sessions and two Joint Application Design ( JAD) sessions.

Requirements continued to be refined and changed through on going CCB activities.

The software development team and Product Assurance ( PA) reviewed each procedure during a formal peer review to ensure that each procedure met the designated requirements.

Detailed test procedures were created, run, and evaluated to verify each testable requirement. Refer to the document, Auxiliary 1 Database and Documentation, Production Release 5.0, SDC; SDC 0002 007 HB 2011B; April 21, 2000 for a more detailed description of test procedures.

3.3 Special Software Considerations There are no special software considerations mandated by the databases.

4.0 CAUTIONARY NOTES REGARDING THE AUXILIARY 1 DATABASE The ICR data have been collected for research purposes and should not be used to make site specific compliance or health assessments. EPA will use this data in aggregate to develop national compliance assessments; therefore, EPA will not emphasize plant by plant analysis. It should also be noted that data content may change with updated releases due to continual modifications and improvements to the data structures. SDC 0002 07 SK 2011C April 24, 2000 7 4.1 Giardia and Cryptosporidium Measurements A measurement result of zero means that no Giardia or Cryptosporidium was found in the sample volume that was analyzed. Zero results do not indicate the absence of Giardia or Cryptosporidium in the source water because the method recovery is low and the amount of sample analyzed is small. In other words, Giardia or Cryptosporidium may be present in source water even if no cysts or oocysts are counted for the sample volume analyzed.

4.2 Total Trihalomethane ( TTHM) Distribution System Measurements Comparisons of ICR data with compliance calculations based on the existing TTHM standard in Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR) Part 141.30 may not be warranted since the average concentration in the distribution system calculated for the ICR data is calculated differently than the compliance average for the current standard. The standard is based on an annual average of public water system quarterly averages and not on treatment plant results.

5.0 INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS The following installation instructions are provided to facilitate the installation of the database:

The Auxiliary 1 Database.

The installation instructions are enumerated by section, corresponding to each database.

5.1 Microsoft ® AccessJVersion of the Auxiliary 1 Database This software is designed to be run under Microsoft ® AccessJ 97 on a Windows 95J Personal Computer ( PC) platform. The Auxiliary 1 Database is delivered on a Compact Diskette Read Only Memory ( CD ROM). The CD ROM is read only; therefore, the Auxiliary 1 Database is also read only. Users will be able to browse the tables on the CD ROM; however, users will not be able to create queries against the Auxiliary 1 Database. The user must copy the Auxiliary 1 Database to a directory on the PC in order to have write access. To install the database:

Decompress the AUX1. ZIP file using WINZIP.

Copy the AUX1. MDB file to any sub directory on the C:\ drive.

Start Microsoft ® AccessJ, open AUX1. MDB.

Under the Tables menu, you will see all of the tables contained in the database. SDC 0002 07 SK 2011C April 24, 2000 8 Note: For the installation to work properly, Microsoft ® AccessJ 97 must be installed. SDC 0002 07 SK 2011C April 24, 2000 APPENDIX A List of Files and Creation Dates SDC 0002 07 SK 2011C April 24, 2000 A 1 Microsoft ® AccessJ Version AUX1. MDB 04 22 2000 This Microsoft ® AccessJ Database contains the Auxiliary 1 tables and reports. SDC 0002 07 SK 2011C April 24, 2000 A 2 This page is intentionally left blank.


[Federal Register: October 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 211)]
[Notices]
[Page 64623-64624]
[DOCID:fr30oc08-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1802-DR]

Kentucky; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-1802-DR), dated October
9, 2008, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 9, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated October 9, 2008, the President declared a major disaster under
the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky resulting from a severe wind storm
associated with Tropical Depression Ike, is of sufficient severity
and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the Commonwealth, and
any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem
appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75

percent of the total eligible costs, except for any particular
projects that are eligible for a higher Federal cost-sharing
percentage under the FEMA Public Assistance Pilot Program instituted
pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 777. If Other Needs Assistance under Section
408 of the Stafford Act is later requested and warranted, Federal
funding under that program also will be limited to 75 percent of the
total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kim R. Kadesch, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
    The following areas of the Commonwealth of Kentucky have been
designated as adversely affected by this declared major disaster:

    Ballard, Boone, Breckenridge, Bullitt, Caldwell, Calloway,
Campbell, Carlisle, Carroll, Crittenden, Daviess, Fulton, Gallatin,
Graves, Hancock, Henderson, Hickman, Hopkins, Jefferson, Livingston,
Lyon, Marshall, McCracken, McLean, Meade, Muhlenberg, Ohio, Oldham,
Shelby, Trigg, Trimble, Union, and Webster Counties for Public
Assistance.
    All counties within the Commonwealth of Kentucky are eligible to
apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-25872 Filed 10-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 12, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70360-70362]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24495]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0909; A-1-FRL-9953-84-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; NH; Regional Haze 5-Year Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of New
Hampshire on December 16, 2014. New Hampshire's SIP revision addresses
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that require
States to submit periodic reports describing progress toward reasonable
progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination
of the adequacy of the state's existing Regional Haze SIP. In addition,
the December 16, 2014 submittal includes a revised regulation that
reduces the total suspended particulate (TSP) emission limit for the
state's sole Tangential-Firing, Dry-Bottom Boiler.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0909. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air
Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston, MA
02109-3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background.
II. Final Action.
III. Incorporation by Reference.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. Background

    States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a
SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress towards the RPGs
for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the state and in each
mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state which

may be affected by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR
51.308(g). In addition, the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) require
States to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress
report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing
regional haze SIP. The first progress report SIP is due five years
after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP.
    On July 19, 2016 (81 FR 46866), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) proposing approval of New Hampshire's December 16,
2014 Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report SIP revision on the basis
that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). The NPR
also proposed to approve, and incorporate into the New Hampshire SIP,
New Hampshire's revised section Env-A 2302.02 Emission Standards
Applicable to Tangential-Firing, Dry Bottom Boilers which had been
revised to include more stringent particulate matter emission limits.
    The specific details of New Hampshire's December 16, 2014 SIP
revision and the rationale for EPA's approval are discussed in the NPR
and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the
NPR.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving New Hampshire's December 16, 2014 Regional Haze 5-
Year Progress Report as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)
and (h). In addition, EPA is approving, and incorporating into the New
Hampshire SIP, New Hampshire's revised section Env-A 2302.02 Emission
Standards Applicable to Tangential-Firing, Dry Bottom Boilers.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of New
Hampshire's regulation described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52
set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available through http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 12, 2016. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional Haze, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 23, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart EE--New Hampshire

0
2. In Sec.  52.1520:
0
a. Paragraph (c) is amended in the table by revising the existing
entries for state citation Env-A 2300; and
0
b. Paragraph (e) is amended by adding a new entry at the end of the
table.
    The revision and addition read as follows:

Sec.  52.1520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) EPA approved regulations.

                                     EPA-Approved New Hampshire Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State        EPA approval date
         State citation              Title/subject     effective date           \1\              Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Env-A 2300.....................  Mitigation of             11/22/2014  10/6/2016 [Insert     Revises Env-A
                                  Regional Haze.                        Federal Register      2302.02
                                                                        citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
  Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

* * * * *
    (e) Nonregulatory.

                                           New Hampshire NonRegulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable            State
  Name of  nonregulatory  SIP        geographic or     submittal date/  EPA approved date \      Explanations
           provision              nonattainment area   effective date           3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Regional Haze Five-Year          Statewide...........        12/16/14  10/6/2016 [Insert
 Progress Report.                                                       Federal Register
                                                                        citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
  Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

[FR Doc. 2016-24495 Filed 10-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62350-62351]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24481]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13579-002; Project No. 14491-000]

 FFP Qualified Hydro 14, LLC; Western Minnesota Municipal Power
Agency; Notice Announcing Preliminary Permit Drawing

    The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications
deemed filed on February 1, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.,\1\ for proposed projects
to be located at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Saylorville Dam and
Lake on the Des Moines River, in the city of Johnston in Polk County,
Iowa. The applications were filed by FFP Qualified Hydro 14, LLC for
Project No. 13579-002 and Western Minnesota Municipal Power Agency for
Project No. 14491-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, any
document received after regular business hours is considered filed
at 8:30 a.m. on the next regular business day. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(2) (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 21, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. (Eastern Time), the Secretary of
the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to
determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this
notice. The Commission will select between the two competing permit
applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.\2\ The
priority established by this drawing will be used to determine which
applicant, between those with identical filing times, will be
considered to have the first-filed application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See id. 4.37.

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

    The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the
Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426. The Secretary will issue a subsequent notice announcing the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
results of the drawing.

    Dated: October 10, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24481 Filed 10-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 216 (Thursday, November 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66980-66982]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26664]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70799; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2013-87]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change Regarding Elimination of the Cancellation Fee From
the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule

November 1, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on October 29, 2013, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the Cancellation Fee from the
NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule (``Fee Schedule''). The Exchange
proposes to implement the fee change effective November 1, 2013. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at www.nyse.com, 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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts 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 eliminate the Cancellation Fee from the
Fee Schedule. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change
effective November 1, 2013.
    The Exchange added the Cancellation Fee to the Fee Schedule in
March 2009.\4\ The Exchange assesses a Cancellation Fee of $1.50 on an
executing clearing member for each cancelled public customer order for
both Mini and standard option contracts (origin code ``C'') in excess
of the number of public customer orders for both Mini and standard
option contracts that the executing clearing member executes in a month
for itself or for a correspondent firm. All public customer orders for
both Mini and standard option contracts from the same executing
clearing member for itself or for such correspondent firm executed in
the same series on the same side of the market at the same price within
a 300-second period are aggregated and counted as one executed order
for purposes of the Cancellation Fee. If an executing clearing member
cancels fewer than 500 public customer orders for both Mini and
standard option contracts in a month for itself or for a correspondent
firm, then the Cancellation Fee does not apply. The Cancellation Fee
also does not apply to cancelled orders, for both Mini and standard
option contracts, that improve the Exchange's prevailing best bid and
offer (``BBO'') at the time the orders are received, or to Professional
Customer orders. The Cancellation Fee was adopted to encourage the
efficient use of the Exchange's system capacity; the Exchange noted
that excessive order cancelling had the residual effect of exhausting
system resources, bandwidth, and capacity.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59658 (March 31,
2009), 74 FR 15569 (April 6, 2009) (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-01).
    \5\ Id. at 15570.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2011, the Exchange adopted Excessive Bandwidth Utilization
Fees,\6\ which have reduced the need to continue to charge the
Cancellation Fee. The Excessive Bandwidth Utilization Fees have two
components, the Order to Trade Ratio Fee and the Messages to Contracts
Traded Ratio Fee. The Order to Trade Ratio Fee assesses a charge of
$5,000 to $35,000 per month on an ATP Holder entering a large number of
orders that do not subsequently execute if the ATP Holder fails to
achieve a certain execution ratio. The Messages to Contracts Traded
Ratio Fee is $0.01 per 1,000 messages in excess of 1.5 billion messages
in a calendar month if the ATP Holder does not execute at least one
contract for every 1,500-5,000 messages entered, as determined by the
Exchange. Both fees target excessive activity by requiring a certain
level of executed orders to avoid incurring the fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64655 (June 13,
2011), 76 FR 35495 (June 17, 2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ATP Holders that become subject to more than one of the three fees
(Cancellation, Order to Trade Ratio, and/or Messages to Contracts
Traded Ratio) in any one month are only charged the highest of the
three fees.\7\ As such, the Exchange believes that it can eliminate the
Cancellation Fee but continue to discourage inefficient activity by
continuing to charge the Excessive Bandwidth Utilization Fees. The
Exchange believes that the Excessive Bandwidth Utilization Fees will
adequately incent ATP Holders to utilize the Exchange's system capacity
in a rational manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See endnote 12 to the Fee Schedule, available at https://globalderivatives.nyx.com/sites/globalderivatives.nyx.com/files/nyse_amex_options_fee_schedule_10_1_13.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. The Exchange believes
that eliminating the Cancellation Fee is reasonable because the
Exchange will continue to have Excessive Bandwidth Utilization Fees
that will discourage inefficient use of the Exchange's system capacity.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is also equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory. The Cancellation Fee only applies to
public customer orders while the Excessive Bandwidth Utilization Fees
are applicable to all of an ATP Holder's activity. The Exchange
believes that retaining a fee that discourages excessive cancellations
and encourages efficient use of the Exchange's system capacity
irrespective of account type (Customer, Professional Customer, Firm,
etc.) will result in more equitable treatment of market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\10\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not intended to address
a competitive issue but rather is intended to encourage efficient use
of the Exchange's system capacity. Because competitors are free to
modify their own fees and credits in response, and because market
participants may readily adjust their trading practices, the Exchange
believes that the degree to which fee or credit changes in this market
may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As a result
of all of these considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposed change will impair the ability of ATP Holders or competing
order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \11\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \12\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

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-NYSEMKT-2013-87 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-NYSEMKT-2013-87. 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 at 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090 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
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEMKT-2013-87, and should be submitted on or before November 29,
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-26664 Filed 11-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		September 18, 2014

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

FROM:	EPA Region 1

SUBJECT:	August 14, 2014, Presentation to National Grocery Manufacturers' Association and Food Marketing Institute's Global Sustainability Summit on Climate Adaptation and Mitigation including Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      On August 14, Regional Administrator Curt Spalding spoke during the National Grocery Manufacturers' Association and Food Marketing Institute's Global Sustainability Summit.  Curt Spalding presented on climate adaptation and mitigation, which included the proposed Clean Power Plan.         ATTENDEES (all by phone) Curt Spalding, EPA

Approximately 20 people attended this conference.  Attendance was not taken by EPA.

Presentation is attached.