Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

05/01/2008 09:39 AM

To

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Brian Heninger

Subject

RE: Updated lead NAAQS benefits chapters

Heidi,

Thanks for the note.   We are walking thru your points now as to previous comments.   I think we tried to address most of them but maybe not adequately.  There will be one or two points we need to discuss to clarify what additional writeup may be needed, I think there is still need for a short conversation on these.

In addition, we do need to understand what you mean by  "Second, how do we propose to sync the key parameters with the rule on

this production schedule?"  Lydia has provided us with what we believe are the tables you are referring to but I am not sure how we need to treat them in the RIA.

Neal & I can be available any time other than 1:00, I am on an interview panel for an hour then.  We can try to rope Lydia in as well but her schedule is obviously fluid today. When can you get together to chat?

Ron

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 05/01/2008 08:36 AM

To

Eileen Pritchard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Lee, Amanda I." <EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Beck, Nancy"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Fraas, Arthur G."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph-J Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mary Henigin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rosalina Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Alan Rush/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathaniel Jutras/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bruce Schillo/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mike Clark/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathalie Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: Updated lead NAAQS benefits chapters

Good morning folks.  Some early-morning comments on a key area for

further work on the Benes Chapter:

In Chapter 5 -- the Benefits Chapter --

First, I did not yet find the language in the introduction reflecting

our agreement of last Friday 4/25, requested again in written comments

from OMB in an email Tuesday 4/29.  The Chapter intro (and include the

same or summary language in Exec Summ) should reflect that the benefits

baseline reflects 2005(?) conditions *not 2020 conditions appropriate

for net bene comparison with 2020 baseline used in the Cost chapter* and

will be re-examined and adjusted to reflect continued declines in Blood

Lead Levels (BLL) expected from Lead RRP Rule as well as through

anticipated to continue to reflect declines in BLL across time in the

US.

Recall OMB had described this as a critical issue for approvability of

the RIA.

The caveat should be carried through to the tables and the numbers to

minimize the potential for these initial draft numbers -- estimated on

an expedited timeline -- are not taken as a best assessment reflective

of 2020 baseline conditions, and in fact are likely to be overestimates.

Please let me know if I've overlooked this language; my apologies if I

have indeed (although my overlooking it suggests that perhaps it could

be amplified somewhat?)

Second, how do we propose to sync the key parameters with the rule on

this production schedule?

Third, we continue to be concerned that there is not co-equal

presentation of the .9 and .88 RRP slope factor in Exhibit 5-5

Also -- I believe we continue to hope to see a stacked bar in Ch 5 as

requested by Margo last week, where the total bar reflects total

benefits broken out by Pb and PM benefits.

Thanks; I'll continue reading -- please don't hesitate to reach out if I

can help clarify, or if I am missing something --

Grateful for your work on this,

heidi

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 4:47 AM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Joseph-J Dougherty;

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Alan Rush;

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Updated lead NAAQS benefits chapters

************************

Eileen Pritchard

EPA/OPEI/OPRM

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Room 3521-C

Mailcode 1804-A

Washington, DC 20460

(202)564-6578

(202)566-0268 - FAX

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS> ----- Forwarded by Eileen Pritchard/DC/USEPA/US on 05/01/2008 04:42 AM

-----

             Kathy

             Kaufman/RTP/USEP

             A/US                                                    To

                                      Eileen Pritchard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

             04/30/2008 04:11                                        cc

             PM                       Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      "Joseph-J Dougherty"

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                       ov>, Lydia

                                      Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mary

                                      Henigin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal

                                      Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron

                                      Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rosalina

                                      Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Alan

                                      Rush"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

                                                                Subject

                                      Fw: Updated lead benefits chapter

Heidi :  By this email EPA is transmitting revised  Chapters 1 through 7

of the Pb NAAQS RIA, as well as  the Executive Summary, to OMB for

review.   Changes have been made in response to OMB's comments are

highlighted or colored in blue or red.

The chapters are attached below.

Your contact on this RIA is Kathy Kaufman, who can be reached on 919 541

0102.

(See attached file: Ch 5 Benefits Analysis Approach and Results

4-30-08.doc)(See attached file: Pb RIA Exec Summ Draft 4-29-08.doc)(See

attached file: Pb RIA Chapter 1 draft 4-29-08.doc)(See attached file: Pb

RIA Chapter 2 Draft 4-29-08.doc)(See attached file: Pb RIA Chapter 3

Draft 4-29-08.doc)

(See attached file: Pb RIA Chapter 4 Draft 4-29-08.doc)(See attached

file: Pb RIA Chapter 6 Draft 4-29-08.doc)(See attached file: Pb RIA

Chapter 7 Draft 4-29-08.doc)

************************

Eileen Pritchard

EPA/OPEI/OPRM

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Room 3521-C

Mailcode 1804-A

Washington, DC 20460

(202)564-6578

(202)566-0268 - FAX

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 193 (Tuesday, October 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60419-60421]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25327]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76054; File No. SR-BATS-2015-78]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Delete
Rule 2.13, Fidelity Bonds

September 30, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'')\1\, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 24, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II 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\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ See 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 is proposing to delete Rule 2.13, Fidelity Bonds, in
order to conform to the rules of EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'') and
EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'').
    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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    In early 2014, the Exchange and its affiliate, BATS Y-Exchange,
Inc. (``BYX''), received approval to effect a merger (the ``Merger'')
of the Exchange's parent company, BATS Global Markets, Inc., with
Direct Edge Holdings LLC, the indirect parent of EDGX and EDGA
(together with BZX, BYX and EDGX, the ``BGM Affiliated Exchanges'').\5\
In the context of the Merger, the BGM Affiliated Exchanges are working
to align its [sic] rules, retaining only intended differences between
the BGM Affiliated Exchanges. Thus, the proposal set forth below is
intended to delete Rule 2.13, Fidelity Bonds, in order to conform to
the rules of EDGA and EDGX in order to provide a consistent rule set
across each of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71375 (January 23,
2014), 79 FR 4771 (January 29, 2014) (SR-BATS-2013-059; SR-BYX-2013-
039).
    \6\ The Exchange notes that BYX intends to file a proposal to
delete its identical Rule 2.13, Fidelity Bonds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, Exchange Rule 2.13(a) states that each Member \7\ required
to join the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (``SIPC'') who
has employees and who is a member in good standing of another self-
regulatory organization shall follow the applicable fidelity bond rule
of the self-regulatory organization to which it is designated by the
Commission for financial responsibility pursuant to Section 17 of the
Act and SEC Rule 17d-1 thereunder (i.e., its Designated Examining
Authority or ``DEA''). Subparagraph (b) to Rule 2.13 simply
incorporates by reference NASD Rule 3020 (now FINRA Rule 4360) in to
Exchange Rule 2.13. Subparagraph (c) of Rule 2.13 states that
references to: (i) An ``Association member'' shall be construed as
references to a ``Member''; and (ii) Article I, paragraph (q) of the
By-Laws shall be construed as references to Exchange Rule 1.5(q).
Lastly, subparagraph (d) to Rule 2.13 states that pursuant to Exchange
Rule 1.6, any Member subject to paragraph (c) of NASD Rule 3020 (now
FINRA Rule 4360), through the application of paragraph (b) of Rule
2.13, may apply to the Exchange for an exemption from such
requirements. The exemption may be granted upon a showing of good
cause, including a substantial change in

the circumstances or nature of the Member's business that results in a
lower net capital requirement. The Exchange may issue an exemption
subject to any condition or limitation upon a Member's bonding coverage
that is deemed necessary to protect the public and serve the purposes
of Rule 2.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A Member is defined as ``any registered broker or dealer
that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See Exchange
Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not, nor does it currently intend to, act in the
capacity of a DEA. Therefore, Rule 2.13 is obsolete as it does not
apply to any of the Exchange's Members.\8\ The Exchange believes that
eliminating Rule 2.13 would avoid unnecessary confusion with respect to
the Exchange's rules because it does not have a direct nexus to the
trading on the Exchange or the relationship between the Exchange and
its Members. Deleting Rule 2.13 would not ease any of the requirements
on its Members that are required to join SIPC as the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') and the New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``NYSE'') serve as a DEA for those Members and include rules with
similar requirements as current Exchange Rule 2.13.\9\ In addition, the
Exchange notes that EDGA and EDGX do not contain a similar rule. As a
result, eliminating Rule 2.13 would also provide for a consistent rule
set across each of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange will submit a rule filing to the Commission to
adopt requirements similar or identical to current Rule 2.13 should
it become a DEA for any of its Members in the future.
    \9\ See FINRA Rule 4360 and NYSE Rule 4360.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change 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.\10\
Specifically, the proposed change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\11\ because it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed
rule change is designed to provide a consistent rule set across each of
the BGM Affiliated Exchanges. As mentioned above, the proposed rule
changes, combined with the planned filing for BYX, would provide for a
consistent set of rules across each of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges.
Consistent rules, in turn, will simplify the regulatory requirements
for Members of the Exchange that are also participants on EDGA, EDGX
and/or BYX as well as result in greater uniformity, less burdensome and
more efficient regulatory compliance and understanding of Exchange
Rules. As such, the proposed rule change would foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities and would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed rule change would eliminate unnecessary
confusion with respect to the Exchange's rules by removing a rule that
has never had a direct nexus to the trading on the Exchange or the
relationship between the Exchange and its Members. The Exchange
believes that Rule 2.13 is obsolete as the Exchange does not, nor does
it currently intend to, act in the capacity of a DEA. Deleting Rule
2.13 would not ease any of the requirements on its Members that are
required to join SIPC as FINRA and the NYSE serve as a DEA for those
Members and include rules containing similar requirements as current
Exchange Rule 2.13.\12\ The Exchange believes that eliminating these
rules will reduce any investor confusion regarding a rule the Exchange
has never applied, nor intends to apply. Further, eliminating
unnecessary and obsolete rules removes impediments to the perfection of
the mechanisms for a free and open market system consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See FINRA Rule 4360 and NYSE Rule 4360.
    \13\ 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
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
notes that deleting Rule 2.13 will align Exchange rules with those of
the BGM Affiliated Exchanges. The Exchange has never utilized this
rule, nor does the Exchange intend to utilize it in the future.
Therefore, the Exchange does not believe that eliminating Rule 2.13
will impose any burden on competition.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial
under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and paragraph (f)(6) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\15\ The proposed rule change effects a change that
(A) does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the
public interest; (B) does not impose any significant burden on
competition; and (C) by its terms, does not become operative for 30
days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest; provided that the self-regulatory organization
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily 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 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-BATS-2015-78 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2015-78. 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 the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2015-78 and
should be submitted on or before October 27, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25327 Filed 10-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION WORKSHEET

PART I: Information Collection Request

This worksheet replaces the previous OMB 83-I form for Information Collection Requests (ICRs).  This worksheet is intended to help ICR preparers transition between the paper 83-I system and use of the Information Collection Request, Review and Approval System (ICRAS) for submitting ICRs to OMB.  This form is not intended for submission to OMB.  For additional guidance on completing this worksheet, please see EPA’s ICR website at   HYPERLINK "http://intranet.epa.gov/icrintra/"  http://intranet.epa.gov/icrintra/ .  There you will find the following documents: OEI’s ICRAS Instructions (under Prepare ICR Package tab) and OMB’s ROCIS IC Q&A (located under the Download Guidance tab), as well as the contact information for your appropriate ICR desk officer.

1. Agency/Subagency originating request:   FORMTEXT  OAR/OAQPS/SPPD

2. Title:   FORMTEXT  NESHAP for Area Sources: Acrylic And Modacrylic Fibers Production, Carbon Black Production, Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds, Flexible Polyurethane Foam Productionand Fabrication, Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing, and Wood Preserving

3. Type of Information Collection (check one):

  FORMCHECKBOX    New collection

  FORMCHECKBOX    Extension of a currently approved collection

  FORMCHECKBOX    Revision of a currently approved collection

  FORMCHECKBOX    Nonmaterial or non-substantive change to a currently approved collection

      (formerly called the 83-C)	4. OMB Control Number (OCN):   FORMTEXT

     EPA ICR Number:   FORMTEXT  2256.01

5. Type of review requested (check one):

  FORMCHECKBOX    Regular

  FORMCHECKBOX    Emergency – Approval Requested by:   FORMTEXT         (mm/dd/yy)

  FORMCHECKBOX    Delegated

(If emergency, please submit justification as a separate attachment)	6. Requested expiration date (check one):

  FORMCHECKBOX    Three years from approval date

  FORMCHECKBOX    Six Months from approval date (maximum for emergency)

       (mm/yy)

7. Abstract (4000 characters maximum, attach additional sheets as necessary):   FORMTEXT  EPA is issuing six national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for seven area source categories. The requirements for two area source categories (Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication) are combined in one subpart. The final standards include emissions limitations and work practice requirements for new and existing plants based on the generally available control technology or management practices  (GACT) for each area source category. Potential respondents include one existing acrylic and modacrylic production facility, no existing carbon black area sources, two existing chromium product manufacturing facilities, 500 existing flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication facilities, 60 existing lead acid battery manufacturing facilities, and 393 existing wood preserving facilities. The total annual responses attributable to this ICR for existing sources are two one-time notifications; some existing facilities may be required to prepare a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and/or conduct an initial performance test. The owner or operator of a new area source would be required to comply with all requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). No burden estimates are provided for new  area sources because no new facilities are expected during the next 3 years.

8.  Citations for Authorizing Statute(s):

 a.   FORMCHECKBOX    Public Law

           Name of law:   FORMTEXT  Clean Air Act

           Citation:    FORMTEXT  42 USC    -    FORMTEXT  7401 et seq   Sec    FORMTEXT  112

 b.   FORMCHECKBOX    US Code

           Name of Law:   FORMTEXT  Clean Air Act

           Citation:    FORMTEXT  42  USC:   FORMTEXT  7401 et seq

 c.   FORMCHECKBOX    Executive Order

           Name/Subject of EO:   FORMTEXT

           Citation:  EO    FORMTEXT

d.   FORMCHECKBOX    Statute at Large

           Name of Statute:   FORMTEXT

           Citation:    FORMTEXT          Stat    FORMTEXT

9. Associated Rulemaking Information (For Rule Related ICRs Only):

  RIN:    FORMTEXT  2060  –   FORMTEXT  AN44                                 SAN:   FORMTEXT  5012                                                        Stage of Rulemaking (check one):

                                                                                FORMCHECKBOX    Proposed Rule

                                                                                FORMCHECKBOX    Interim Final or Final Rule

For a Proposed Rule, OMB will not consider an ICR complete until the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has been published.  OEI will enter this information into ICRAS.

For ICRs associated with Interim Finals that are not significant under EO 12866, please attach a draft of the rule.

10. Federal Register Notices & Comments:

Federal Register Citation (For Non-Rule Related and Renewal ICRs Only):

60-day Notice:    Volume:   FORMTEXT            Page number:   FORMTEXT            Publication Date:   FORMTEXT

(30-day Notice:    Volume:             Page number:               Publication Date  	  	 )

Did the Agency receive public comments on this ICR?     FORMCHECKBOX   Yes    FORMCHECKBOX   No

Unless submitted as an Emergency ICR or Associated with a Rulemaking, OMB will not consider an ICR complete until the 30-day notice

has been published.  The second notice will be published following OEI review and approval of the ICR. OEI will enter this information into ICRAS.

11. Annual Cost to Federal Government:      FORMTEXT  47099.00

12.  Does this ICR contain surveys, censuses, or employ statistical methods?      FORMCHECKBOX    Yes      FORMCHECKBOX    No

(If Yes, please attach Supporting Statement, Part B)

13. Is a Privacy Impact Assessment required by the E-Government Act of 2002 for this ICR?      FORMCHECKBOX    Yes      FORMCHECKBOX    No

(A PIA is needed for a new, electronic collection of information.)

14. Agency Contact:

       Name:    FORMTEXT  Sharon Nizich

       Phone:   FORMTEXT<PHONE_NUMBER>

       E-mail:   FORMTEXT<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

15. Change in Burden:

A.  Program Change Due to a New Statute

If change in burden is a Program Change Due to a New Statute, identify the Citations for the New Statutory Requirements:

a.   FORMCHECKBOX    Public Law

           Citation:    FORMTEXT          -    FORMTEXT          Sec    FORMTEXT

 b.   FORMCHECKBOX    US Code

           Name of Law:   FORMTEXT

           Citation:    FORMTEXT         USC:   FORMTEXT

 c.   FORMCHECKBOX    Executive Order

           Name/Subject of EO:   FORMTEXT

           Citation:  EO    FORMTEXT

d.   FORMCHECKBOX    Statute at Large

  Name of Statute:   FORMTEXT

  Citation:    FORMTEXT          Stat    FORMTEXT

B. Program Change Due to Agency Discretion

If change in burden is a  DECREASE because of a Program Change due to Agency Discretion, please categorize the decrease (select one):

  FORMCHECKBOX    Cutting Redundancy

  FORMCHECKBOX    Using Information Technology

  FORMCHECKBOX    Changing Regulations

  FORMCHECKBOX    Changing Forms

  FORMCHECKBOX    Miscellaneous Actions

If change in burden is a  INCREASE because of a Program Change due to Agency Discretion, please categorize the increase (select one):

           FORMCHECKBOX   Changing Regulations

           FORMCHECKBOX   Miscellaneous Actions

C. Explanation of Change in Burden

Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported; that is, provide a short statement addressing how the reduction in burden was achieved or why the increase in burden occurred. (If you need more space, provide a short summary here and elaborate in the Supporting Statement.)

  FORMTEXT

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION WORKSHEET

Part III: Information Collection Request Completeness Check

Complete this checklist prior to submitting the information collection package to the Clearance Officer.  The Clearance Officer will use the information contained in this checklist, along with other information, to certify the information collection prior to submission to OMB.

The supporting statement (check all that apply):

  FORMCHECKBOX    Identifies the statute or regulation authorizing the collection of the information

  FORMCHECKBOX    Describes efforts taken to avoid the collection of similar information already available, or collected under a different information collection

  FORMCHECKBOX    Describes, if applicable, methods to minimize the burden on small businesses or other small entities

  FORMCHECKBOX    Is written using plain English, and all terminology used is unambiguous and understandable to those required to respond to the collection

  FORMCHECKBOX    Indicates how long records specified in the collection are to be maintained by persons required to maintain the records

  FORMCHECKBOX    Has dedicated resources to ensure the proper use and processing of the information being collected to enhance (as appropriate) the value of the information to agencies and the public.

  FORMCHECKBOX    Indicates the use of a statistical survey method (if applicable) that produces valid and reliable results while minimizing undue burden.

  FORMCHECKBOX    Describes the intended use of information technology to reduce burden and where possible avoid unnecessary system and technology costs.

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION WORKSHEET

Part IV: Certification

Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions

On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with'

5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: 	The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3), appear at the end of the instructions.  The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

	(a)  It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

	(b)  It avoids unnecessary duplication;

	(c)  It reduces burden on small entities;

	(d)  It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

	(e)  Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

	(f)  It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

	(g)  It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3):

		(I)  Why the information is being collected’

		(ii)  Use of information;

		(iii)  Burden estimate;

		(iv)  Nature of response (voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory);

		(v)   Nature and extent of confidentiality; and

		(vi)  Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

	(h)  It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management

                          and use of the information to be collected (see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

	(I)  It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and

	(j)  It makes appropriate use of information technology.

Signature of Program Official

  FORMTEXT

  FORMTEXT        	Date

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Signature of Senior Official or designee

Oscar Morales, Director

                                                                                Collection Strategies  Division

                                                                                Office of Environmental Information	Date

5 CFR 1320.9 reads “As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency (through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify (and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information --

     “(a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

     “(b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

P

5

6

O

P

Q

S

y

z

{

…

瑩ច๣Ѐ…

†

‡

“

”

•

–

›

œ

Ÿ

¥

¦

§

±

²

³

ö

Ö

÷

:

;

I

J

K

y

z

ˆ

‰

Š

Ô

Õ

Õ

Ü

ö

÷

ù

j

jp

摥ច๣h欀

瑩ច๣਀

jo

jã

摧タ؀

íÜÎ½®œ‹yk‹\J<‹*\# hl

N¶

# hl

옍

Æ

N¶

Æ

$

N¶

摧㚙Ä

$

摧㚙Ä

愀Ȥ摧㚙Ä

en on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C § 601(6)), the use of such techniques as:

“(1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond;

“(2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof;

“(3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

      “(d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

      “(e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

       “(f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

       “(g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8(b)(3); [see below]

       “(h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of  the information in a manner  which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

       “(I)  uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and

       “(j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public.”

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3) requires that each collection of information:

        “(3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of:

“(I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of  the agency;

“(ii) the way such information is planned to be and/or has been used to further the proper performance of  the functions of the agency;

“(iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of  the average burden of  the collection (together  with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of  this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden);

“(iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit (citing authority), or mandatory (citing authority);

	“(v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any (citing authority); and

“(vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.”

 PAGE

 PAGE   1

Revised 1/30/2007


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63404-63406]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25321]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68017; File No. SR-NYSE-2012-47]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Section 902.02 of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company
Manual Regarding Waivers for Certain Listing Fees

October 9, 2012.
    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 September 25, 2012, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 902.02 of the New York Stock
Exchange Listed Company Manual.
    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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Listed Company Manual and to
implement the proposed changes immediately upon filing.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 902.02 of the Listed Company
Manual, which currently provides, in part, that Listing Fees are waived
for issuers (i) listing following emergence from bankruptcy; (ii)
listing a class of stock that is not listed on a national securities
exchange but is registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''); or (iii) transferring the listing of any class of equity
securities, any structured product or any closed-end fund from any
other national securities exchange.
    The Exchange proposes to specify that waiver (i) would only be
applicable to an issuer that is listing within 36 months following
emergence from bankruptcy and that has not had a security listed on a
national securities exchange during such period. In addition, the
Exchange proposes to specify that waiver (ii) would only be applicable
to an issuer that is relisting a class of stock that is registered
under the Act that was delisted from a national securities exchange and
only if such delisting was (a) within the previous 12 calendar months,
and (b) due to the issuer's failure to file a required periodic
financial report with the Commission or other appropriate regulatory
authority.\3\ In addition to the substantive changes proposed herein
for Section 902.02 of the Listed Company Manual, the Exchange also
proposes certain non-substantive changes.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As a result, this waiver would no longer apply to an issuer
listing a class of stock that is registered under the Act and (i)
was delisted from a national securities exchange within the previous
12 calendar months for a non-financial-reporting reason, (ii) was
not listed on a national securities exchange within the previous 12
calendar months, or (iii) is being listed on a national securities
exchange for the first time. The Exchange notes that the NASDAQ
Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'') similarly waives the ``entry'' and
``application'' fees for issuers that were suspended and/or delisted
from NASDAQ solely for their failure to file a required periodic
financial report with the Commission or other appropriate regulatory
authority. See NASDAQ IM-5900-5 (Waiver of Fees upon Relisting for
Companies Removed for Late Filings). The Exchange is not proposing
any changes to waiver (iii) to Listing Fees.
    \4\ First, the Exchange proposes to remove obsolete text that
provides that, with retroactive effect from January 1, 2008, issuers
transferring the listing of their primary class of common shares
from NYSE Alternext US (which is now known as NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE
MKT'')) are not required to pay Annual Fees with respect to that
primary class of common shares or any other class of securities
transferred in conjunction therewith for the remainder of the
calendar year in which the transfer occurs. Instead, the Exchange
proposes to include the reference to NYSE MKT with an existing
reference to NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') that similarly provides
that issuers transferring the listing of their primary class of
common shares from NYSE Arca are not required to pay Annual Fees
with respect to that primary class of common shares or any other
class of securities transferred in conjunction therewith for the
remainder of the calendar year in which the transfer occurs. The
Exchange proposes to relocate the combined NYSE Arca and NYSE MKT
reference under the ``Annual Fees'' subheading of Section 902.02 of
the Listed Company Manual, where it is more appropriate. Second, the
Exchange proposes that, instead of using an asterisk to mark the
text that provides that none of the Listing Fee waivers are
applicable to the transfer of any class of securities if the
issuer's primary class of common stock remains listed on another
national securities exchange, such text would be moved within the
main body of text describing the waivers. Additionally, ``transfer''
would be changed to ``listing,'' which would more accurately
describe the process. Finally, the Exchange proposes to correct a
cross-reference to the one-time special charge payable in connection
with the listing of any new class of common shares. The reference
currently states that the special charge is $37,500, but the actual
amount is $50,000, as provided in Section 902.03, under ``Listing
Fee Schedule.'' See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60868
(October 22, 2009), 74 FR 55883 (October 29, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-
83).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not expect the financial impact of this proposed
rule change to be material in terms of the level of Listing Fees
collected from issuers on the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange
anticipates that only a very limited number of issuers will be
qualified and seek to list on the Exchange that are eligible to qualify
for the waivers, as amended. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change will not impact the Exchange's resource
commitment to its regulatory oversight of the listing process or its
regulatory programs.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to waive the Listing
Fees for an issuer within 36 months following emergence from
bankruptcy, so long as such issuer has not had a security listed

on a national securities exchange during such period, because this will
incentivize such issuers to list their security on the Exchange, which
will result in increased transparency and liquidity with respect to the
issuer's security, thereby benefiting investors. In this regard, the
Exchange notes that the issuer, like all other listing applicants,
would be required to satisfy the Exchange's listings standards as well
as the other governance requirements and standards that the Exchange
requires of issuers listed on the Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that it is in the public's interest, and the interest of the
issuer, to provide an opportunity for the increased transparency and
liquidity that is attendant with listing on the Exchange and therefore
that it is reasonable to waive the Listing Fees for such issuers. The
Exchange believes that the number of additional issuers that will
qualify for this waiver, as proposed, will be limited. The Exchange
also believes that limiting the waiver to 36 months following emergence
from bankruptcy is reasonable because, in the Exchange's opinion, it is
a period of time that is sufficient for the issuer to proceed with its
reorganization and meet the Exchange's qualifications for listing.
    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to limit the
waiver to issuers that have emerged from bankruptcy but have not yet
had a security listed on a national securities exchange during such
period because, if an issuer has already listed its security post-
emergence, it has already exposed itself to the requirements and
transparency associated with listing on a national securities exchange,
which is what the Exchange is incentivizing by waiving the Listing
Fees. The Exchange also believes that this is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the goal of the waiver is to
incentivize listing, and the transparency and public benefits (e.g.,
increased liquidity) that is attendant therewith. Accordingly, these
goals would already be achieved for an issuer that has already listed
on another national securities exchange post-emergence, and to waive
the Listing Fees would therefore be inconsistent with the waiver's
purpose.
    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to provide a
waiver of the Listing Fees to an issuer listing a class of stock that
is registered under the Act that was delisted from a national
securities exchange if such delisting was (a) within the previous 12
calendar months, and (b) due to the issuer's failure to file a required
periodic financial report with the Commission or other appropriate
regulatory authority. When the current Listing Fee waiver was added,
the Exchange anticipated that a significant percentage of potential new
listings of companies that had a registered class of common stock but
that were not currently listed on a national securities exchange would
relate to formerly listed companies that were delisted as a result of a
failure to timely file annual reports with the Commission.\7\ The
Exchange anticipated that these would be companies that were otherwise
in good standing with the Exchange or another national securities
exchange, but that fell behind on their Act reporting because their
auditors or the Commission required restatements of their financial
statements and that these companies would relist on the Exchange (or
another national securities exchange) as soon as their filings were up
to date.\8\ When proposed, the Exchange believed that it was
appropriate to waive initial listing fees for these companies and that
such a waiver did not constitute an inequitable or unfairly
discriminatory allocation of fees because such companies would have
previously paid initial listing fees to the Exchange or another
national securities exchange, and that to make them pay these fees
again would further penalize them unnecessarily.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55742 (May 10,
2007), 72 FR 27893 (May 17, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-19).
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange continues to believe that a waiver for issuers that
were delisted for financial reporting reasons is reasonable because,
except for the non-compliance with the financial reporting requirement,
such issuers would otherwise be in good standing at the time of
delisting from a listing standards perspective and would have already
paid a fee for listing on the Exchange or another national securities
exchange. The Exchange also believes that limiting the waiver to 12
months after delisting is reasonable because the waiver would apply to
issuers that were delisted within a relatively recent time frame.
    The Exchange noted, when the current waivers to the Listing Fee
were adopted, that there could be an initial listing on the Exchange of
a company that was trading in the over-the-counter market immediately
prior to listing and that was not previously delisted as a result of a
failure to timely file annual reports with the Commission.\10\ The
Exchange believed that very few of these companies could meet the
Exchange's listing requirements and, therefore, the Exchange expected
the number of such listings and the related loss of fee revenue to be
immaterial.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. at n. 5.
    \11\ Id. In this regard, the Exchange notes that there have been
a number of such issuances. For example, to date in 2012 five
issuers have availed themselves of this waiver by listing securities
on the Exchange that were not previously listed on a national
securities exchange and, therefore, had not previously paid initial
listing fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the changes proposed to this aspect of
the waiver, such that it would no longer apply to issuers that were
delisted for reasons other than financial reporting, is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because these other issuers would not have
been in good standing at the time of delisting from a listing standards
perspective and such lack of good standing would be due to reasons
other than for financial reporting. Similarly, the Exchange believes
that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge Listing
Fees to issuers that are registered under the Act but not previously
listed on a national securities exchange because such issuers would not
have previously paid listing fees.
    The Exchange also believes that this aspect of the proposed change
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because, in addition to
applying equally to all issuers whose securities are listed on the
Exchange, it would differentiate between those issuers whose securities
are delisted solely for financial reporting reasons and those issuers
whose securities were delisted for other reasons or were not previously
listed on a national securities exchange. In this regard, the Exchange
believes that these issuers would not be unfairly penalized if they are
required to pay Listing Fees.
    Overall, the Exchange believes that instances of these waivers
being granted to issuers that apply to list on the Exchange will be
relatively rare. Accordingly, the Exchange does not anticipate that it
will experience any meaningful diminution in revenue as a result of the
proposed waivers and therefore does not believe that the proposed
waivers would in any way negatively affect its ability to continue to
adequately fund its regulatory program or the services the Exchange
provides to issuers.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes that the non-substantive
changes that are proposed, which are technical and conforming changes,
are reasonable because they will ensure that the proposed substantive
changes are incorporated in a clear and accurate manner. These changes
are also

equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they will benefit all
issuers and all other readers of the Listed Company Manual.

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.

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) \12\ of the Act thereunder, because it establishes
a due, fee, or other charge imposed by NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-NYSE-2012-47 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-NYSE-2012-47. 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 Section, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between 10:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m.. Copies of the filing will also be available for Web
site viewing and printing at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. 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-NYSE-2012-47 and should be submitted on or before
November 6, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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. 2012-25321 Filed 10-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19853-19854]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09559]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Advisers Act Release No. 4902/803-00239]

1112 Partners, LLC

May 1, 2018.
AGENCY:  Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    Notice of application for an exemptive order under section
202(a)(11)(H) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers
Act'').
    Applicant: 1112 Partners, LLC (the ``Applicant'').
    Relevant Advisers Act Sections: Exemption requested under section
202(a)(11)(H) of the Advisers Act from section 202(a)(11) of the
Advisers Act.
    Summary of Application: The Applicant requests that the Commission
issue an order declaring it to be a person not within the intent of
Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act, which defines the term
``investment adviser.''
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on January 17, 2017, and
amended on May 8, 2017; September 15, 2017; and March 9, 2018.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the
application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving the Applicant with a copy of the request,
personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the
Commission by 5:30 p.m. on May 25, 2018, and should be accompanied by
proof of service on the Applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for
lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the
Advisers Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's
interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the
matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons
may request notification of a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary.

ADDRESSES:  Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
NE, Washington, DC 20549. Applicant, 1112 Partners, LLC, c/o Ingrid R.
Welch, Esq., Cozen O'Connor, One Liberty Place, 1650 Market Street,
Suite 2800, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James D. McGinnis, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-3025 or Holly L. Hunter-Ceci, Assistant Chief Counsel, at
(202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's
Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's website either at http://www.sec.gov/rules/iareleases.shtml or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicant's Representations:

    1. The Applicant is a recently-formed, multi-generational single-
family office that provides or intends to provide services to the
family and descendants of William Render Ford. The Applicant is wholly-
owned by Family Clients and is exclusively controlled (directly and
indirectly) by one or more Family Members and/or Family Entities in
compliance with Rule 202(a)(11)(G)-1 (the ``Family Office Rule''). For
purposes of the application, the term ``Ford Family'' means the lineal
descendants of William Render Ford, their spouses or spousal
equivalents, and all other persons and entities that qualify as
``Family Clients'' as defined in paragraph (d)(4) of the Family Office
Rule. Unless otherwise indicated, capitalized terms herein have the
same meaning as defined in the Family Office Rule.
    2. The Applicant provides both advisory and non-advisory services
(collectively, ``Services'') to members of the Ford Family. Any Service
provided by the Applicant that relates to investment advice about
securities or may otherwise be construed as advisory in nature is
considered an ``Advisory Service.''
    3. Prior to forming the Applicant, David B. Ford, Jr. was
associated with a third-party registered investment adviser (``RIA'')
that for approximately eleven (11) years managed substantially all of
the advisory accounts of the Ford Family managed or intended to be
managed by the Applicant, and among these accounts were accounts of the
Additional Family Clients (as defined below). Effective as of October
1, 2016, David B. Ford, Jr.'s association with RIA was terminated.
Commencing October 1, 2016, the advisory accounts of the Family Clients
managed by RIA were transition to the Applicant.
    4. The Applicant represents that: (i) Each of the persons served by
the Applicant is a Family Client (i.e., the Applicant has no investment
advisory clients other than Family Clients as required by paragraph
(b)(1) of the Family Office Rule); (ii) the Applicant is owned and
controlled in a manner that complies in all respects with paragraph
(b)(2) of the Family Office Rule; and (iii) the Applicant does not hold
itself out to the public as an investment adviser as required by
paragraph (b)(3) of the Family Office Rule. At the time of the
application, the Applicant represents that Family Members account for
approximately 100% of the natural persons to whom the Applicant
provides Advisory Services.
    5. In addition to the Family Clients, the Applicant desires to
provide Services (including Advisory Services) to the parents of a
spouse of a lineal descendant of William Render Ford (``Parents-in-
Law''), the brother of a spouse of a lineal descendant of William
Render Ford and his spouse and children (``Brother-in-Law'') and
retirement plan accounts of the Parents-in-Law or Brother-in-Law
(collectively, the ``Additional Family Clients'').
    6. The Additional Family Clients do not have an ownership interest
in the Applicant. The Applicant represents that the assets beneficially
owned by Family Members and/or Family Entities (excluding the
Additional Family Clients) would make up at least 90% of the total
assets for which the Applicant provides Advisory Services.
    7. The Applicant represents that the Parents-in-Law and Brother-in-
Law have important familial ties to and are an integral part of the
Ford Family. The Applicant maintains that including the Additional
Family Clients in the ``family'' simply recognizes and memorializes the
familial ties and intra-familial relationships that already exist, and
have existed for fifteen (15) years and that the inclusion of the
Additional Family Clients as members of the Ford Family for which the
Applicant may provide Services would be consistent with the existing
familial relationship among the family members.

The Applicant's Legal Analysis

    1. Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act defines the term
``investment adviser'' to mean ``any person who, for compensation,
engages in the business of advising others, either directly or through
publications or writings, as to the value of securities or as to the
advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities, or
who, for compensation and as part of a regular business, issues or
promulgates analyses or reports concerning securities. . . .''
    2. The Applicant falls within the definition of an investment
adviser

under Section 202(a)(11). The Family Office Rule provides an exclusion
from the definition of investment adviser for which the Applicant would
be eligible but for the provision of Services to the Additional Family
Clients. Section 203(a) of the Advisers Act requires investment
advisers to register with the SEC. Because the Applicant has regulatory
assets under management of more than $100 million, it is not prohibited
from registering with Commission under Section 203A(a) of the Advisers
Act. Therefore, absent relief, the Applicant would be required to
register under Section 203(a) of the Advisers Act.
    3. The Applicant submits that its proposed relationship with the
Additional Family Clients does not change the nature of the office into
that of a commercial advisory firm. In support of this argument, the
Applicant notes that if the Parents-in-Law and Brother-in-Law were the
parents and sibling, respectively of a lineal descendant, rather than
the parents and sibling, respectively, of a spouse of a lineal
descendant, there would be no question that each of them would be a
Family Member, and their retirement assets would similarly fall within
the definition of Family Client. The Applicant states that in
requesting the order, the office is not attempting to expand its
operations or engage in any level of commercial activity to which the
Advisers Act is designed to apply. Although the Additional Family
Clients do not fall within the definition of Family Member, the
Applicant represents that the Additional Family Clients for the last
fifteen (15) years and to this day were and continue to be considered
and treated as members of the Ford Family, and that prior to forming
the Applicant, the RIA had for some time provided services to the
Additional Family Clients. Additionally, the Applicant represents that
the number of natural persons who are not Family Members as a
percentage of the total natural persons to whom the office would
provide Advisory Services if relief were granted would be less than 9%.
From the perspective of the Ford Family, allowing the Applicant to
provide Services to the Additional Family Clients is consistent with
the family's previous experience with investment management services
provided by the RIA and the existing family relationship among family
members.
    4. The Applicant also submits that there is no public interest in
requiring the Applicant to be registered under the Advisers Act. The
Applicant states that the office is a private organization that was
formed to be the ``family office'' for the Ford Family, and that the
office does not have any public clients. The Applicant maintains that
the office's Advisory Services are exclusively tailored to the needs of
the Ford Family and the Additional Family Clients. The Applicant argues
that the provision of Advisory Services to the Additional Family
Clients, who have been receiving Advisory Services from the RIA in the
same manner as other family members for eleven (11) years, does not
create any public interest that would require the office to be
registered under the Advisers Act that is different in any manner than
the considerations that apply to a ``family office'' that complies in
all respects with the Family Office Rule.
    5. The Applicant argues that, although the Family Office Rule
largely codified the exemptive orders that the Commission had
previously issued before the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Commission recognized in
proposing the rule that the exact representations, conditions, or terms
contained in every exemptive order could not be captured in a rule of
general applicability. The Commission noted that family offices would
remain free to seek a Commission exemptive order to advise an
individual or entity that did not meet the proposed family client
definition, and that certain situations may raise unique conflicts and
issues that are more appropriately addressed through an exemptive order
process where the Commission can consider the specific facts and
circumstances, than through a rule of general applicability.
    6. The Applicant maintains that, based on its unusual
circumstances--desiring to provide Services to certain Additional
Family Clients who are relatives that have been considered and treated
as family members for fifteen (15) years and whose status as clients of
the office would not change the nature of the office's operations to
that of a commercial advisory business--an exemptive order is
appropriate based on the Applicant's specific facts and circumstances.
    7. For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant requests an order
declaring it to be a person not within the intent of Section 202(a)(11)
of the Advisers Act. The Applicant submits that the order is necessary
and appropriate, in the public interest, consistent with the protection
of investors, and consistent with the purposes fairly intended by the
policy and provisions of the Advisers Act.

The Applicant's Conditions

    1. The Applicant will offer and provide Advisory Services only to
Family Clients and to the Additional Family Clients, who generally will
be deemed to be, and be treated as if they were, Family Clients;
provided, however, that the Additional Family Clients will be deemed to
be, and treated as if they were, Family Members for purposes of
paragraph (b)(1) and for purposes of paragraph (d)(4)(vi) of the Family
Office Rule.
    2. The Applicant will at all times be wholly owned by Family
Clients and exclusively controlled (directly or indirectly) by one or
more Family Members and/or Family Entities (excluding the Additional
Family Clients' Family Entities) as defined in paragraph (d)(5) of the
Family Office Rule.
    3. At all times the assets beneficially owned by Family Members
and/or Family Entities (excluding the Additional Family Clients' Family
Entities) will account for at least 90% of the assets for which the
Applicant provides Advisory Services.
    4. The Applicant will comply with all the terms for exclusion from
the definition of investment adviser under the Advisers Act set forth
in the Family Office Rule except for the limited exception requested by
this Application.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-09559 Filed 5-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 169 (Friday, August 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53745-53746]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21201]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP13-530-000]

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on August 12, 2013, National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation (National Fuel), 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York
14221, filed in Docket No. CP13-530-000, a prior notice request
pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208, 157.210 and 157.216 of the
Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and National
Fuel's blanket certificate authorized in Docket No. CP83-4-000.
National Fuel seeks authorization to construct approximately 2.05 miles
of 24-inch diameter pipeline, parallel to its existing Line N, and
construct a new 3,550 horsepower compressor station, and appurtenant
facilities, in Washington and Mercer Counties, Pennsylvania. The
proposed facilities would provide an additional 105,000 Dth/day of
natural gas service in response to a shipper request. National Fuel
proposes to abandon in place the existing 2.05 miles of 20-inch, 1947
vintage Line N pipe and hold it for potential future use, all as more
fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission
and open for public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the
Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding the applications should be directed to
David W. Reitz, Deputy General Counsel for National Fuel, 6363 Main
Street, Williamsville, New York 14221 or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is

filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for
filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an
application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with he Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and ill not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable to file
electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or
intervention to the Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: August 22, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-21201 Filed 8-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


TSD-1d

8-h Ozone modeling using the SMOKE/CMAQ system

Bureau of Air Quality Analysis and Research

Division of Air Resources

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Albany, NY 12233

February 1, 2006

Air Quality Modeling Domain

The modeling domain utilized in this application represented a sub-set
of the inter-RPO’s   continental modeling domain that covered the
entire 48-state region with emphasis on the Ozone Transport Region. The
OTC modeling domain at 12km horizontal mesh is displayed in Figure 1 is
part of the 36km continental domain that is designed to provide boundary
conditions (BCs). The particulars of the two modeling domains are:

 The 36km domain covered the continental US by a 149 by 129 mesh in the
east-west and north-south directions, respectively. The domain is based
on Lambert Conformal Projection with the center at (97ºW 40ºN) and
parallels at 33ºN and 45ºN. As evident from Figure 1, the 12km domain
utilized in this analysis covers most areas of the eastern US and has
172 by 172 mesh in the horizontal. Both domains utilize 22 layers in the
vertical extending to about 16km with 16 layers placed within the lower
3km.

Photochemical Modeling -- CMAQ

The CMAQ (version 4.5.1) with CB4 chemistry, aerosol module for PM2.5
and RADM cloud scheme was utilized in this study. Photochemical modeling
was performed with the CCTM software that is part of the CMAQ modeling
package. Version 4.5.1 of this modeling software was obtained from the
CMAS modeling center at   HYPERLINK "http://www.cmascenter.org"
http://www.cmascenter.org . The following module options were used in
compiling the CCTM executable:

Horizontal advection: yamo

Vertical advection: yamo

Horizontal diffusion: multiscale

Vertical diffusion: eddy

Plume-in-Grid: non operational

Gas phase chemical mechanism: CB-4

Chemical solver: EBI

Aerosol module: aero3

Process analysis: non operational

The following computational choices were made during compilation:

Compiler version: PGI 6.0

Fortran compiler flags:-Mfixed -Mextend -Bstatic -O2 -module ${MODLOC}
-I.

C compiler flags: -v -O2 -I${MPICH}/include

IOAPI library: version 3.0

NETCDF library: version 3.6.0

Parallel processing library version: mpich 1.2.6

Static compilation on 32-bit system

The following choices were made for running the executable:

Number of processors: 8

Domain decomposition for parallel processing: 4 columns, 2 rows

Number of species written to the layer-1 hourly-average concentration
output (ACONC) file: 39 (O3, NO, CO, NO2, HNO3, N2O5, HONO, PNA, PAN,
NTR, NH3, SO2, FORM, ALD2, PAR, OLE, ETH, TOL, XYL, ISOP, ASO4I, ASO4J,
ANO3I, ANO3J, ANH4I, ANH4J, AORGAI, AORGAJ, AORGPAI, AORGPAJ, AORGBI,
AORGBJ, AECI, AECJ, A25I, A25J, ACORS, ASEAS, ASOIL)

Each daily simulation was performed for 24 hours starting at 05:00 GMT
(00:00 EST)

The following postprocessing steps were performed using utility tools
from the “ioapi” software package obtained from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.baronams.com/products/ioapi/AA.html#tools"
http://www.baronams.com/products/ioapi/AA.html#tools :

Extract and combine the following species for each hour for the first 16
model layers from the full 3-D instantaneous concentration output file:
O3, CO, NO, NO2, NOY_1 (=NO + NO2 + PAN + HNO3), NOY_2 (=NO + NO2 + PAN
+ HNO3 + HONO + N2O5 + NO3 + PNA + NTR), HOX (=OH + HO2), VOC (=2*ALD2 +
2*ETH + FORM + 5*ISOP + 2*OLE + PAR + 7*TOL + 8*XYL), ISOP, PM2.5
(=ASO4I + ASO4J + ANO3I + ANO3J + ANH4I + ANH4J + AORGAI + AORGAJ +
1.167*AORGPAI + 1.167*AORGPAJ + AORGBI + AORGBJ + AECI + AECJ + A25I +
A25J), PM_SULF (=ASO4I + ASO4J), PM_NITR (=ANO3I + ANO3J), PM_AMM
(=ANH4I + ANH4J), PM_ORG_SA (=AORGAI + AORGAJ), PM_ORG_PA
(=1.167*AORGPAI + 1.167*AORGPAJ), PM_ORG_SB(=AORGBI + AORGBJ),
PM_ORG_TOT (=AORGAI + AORGAJ + 1.167*AORGPAI + 1.167*AORGPAJ + AORGBI +
AORGBJ), PM_EC (=AECI + AECJ), PM_OTH (=A25I + A25J), PM_COARS (=ACORS +
ASEAS + ASOIL), SO2, HNO3, NH3, H2O2

Extract all species for all model layers for the last hour of each daily
instantaneous concentration output file to enable “hot” restarts of
modeling simulations

Create daily files of hourly running-average 8-hr ozone concentrations
with time stamps assigned to the first hour of the averaging interval

The following files are archived on LTO2 computer tapes (each tape holds
approximately 200 Gb of data) for each day:

Aerosol/visibility file

Layer-1 hourly-average concentration output file (contains 39 species)

Dry deposition file

Wet deposition file

Extracted 16-layer species file

Restart file (last hour of full 3-D instantaneous concentration file)

Hourly 8-hr concentration file

Photolysis Rates

One of the inputs to CMAQ is the photolysis rates. In this study,
photolysis rate lookup tables were generated for each day of 2002 with
the JPROC software that is part of the CMAQ modeling package. This
software was obtained from the CMAS modeling center at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cmascenter.org"  http://www.cmascenter.org . Rather than
using climatological ozone column data, daily ozone column measurements
from the NASA Earthprobe TOMS instrument were downloaded from
HYPERLINK "ftp://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/eptoms/data/ozone/Y2002/"
ftp://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/eptoms/data/ozone/Y2002/  and used as input
to the JPROC processor. It should be noted that TOMS data were missing
for the time period from August 3 – 11, 2002. The missing period was
filled as follows-- TOMS data file for August 2 was used as JPROC input
for August 3rd through August 7th, and the TOMS data file for August
12th was used as JPROC input for August 8th through August 11th.

Boundary Conditions (BCs)

The boundary conditions for the 12km grid were extracted from the 36km
CMAQ simulation. The 36km simulation utilized boundary conditions that
were based on a one-way nest approach to GEOS-CHEM global model outputs
(Moon and Byun 2004, Baker 2005).  As stated above, the intent of the
36km CMAQ simulation was to provide the BCs for the 12km model that
would be more reflective of the emissions and meteorology rather than to
use either clean or arbitrary pollutant fields. Also, in this study the
CMAQ simulations utilized a 15-day ramp-up period, thereby minimizing
the propagation of the boundary fields into the areas of concern. A
report on the setup and application of the 36km CMAQ and the extraction
of the BCs is available from NYSDEC.

Meteorological data

The meteorological data for this study was based on MM5 modeling (see
Meteorological Modeling, 2007). The MM5 fields are then processed by
MCIP version 3.0, a utility available as part of the CCTM software from
CMAS Modeling Center (see   HYPERLINK "http://www.cmascenter.org"
http://www.cmascenter.org ) to provide CMAQ model-ready inputs.

Emissions

The emissions data for 2002 were generated by individual states within
the OTR and were assembled and processed through the Mid Atlantic
Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU), a Regional Planning Organization
(RPO). These emissions were then processed by NYSDEC using SMOKE
processor to provide CMAQ compatible inputs (Anthro-Emissions 2006). The
2002 emissions for the non-OTR areas within the modeling domain were
obtained from the corresponding RPOs and were processed using SMOKE, in
a manner similar to that of the OTR.emissions. Details of this
processing are outlined in the report (Pechan 2007), and the hourly
biogenic emissions (Bio-Emissions, 2006)

CMAQ simulations

CMAQ simulations were performed using the one-way nesting approach in
which we perform the continental CMAQ simulation at 36km grid spacing.
For this simulation we utilized clean initial conditions with boundary
conditions extracted from the simulation of GEOS-CHEM global chemical
model. The interface program used in this application was   developed by
University of Huston (Moon and Byun 2004), which was applied to obtain
hourly 36km boundary concentrations from GEOS-CHEM outputs. The CMAQ
36km simulation was initiated from December 15, 2001 with the first 15
days as spin up period and terminated on December 31, 2002. The
simulation utilized the 2002 emissions data available from the RPOs and
2002 MM5 meteorological fields developed by the University of Maryland
(TSD-1a). The hourly boundary fields for the 12km CMAQ domain were
obtained by application of BCON program to the 3-D concentration fields
generated by the 36km CMAQ simulation.

The 12km simulations for both base and future year were assigned the
boundary conditions based on the 36km CMAQ simulation and clean initial
conditions. The simulation period covered was from April 15 through
September 30, with the first 15 days of April set as ramp-up or spin-up
period and that only data from May 1 through September 30 were used in
the analysis. Details on CMAQ setup and run scripts are available from
NYSDEC.

References

Baker, K.: (2005)    HYPERLINK
"http://www.ladco.org/tech/photo/present/ozone.pdf"
http://www.ladco.org/tech/photo/present/ozone.pdf

Moon, N. and D. Byun: (2004) A simple user’s guide for
“geos2cmaq”code: Linking CMAQ with GEOS-CHEM. Version 1.0. Institute
for Multidimensional Air quality Studies (IMAQS), University of Houston,
Houston TX.

Meteorological Modeling: (2007) Meteorological Modeling using Penn
State/NCAR 5th Generation Mesoscale Model (MM5). TSD-1a

Pechan: (2006) Technical Support document for 2002 MANE-VU SIP Modeling
inventories, version 3. Prepared by E. H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. 3622
Lyckan Parkway, Suite 2005, Durham, NC 27707.

Bio-Emissions: (2006) Processing of Biogenic Emissions for OTC/MANE-VU
Modeling. TSD-1b

Anthro-Emissions: (2006) Emission Processing for the Revised 2002 OTC
Regional and Urban 12 km Base Case Simulations. TSD-1c

 Figure 1	Display of 36- and 12km air quality modeling domains.

 PAGE

 PAGE   6


  < ED STN%

~~~~~~ E~ . I ' /' a UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY OPP'F" NC/ C REGION 111 . a .1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 2029 .., .. . . ~ . # ... . .

.. .. . .. .. t. I,

Theodore J; Gordon . . I ,

Senior Deputy Director ... ., .. JUN ' i I . ,. . . for Public Health Assurance... .. . .. District of ColumbiaDepartment of Health .. ,. . ..

825 N.. Capital St., NE .

Washington,. D. C. 20002. ,( .. .

Dear Mr. Gordon: I EPA has reviewed the District of Columbia's ( District) Lead Program Autkorizatiw . Package stnd has stated on several occasions ( EPA's October 1999 and February 200Fr . .~ Authorization comment letters) its concern over the adequacy of the District's civil and criminal penalty authorities as compared to EPA's penalty authority under Section 16of the Toxic, . Subststnce Control Act, 15 U. S. C. 9 2615. Section 16 of TSCA allows far civil and criminal. .,,, penalties up to $ 25,000 a day per violation or in the case of criminal acts imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. TheDistrict's civil and criminal fineand pkalty amounts are substantidly lower than EPA's and are the lowest penalty amountsfor any ofthe state authorized lead programs in the region. Based 1990US. census data, the District ranksas the third largest city in the region. with regards to number of housing units estbnated to contain lead based paint and the third highest with respect to the number of children below age six ( the age up to which children are most susceptible to lead poisoning and may, suffer them& developmental damage from lead exposure) residing in the city. .. II I LI I. EPA has previously recommended that the District furtheridevelopand strengthen its Schedule of Fines Classes of Infractions ( Classes 1through5 ) to further specify typesand levels of violations with a range of penalty amounts within a minimumto maximum penalty authority in order to address the many different types of violations that pose apotential threat to human health. This range would enable the District to issue penalties that are commensurate~ with the level of ham or endangerment that may occq due to the violation, and provide penalties at levels that provide adequate enforcement and are more likely to deter potential violators. EPA strongly urges all states and the District to set their penalty amounts at levels that are as protective of human health and the environment as the federal program. Other states with similar enforcement deficiencies in their proposed lead programs are currently working with their legislators to change their penalty amounts.

For example, under the District's Class 2 Infractions, applying lead based paints or glazes to a surface, which can result in a direct lead exposure to the public, may result in a low penalty amountof only $ 500 for a first time offense which is not commensuratewith the potential hann to human health. The same is true for other activities listed in the District's Class '

2 Infractions that are not commensurate with the potential of harm to human health and the ~ 3 Printed on 100% recycled+ ecyclable paper with 100% post consumerfiber and process chlorinefrea Customer Service Hotline: 1 800 438 2474 I environment such as failure to obtain certificationbefore conducting a lead based paint activity; selling or offering for sale, transfemng, delivering or transfening an articletintendedforuse by chldren that has lead based paint or glaze applied to it. Additionally, the District s Class 4 Infraction category where an improper work practice by a lead worker can pose a direct threat to human health and the environment represents another example of how the $ 50 penalty for a first time offender is not commensurate with the potential for harm. Damage caused by some improper work practices at a lead abatement site, such as lack of containment of lead paint dust, can pose an immediate threat or endangerment to human health, especially to young children who are most vulnerable to the adverse effects of lead exposure. Children exposed to lead can have physical health and brain developmental problems which can adversely affect them throughout their lives. Penalty amounts such as the amounts listed in the District s Class 1 Infractions ($ 1,000 for the first offense ) or higher may be more appropriate for the type of violations mentioned above for Class2 and 4 Inkactions.

In addition to providing a deterrent to potential violators to reduce the potential threat to human health and the environment, the District should consider other factors in determining ,

appropriate penalty amounts for its program, such as costs to documerit and conduct administrative and enforcement activities, and costs for the health and educational care of a child who has been adversely affected by lead poisoning. Over the past decade, both the U. S. Housing and Urban Development ( HUD) and the Center for Disease Control have provided estimated amounts of money saved by reducing the levels of lead in children s blood. In HUD s report   Putting the Pieces Together  ( July 1995, HUD  1547 L. P.), HUD estimated that additional costs for medical care can be $ 1,800 and special educational needs can be $ 4,000 a year for each child with blood lead poisoning above 25 pg/ dl. HUD estimated that preventing anincrease of 1pg/ dl of lead in a child s blood can increase a child s hture income capabilities by $ 1,350 per person. Additional studies have recently been published by other researchers on the increased economical benefits of reducing childhood exposure to lead which can be provided to the District at its request. Lastly, the cost of training, testing, licensing, and permitting lead business entities together with the District s fee application levels are higher than the District s proposed Class 2 Inkaction penalties, which inherently creates an incentive for non compliance.

With the above information in mind, EPA strongly urges the District to consider increasing its penalty amounts with regard to its lead program for approval. Both myself and my staff are available to furtherdiscuss this issue with you.

2 *

J. ,

HP If you have additional questions or concerns, please contact Roberta Riccio, Regional Lead Program Coordinator at ( 215 ) 814 3107or LouisRamalho, Assistant Regional Counsel at ( 215) 814 2681.. Sincerely,

James J. Burke, Director Waste and Chemicals Management Division cc: Dr. Lynette Stokes, DC DOH Cheryl Amisial, DC DOH Louis Ramalho, EPA Roberta Riccio, EPA 3


[Federal Register: November 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 221)]
[Notices]
[Page 69755]
[DOCID:fr17no05-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD05-13-000]

Joint Boards on Security Constrained Economic Dispatch; Notice
Announcing the Agenda for the West Joint Board Meeting

November 9, 2005.
    On September 30, 2005, the Commission announced its intention to
hold initial joint board meetings.\1\ These joint board meetings are
being held pursuant to section 1298 of the Energy Policy Act of
2005,\2\ which added section 223 to the Federal Power Act (FPA).\3\ FPA
section 223 requires the Commission to convene joint boards on a
regional basis pursuant to FPA section 209 ``to study the issue of
security constrained economic dispatch for the various market
regions,'' ``to consider issues relevant to what constitutes `security
constrained economic dispatch' and how such a mode of operating * * *
affects or enhances the reliability and affordability of service,'' and
``to make recommendations to the Commission.'' Subsequently, three
notices were issued providing details on the joint boards and the joint
board meetings.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Joint Boards on Security Constrained Economic Dispatch, 112
FERC ] 61,353 (2005) (September 30 Order).
    \2\ Pub. L. No. 109-58, Sec.  1298, 119 Stat. 594, 986 (2005).
    \3\ 16 U.S.C. 824 et seq. (2000).
    \4\ The three notices were issued on October 14, 21 and 27,
2005, in accordance with the September 30 Order. The first notice
announced the locations and other details for the joint board
meetings. The second notice provided a list of the members of each
joint board. A third notice provided hotel information for the joint
board meetings for the PJM/MISO and Northeast regions and noted that
the Province of Manitoba was participating as an observer in the
PJM/MISO joint board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice provides the agenda for the initial joint board meeting
for the West region scheduled for Sunday, November 13, 2005 from 1 p.m.
to 5 p.m. (Pacific Time) in the Emerald Conference Room at Renaissance
Esmeralda Resort and Spa, 44-400 Indian Wells Lane, Indian Wells,
California 92210-9971. Attire for the meeting is business casual.
    Attachment A of this notice contains the agenda for the West joint
board meeting. Attachment B lays out a list of objectives/issues that
the joint board will discuss to prepare the report due to Congress.
    At the meeting, microphones will be made available to allow members
of the audience to participate during a portion of the joint board's
discussion as noted on the agenda. Electronic copies of presentation
materials will be made available on the Commission Web site http://www.ferc.gov
 as they are received.

    A free Webcast of this event is available through http://www.ferc.gov.
 Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this

event can do so by navigating to http://www.ferc.gov's Calendar of

Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain
a link to its Webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical
support for the Webcasts; and offers access to the open meetings via
television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have
any questions, visit http://www.CapitolConnection.org or contact

Danelle Perkowski or David Reininger at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Transcripts of the meeting will be immediately available from Ace
Reporting Company<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-336-6646) for a fee. They will
be available for the public on the Commission's eLibrary system seven
calendar days after FERC receives the transcript.
    Comments related to the meeting may be filed in the captioned
docket no later than December 5, 2005. The comments will be publicly
available for review in the Commission's e-Library.
    For more information about the meeting, please contact Sarah
McKinley at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6336 Filed 11-16-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P