[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 7, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54620-54623]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19295]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0390; FRL-10122-01-OCSPP]

Oxirane, 2-(phenoxymethyl)-, polymer with oxirane, monobutyl
ether, block; Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of Oxirane, 2-(phenoxymethyl)-, polymer
with oxirane, monobutyl ether, block, when used as an inert ingredient
in a pesticide chemical formulation. Spring Regulatory Sciences (SRS)
on behalf of Stepan Company (Stepan) submitted a petition to EPA under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation
eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of Oxirane, 2-(phenoxymethyl)-, polymer with oxirane,
monobutyl ether, block, on food or feed commodities.

DATES: This regulation is September 7, 2022. Objections and requests
for hearings must be received on or before November 7, 2022, and must
be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part
178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0390, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room and the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For the latest
status information on EPA/DC services, docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Registration
Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

C. Can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0390 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
November 7, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0390, by one of
the following methods.

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of July 20, 2022 (87 FR 43232) (FRL-9410-
03-OCSPP), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21
U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-
11645) filed by Spring Regulatory Sciences (SRS) on behalf of Stepan
Company (Stepan), 22 W Frontage Rd., Northfield, IL 60093. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Oxirane, 2-
(phenoxymethyl)-, polymer with oxirane, monobutyl ether, block; CAS
Reg. No.1010819-15-4. That document included a summary of the petition
prepared by the petitioner and solicited comments on the petitioner's
request. The Agency did not receive any comments.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and use in residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . '' and
specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Oxirane, 2-(phenoxymethyl)-, polymer
with oxirane, monobutyl ether, block, conforms to the definition of a
polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria
that are used to identify low-risk polymers.
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize: An
adequate biodegradation study (MRID 51712402) was submitted for
Oxirane, 2-(phenoxymethyl)-, polymer with oxirane, monobutyl ether,
block, showing lack of biodegradation.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable
TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 Daltons.
    7. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties
consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as listed in 40 CFR
723.250(d)(6).
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
    The polymer's number average MW of 2300 is greater than 1,000 and
less than 10,000 Daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric
material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW
1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive functional groups.
    Thus, Oxirane, 2-(phenoxymethyl)-, polymer with oxirane, monobutyl
ether, block, meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low
risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in
this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary,
inhalation, or dermal exposure to Oxirane, 2-(phenoxymethyl)-, polymer
with oxirane, monobutyl ether, block.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that Oxirane, 2-(phenoxymethyl)-, polymer
with oxirane, monobutyl ether, block, could be present in all raw and
processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-
occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW
of Oxirane, 2-(phenoxymethyl)-, polymer with oxirane, monobutyl ether,
block, is 2300 Daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be
poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through
intact human skin. Since Oxirane, 2-(phenoxymethyl)-, polymer with
oxirane, monobutyl ether, block, conform to the criteria that identify
a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns

for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are
reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is
not necessary to protect the public health.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.'' EPA has not found Oxirane, 2-
(phenoxymethyl)-, polymer with oxirane, monobutyl ether, block, to
share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and
Oxirane, 2-(phenoxymethyl)-, polymer with oxirane, monobutyl ether,
block, does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA
has assumed that Oxirane, 2-(phenoxymethyl)-, polymer with oxirane,
monobutyl ether, block, does not have a common mechanism of toxicity
with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to
determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to
evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at
https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes
that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and
children. Due to the expected low toxicity of Oxirane, 2-
(phenoxymethyl)-, polymer with oxirane, monobutyl ether, block, EPA has
not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same
reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of Oxirane, 2-(phenoxymethyl)-, polymer
with oxirane, monobutyl ether, block.

VIII. Other Considerations

Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of Oxirane, 2-
(phenoxymethyl)-, polymer with oxirane, monobutyl ether, block, from
the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition,
this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

XI. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 1, 2022.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.960, by adding, in alphabetical order, the polymer
``Oxirane, 2-(phenoxymethyl)-, polymer with oxirane, monobutyl ether,
block, minimum number average molecular weight (in amu), 2300 Daltons''
to the table to read as follows:

Sec.  180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

                        Table 1 to Sec.   180.960
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Oxirane, 2-(phenoxymethyl)-, polymer with     CAS Reg. No. 1010819-15-4.
 oxirane, monobutyl ether, block, minimum
 number average molecular weight (in amu),
 2300 Daltons.............................

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-19295 Filed 9-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39993-39997]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17860]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0430; FRL-9966-07-OAR]

Notice of Intent To Establish Voluntary Criteria for Radon
Credentialing Organizations

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Notice of availability; opening of a 60-day public comment
period.

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

SUMMARY: Since 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
administered a statutorily-mandated program under the Indoor Radon
Abatement Act to reduce exposure to indoor radon by promoting
awareness, testing, installation of radon mitigation systems in
existing homes, and use of radon-resistant new construction techniques.
EPA works with state programs, industry and the public to reduce human
exposure to radon and thereby reduce deaths due to lung cancer. Access
to quality service providers responsible for measuring indoor radon
levels and conducting mitigation when necessary is essential to this
mission. Historically, EPA operated a program, the Radon Proficiency
Program (RPP), to identify qualified radon service providers, a service
to assist consumers and states receiving indoor radon grants. Upon its
discontinuation, two organizations qualified to be designated as
responsible parties for credentialing radon service providers in the
absence of a state-run process established under a state's regulatory
requirements. Since that time, there has not been an ongoing and open
evaluation process for organizations wanting to credential radon
service providers. As the Federal agency responsible for implementing
the national radon program, and in response to the needs of our state
and private partners, EPA intends to establish voluntary criteria
outlining a standard of competence for organizations that credential
radon service providers. This notice provides interested parties with
an opportunity to provide feedback on the Agency's proposed approach.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 23, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0430, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katrin Kral, Indoor Environments
Division, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air 6609T, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460;
202-343-9454<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This notice is directed to stakeholders working to reduce exposure
to indoor radon. It may, however, be of particular interest to those
involved with promoting and/or conducting testing and installation of
radon mitigation systems, including, but not limited to:
     Organizations credentialing radon service providers and
other building construction and/or maintenance related providers.
     Radon service providers.
     Organizations who provide third-party accreditation to the
ISO/IEC 17024:2012.
     Organizations representing state health and environmental
programs, green building initiatives, and the radon services industry.
     State radon programs.
     Federal agencies who own, influence or control housing.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the notice by docket number, subject heading,
Federal Register date and page number.
     Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by including a specific reference.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow it to be
reproduced.
     Illustrate your concerns with specific examples and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

C. How can I learn more about this?

    To learn more, please visit www.epa.gov/radon. Depending on
interest and questions received, EPA may host a question and answer
session via webinar during the comment period. Please visit the Web
site regularly for updates.

D. Description of Terms Used in This Notice

    Accreditation: Third party validation that a conformity assessment
body complies with established standards. Under the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO), accreditation refers to the
formal recognition by an independent body, generally known as an
accreditation body, that a conformity assessment body operates
according to international standards.
    Accreditation Body/Organization: Authoritative body that performs
accreditation.
    Certification: The provision by an independent body of written
assurance (a certificate) that the product, personnel, service or
system in question meets specific requirements.
    Certification Scheme: Component of ISO/IEC 17024:2012 that outlines
competence and other requirements related to specific occupational or
skilled categories of persons including a scope of certification, job
and task description (JTA), abilities (when applicable), prerequisites
(when applicable), and a code of conduct (when applicable). Criteria
for the initial certification and recertification must be part of the
scheme and includes a description of the assessment methods, and the
criteria for suspending and withdrawing the certification.
    Competence: Ability to apply knowledge and skills to achieve
intended results.
    Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD):
501(c)(3) nonprofit non-governmental professional organization
dedicated to radiation protection. CRCPD's primary membership is made
up of radiation professionals in state and local government that
regulate the use of radiation sources.
    Credential: Recognition of qualification or competence issued to a
person by an organization.
    Credentialing: Term applied to processes used to designate that an
individual, program, institution or product have met established
standards set by an agent (governmental or non-governmental) recognized
as qualified to carry out this task. Licensure, registration,
accreditation, approval, certification, recognition or endorsement may
be used to describe different credentialing processes.
    Credentialing Organization, Certification Body: Third-party
conformity assessment body operating certification schemes for persons
under ISO/IEC 17024:2012. A certification body can be non-governmental
or governmental with or without regulatory authority.
    EPA Proficiency Program: Voluntary program established under 15
U.S.C. 2665(a)(2) and run by EPA that assessed the proficiency of
individuals and organizations and granted them a listing according to
their measurement or mitigation service capabilities. The Radon
Measurement Proficiency (RMP) Program was established in 1986, followed
by the Radon Contractor Proficiency (RCP) Program in 1989. These two
programs were consolidated into the Radon Proficiency Program (RPP) in
1995.
    Guidance on Federal Conformity Assessment (15 CFR part 287):
Provides guidance for each Federal agency to use in evaluating the
efficacy and efficiency of its conformity assessment activities. Each
agency should coordinate its conformity assessment activities with
those of other appropriate government agencies and with those of the
private sector to reduce unnecessary duplication. The guidance is
intended to help Federal agencies improve the management and
coordination of their own conformity assessment activities with respect
to other government entities and the private sector.
    International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC): International
organization that prepares and publishes international standards for
all electrical, electronic and related technologies.
    Indoor Radon Abatement Act (IRAA; 1988): Subchapter III of the
Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA. Provides the authority for EPA's
indoor radon activities.
    International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Independent,
non-governmental international organization with a membership of 161
national standards bodies. Through its members, it brings together
experts to share knowledge and develop voluntary, consensus-based,
market relevant international standards that support innovation and
provide solutions to global challenges.
    ISO/IEC: Joint technical committee of the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Its purpose is to develop, maintain
and promote voluntary consensus standards.
    ISO/IEC 17024:2012, Conformity assessment: General requirements for
bodies operating certification of persons: Voluntary international
consensus standard containing principles and requirements for a body
certifying persons against specific requirements, and includes the
development and maintenance of a certification scheme for persons.
    Job Task Analysis: Foundational requirement of ISO/IEC 17024:2012,
included with the certification scheme. Helps to identify the core
knowledge areas, critical work functions, and/or skills that are common
across the representative sampling of current practitioners.
    License: An official document that gives you permission to own, do,
or use something.
    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA):
Directs Federal agencies with respect to their use of and participation
in the development of voluntary consensus standards. The Act directs
Federal agencies to adopt voluntary consensus standards, wherever
possible, in lieu of creating proprietary, non-consensus standards. The
Act also directs the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) to coordinate the conformity assessment activities of Federal
agencies, as well as state and local governments with the private
sector in order to reduce unnecessary duplication and complexity of
conformity assessment schemes.
    Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119 (OMB A-119):
Establishes policies on Federal use and development of voluntary
consensus standards and on conformity assessment activities.
    Personnel Certification: Voluntary process by which a non-
governmental entity grants a time-limited recognition and use of a
credential to an individual after verifying that he or she has met
predetermined and standardized criteria.
    Radon Service Providers (also referred to as ``radon providers'' or
``providers''): Individuals who perform measurement and/or mitigation
of radon.
    State Indoor Radon Grant (SIRG, also referred to as ``indoor radon
grants''): States and tribes receive grant funds from EPA that help
finance their radon risk reduction programs; recipients must provide a
minimum of 40% in matching funds. The Indoor Radon Abatement Act
provides statutory authority for EPA to run the grant program under 15
U.S.C. 2666 (a-j).
    Voluntary Consensus Standards (VCS): Standard developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards bodies, through the use of a voluntary
consensus standards development process, as defined in OMB A-119.

II. Background

A. What authority does EPA have to establish voluntary criteria for
radon credentialing organizations?

    The 1988 Indoor Radon Abatement Act (See Toxic Substances Control
Act,

Title III; 15 U.S.C. 2661-2671) addresses risks associated with indoor
radon levels and establishes provisions that focus on voluntary
activities, including education and grant and technical assistance to
states for radon programs. Under 15 U.S.C. 2665(a)(2), EPA was granted
authority to operate a voluntary proficiency program for rating, among
other things, the effectiveness of radon measurement and mitigation
devices and methods, and ``the effectiveness of private firms and
individuals offering radon-related architecture, design, engineering,
measurement, and mitigation services.'' Pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
2666(h)(3), state grant recipients are required to maintain, and make
available to the public, a list of firms and individuals receiving a
passing rating under such a program.

B. What is the history of EPA's voluntary Radon Proficiency Program for
radon service providers?

    In February 1986, EPA established the Radon Measurement Proficiency
(RMP) Program to assist consumers in identifying organizations capable
of providing reliable radon measurement analysis services. The Radon
Contractor Proficiency (RCP) Program was established in 1989 to
evaluate the proficiency of radon mitigators in residences and provide
information to the public on proficient mitigators. In 1994, EPA began
working to consolidate the RMP and RCP into one streamlined program to
better meet industry needs and reduce costs. The consolidated program
officially became the Radon Proficiency Program (RPP) in October 1995.
    In response to stakeholder feedback as part of the RPP development-
process, the Agency also began investigating the feasibility of
transitioning oversight of the proficiency program away from EPA. The
Agency tasked the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors
(CRCPD) with drafting a document containing the necessary components of
a proficiency program. As part of this effort, a series of stakeholder
meetings were held in 1997. Feedback was collected in five key areas
critical to discontinuation of the EPA's RPP: (1) Radon tester; (2)
radon mitigator; (3) approval and accreditation requirements for radon
and radon decay product measurement devices, radon chambers, and radon
laboratories; (4) the operational board and committees; and (5) the
transition to private proficiency programs.
    Ultimately, CRCPD developed a final document outlining a plan for
transitioning oversight of the proficiency program outside of the
Federal government, entitled: ``Criteria for Certification of Radon
Service Providers, the Accreditation of Radon Chambers and
Laboratories, and the Approval of Measurement Devices.'' This plan was
used to conduct a one-time evaluation and identify two organizations
that sufficiently addressed components of EPA's RPP in the early 2000s.
These two organizations--the National Radon Proficiency Program (NRPP;
initially affiliated with the National Environmental Health Association
and currently affiliated with the American Association of Radon
Scientists and Technologists, or AARST) and the National Radon Safety
Board (NRSB)--became responsible for credentialing radon service
providers in the absence of a state run process established under a
state's regulatory requirements. This service assisted consumers by
identifying qualified radon providers. In addition, it assisted states
receiving indoor radon grants, which are required to maintain and make
available a list of qualified service providers to the public. Since
the discontinuation of the RPP, the Agency has relied on NRPP, NRSB and
state run certification programs to provide the national proficiency
platform in the radon marketplace.

C. What is the framework for EPA's consideration of voluntary consensus
standards and conformity assessment activities?

    Taken together, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA, Pub. L. 104-113), Office of Management and Budget Circular
A-119 (OMB A-119) and Guidance on Federal Conformity Assessment (15 CFR
part 287) direct Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
(VCS) wherever possible as the basis of regulation and other programs,
to participate in the development of VCS, and to coordinate conformity
assessment activities (testing, certification, etc.) with the private
sector to avoid duplication. OMB A-119 outlines considerations Federal
agencies should make when addressing the need for conformity
assessment, and considerations agencies should take into account when
designing conformity assessment programs.
    Personnel certification has become an important element of
verifying the competence of an increasingly mobile and global
workforce. In response to this growing need, a joint technical
committee of the International Organization for Standardization and the
International Electrotechnical Commission (the ISO/IEC) developed an
international standard to establish uniform procedures for certifying
the competence of personnel in different occupations or professions.
The ISO/IEC 17024:2012 standard is designed to help ensure that
personnel certification programs run by credentialing organizations
(also referred to as a certifying body) operate in a consistent,
comparable, impartial and reliable manner. In addition to ensuring the
validity of individual certification programs, the ISO/IEC standard is
intended to help ensure competence and quality of a workforce and
promote consumer and public confidence. Key areas addressed in the
standard include: The structure and governance of the certifying body
and the characteristics of the certification program as it relates
specifically to a job type (e.g., a certification scheme) and the
assessment and recertification requirements.
    To verify compliance with ISO/IEC standard 17024:2012,
credentialing organizations may seek accreditation from a third party.
An organization accredited by a third party demonstrates ongoing
compliance with a set of business standards and the necessary core
competencies to perform the certification of persons and/or training
functions. As a requirement of continuous accreditation recognition, an
organization must demonstrate ongoing compliance with ISO/IEC standard
17024:2012 by periodically maintaining accreditation.

III. Subject and Purpose of This Notice

    Radon exposure causes approximately 21,000 lung cancer deaths every
year and is the leading environmental cause of cancer deaths. Many
state programs and private industry stakeholders have, for years,
asserted their belief that EPA should maintain a standard of competence
for organizations credentialing radon service providers that reflect
current industry standards and best practices. There is no current
formal process to assess quality and competence of organizations
wanting to credential radon service providers. The Agency believes it
is necessary to establish an ongoing and open evaluation process moving
forward and anticipates that it will take two to four years to
establish a process and ensure ample opportunities for stakeholder
involvement. Criteria establishing a standard of competence for
organizations credentialing radon service provides will help ensure
continued and sustained access to a qualified workforce.
    EPA recently issued a special term and condition to SIRG grantees
clarifying guidance in the State and

Tribal Indoor Radon Grants Program Guidance and Handbook https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-08/documents/guidance_and_handbook.pdf related to satisfying requirements for 15
U.S.C. 2666(h)(3). Specifically, the Agency clarified that, to remain
in compliance with 15 U.S.C. 2666(h)(3) requirements, states receiving
SIRG funding must maintain and provide the public with a list of only
those radon service providers who are credentialed either through:
    (1) An existing state-run process established under a state's
regulatory requirements for credentialing radon service providers
(e.g., state license), or
    (2) one of the two currently-recognized national radon proficiency
programs (i.e., NRPP or NRSB).
    The term and condition will remain in effect until the Agency
issues voluntary criteria, at which time, states receiving SIRG funding
would list only those radon service providers credentialed by
organizations meeting the criteria.

A. What specific comments are being sought?

    While all comments regarding any aspect related to the development
of voluntary criteria for radon credentialing organizations are
welcomed, comments on the following key areas are specifically
requested.
1. Overall Approach
    While EPA cannot require that radon credentialing bodies take any
particular action in order to conduct business, EPA does have authority
to require that states receiving indoor radon grants list only
providers who meet certain standards of competence. By establishing
criteria for organizations credentialing radon service providers, EPA
would help states ensure high-quality radon services are available to
their citizens. States receiving SIRG funding would be required to list
only radon service providers who are certified by organizations meeting
these criteria (possibly including state-run credentialing programs).
    To satisfy the criteria, organizations that credential radon
service providers would need to demonstrate and maintain compliance
with ISO/IEC standard 17024:2012 through independent, third party
accreditation. The voluntary criteria would specify a timeframe for
organizations to demonstrate compliance with ISO/IEC 17024:2012 through
third party accreditation.
    As a condition of continuous accreditation recognition, an
organization would need to demonstrate ongoing compliance with ISO/IEC
17024:2012 by periodically reapplying and earning accreditation.
    Credentialing organizations accredited to ISO/IEC 17024:2012 have
to ensure that certificate holders meet requirements outlined in the
certification scheme. The credentialing organization may use
recertification to bring those who do not meet the current requirements
into compliance. In this case, recertification may be required for
service providers previously credentialed by one of the two national
credentialing organizations.
    EPA is seeking comments on the overall feasibility, appropriateness
and potential impacts of these criteria, in particular as they relate
to: Time-frame for demonstrating compliance through third-party
accreditation and options for a phased-in approach, maintaining
continuous accreditation, and recertification as a means to bring
existing certificate holders into compliance.
2. Application of Voluntary Criteria to State-Run Programs
    Currently, approximately twenty-three states have regulatory
requirements in place for credentialing of radon service providers and
implement a process accordingly (e.g., state license). While some of
these states require certification by one of the two currently
recognized national credentialing organizations (i.e., NRPP and/or
NRSB), there are states operating processes that do not require this
certification.
    EPA is seeking comments on the feasibility, appropriateness and
potential impacts of requiring states that operate independent programs
(i.e., currently do not require certification by one of two recognized
national credentialing organizations) to meet the criteria if receiving
SIRG funding.
3. Requirements for Accreditation Organizations
    Organizations providing independent, third party accreditation may
be required to demonstrate compliance with ISO/IEC 17011:2004 as a
signatory of the International Accreditation Forum's Multilateral
Recognition Agreement, or MRA.
    EPA is seeking feedback on the value of including conditions for
organizations providing independent, third party accreditation.
4. Development of ISO/IEC 17024:2012 Program-Related Components
    To help reduce the burden to credentialing organizations seeking
accreditation to the ISO/IEC 17024:2012 and to standardize competency
and testing requirements for radon service providers, EPA recognizes
that there may be value in the Agency supporting development of the
certification scheme, a requirement of ISO/IEC 17024:2012. It should be
noted that the choice of what role EPA plays ultimately will depend on
both what the community needs and what resources the Agency can
sustainably support.
    EPA is seeking comments on the feasibility, appropriateness, and
potential impacts of each possible scenario presented below:
    (a) EPA develops basic framework for credentialing organizations to
follow.
    EPA would define parameters for the certification scheme (e.g.,
scope(s) of practice, use of existing American National Standards
Institute/American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists
(ANSI/AARST) measurement and mitigation voluntary consensus standards
when developing the job task analysis (JTA), recertification
requirements).
    Credentialing organizations might enter into a Memorandum of
Understanding with EPA committing to develop and maintain a
certification scheme in compliance with specified parameters.
    (b) EPA supports development of initial certification scheme.
    EPA would support development of the initial certification scheme
and then would transfer ownership of the scheme to a third party or
individual credentialing organization(s) after a specified time-frame
(e.g., five years). In this case, new scheme owners might sign a
licensing agreement transferring ownership of the certification scheme
and stipulating conditions for use and maintenance of the scheme. For
example, the licensing agreement may specify that the scheme owner may
only make changes to the scheme that are deemed more stringent.
    (c) EPA supports development and maintenance of certification
scheme.
    EPA would retain ownership of the certification scheme, including
development and maintenance. Organizations seeking accreditation to
ISO/IEC 17024:2012 might enter into a licensing agreement with the
Agency which would specify requirements for use of the certification
scheme.
5. Scope of This Effort
    EPA's RPP addressed labs and devices in addition to radon testing
and mitigation service providers. The proposed approach outlined above
does not directly address labs and devices. If the Agency were to
address labs, a different ISO/IEC standard would apply

(17025) and would require an independent process. Device requirements
for certified radon service providers will be incorporated within the
scope of this effort. (e.g., device must have demonstrated compliance
with the voluntary consensus standard MS-PC 2015, Performance
Specifications for Instrumentation Systems Designed to Measure Radon
Gas in Air).
    EPA is seeking comments on the proposed scope for this effort,
including the planned approach for including devices. Comments are also
welcomed on job titles and scopes that should be included for radon
testing and mitigation providers.

    Dated: August 3, 2017.
David Rowson,
Director, Indoor Environments Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-17860 Filed 8-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 22, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 76086-76087]
[DOCID:fr22de05-101]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52914A; File No. SR-CBOE-2005-98]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating To Revisions to the Series 9/10 Examination
Program

December 15, 2005.

Correction

    FR Doc. E5-7337, issued on December 14, 2005,\1\ incorrectly
identified the exchange in the first sentence of the first paragraph of
Release No. 34-52914. The corrected sentence reads as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\  See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52914 (December 7,
2005), 70 FR 74067.

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

    ``Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on November 16, 2005, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the CBOE.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-7667 Filed 12-21-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: December 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 242)]
[Notices]
[Page 71723-71725]
[DOCID:fr18de07-77]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56941; File No. 4-551]

Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to
Rule 17d-2; Order Approving and Declaring Effective a Plan for the
Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Among the American Stock
Exchange LLC, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated, the International Securities Exchange,
LLC, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., NYSE Arca, Inc.,
and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.

December 11, 2007
    On October 30, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex''),
the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE''), the Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''), the International Securities
Exchange, LLC (``ISE''), Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), and the Philadelphia
Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'') (collectively, ``Participants'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 17(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 17d-2 thereunder,\2\ a proposed plan for the allocation of
regulatory responsibilities (``Plan'').\3\ The Plan was published for
comment on November 9, 2007.\4\ The Commission received no comments on
the Plan. This order approves and declares effective the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
    \3\ See infra Section II (describing the proposed Plan).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56731 (November 1,
2007), 72 FR 63637 (File No. 4-551) (``Notice'').

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

I. Introduction

    Section 19(g)(1) of the Act,\5\ among other things, requires every
self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') registered as either a national
securities exchange or registered securities association to examine
for, and enforce compliance by, its members and persons associated with
its members with the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the
SRO's own rules, unless the SRO is relieved of this responsibility
pursuant to Section 17(d) \6\ or Section 19(g)(2) \7\ of the Act.
Without this relief, the statutory obligation of each individual SRO
could result in a pattern of multiple examinations of broker-dealers
that maintain memberships in more than one SRO (``common members'').
Such regulatory duplication would add unnecessary expenses for common
members and their SROs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(1).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17(d)(1) of the Act \8\ was intended, in part, to eliminate
unnecessary multiple examinations and regulatory duplication.\9\ With
respect to a common member, Section 17(d)(1) authorizes the Commission,
by rule or order, to relieve an SRO of the responsibility to receive
regulatory reports, to examine for and enforce compliance with
applicable statutes, rules, and regulations, or to perform other
specified regulatory functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d)(1).
    \9\ See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to Accompany S.
249, S. Rep. No. 94-75, 94th Cong., 1st Session 32 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules:
Rule 17d-1 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act.\10\ Rule 17d-1 authorizes the
Commission to name a single SRO as the designated examining authority
(``DEA'') to examine common members for compliance with the financial
responsibility requirements imposed by the Act, or by Commission or SRO
rules.\11\ When an SRO has been named as a common member's DEA, all
other SROs to which the common member belongs are relieved of the
responsibility to examine the firm for compliance with the applicable
financial responsibility rules. On its face, Rule 17d-1 deals only with
an SRO's obligations to enforce member compliance with financial
responsibility requirements. Rule 17d-1 does not relieve an SRO from
its obligation to examine a common member for compliance with its own
rules and provisions of the federal securities laws governing matters
other than financial responsibility, including sales practices and
trading activities and practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17d-1 and 17 CFR 240.17d-2, respectively.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12352 (April 20,
1976), 41 FR 18808 (May 7, 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address regulatory duplication in these and other areas, the
Commission adopted Rule 17d-2 under the Act.\12\ Rule 17d-2 permits
SROs to propose joint plans for the allocation of regulatory
responsibilities with respect to their common members. Under paragraph
(c) of Rule 17d-2, the Commission may declare such a plan effective if,
after providing for notice and comment, it determines that the plan is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection
of investors, to foster cooperation and coordination among the SROs, to
remove impediments to, and foster the development of, a national market
system and a national clearance and settlement system, and is in
conformity with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act.
Commission approval of a plan filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2 relieves an
SRO of those regulatory responsibilities allocated by the plan to
another SRO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12935 (October 28,
1976), 41 FR 49091 (November 8, 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The Plan

    The Plan is intended to reduce regulatory duplication for common
members by allocating regulatory responsibility for certain options-
related market surveillance matters among the Participants.\13\ Under
the Plan, a Participant will serve as the Designated Options
Surveillance Regulator (``DOSR'') for each common member assigned to it
and will assume regulatory responsibility with respect to that common
member's compliance with applicable common rules for certain accounts.
As proposed, the Plan currently is limited to the review of expiring
exercise declarations pursuant to the common rules listed in proposed
Exhibit A to the Plan. When an SRO has been named as a common member's
DOSR, all other SROs to which the common member belongs will be
relieved of regulatory responsibility for that common member, pursuant
to the terms of the Plan, with respect to the applicable common rules
specified in Exhibit A to the Plan. The full text of the proposed Plan
and Exhibit A thereto can be found in the Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The proposed plan is wholly separate from the multiparty
options agreement made pursuant to Rule 17d-2 by and among Amex,
BSE, CBOE, ISE, NASD (n/k/a FINRA), NYSE, NYSE Arca, and Phlx
involving the allocation of regulatory responsibilities with respect
to common members for compliance with common rules relating to the
conduct of broker-dealers of accounts for listed options or index
warrants entered into on December 1, 2006, and as may be amended
from time to time. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55145
(January 22, 2007), 72 FR 3882 (January 26, 2007) (File No. S7-966)
and 55532 (March 26, 2007), 72 FR 15729 (April 2, 2007) (File No.
S7-966).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed Plan is consistent with the
factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act \14\ and Rule 17d-2(c)
thereunder \15\ in that the proposed Plan is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and for the protection of investors, fosters
cooperation and coordination among SROs, and removes impediments to and
fosters the development of a national market system. In particular, the
Commission believes that the proposed Plan is an achievement in
cooperation among the Participants and should reduce regulatory
duplication by allocating to the DOSR the responsibility for certain
options-related market surveillance matters that would otherwise be
performed by multiple Participants. Accordingly, the proposed Plan
promotes efficiency by reducing costs to common members. Furthermore,
because the Participants will coordinate their regulatory functions in
accordance with the Plan, the Plan should promote investor protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Plan will be administered by a
committee known as the Options Surveillance Group (the ``OSG''). The
Commission further notes that, under the Plan, the Participants will
allocate among themselves certain regulatory responsibilities relating
to compliance by their common members with such options rules of the
Participants as the Participants shall determine are substantially
similar and shall approve from time to time, insofar as such rules
relate to market surveillance (collectively, the ``Common Rules''). The
Common Rules covered by the Plan are specifically listed in Exhibit A
to the Plan, as may be amended by the Participants from time to time
upon unanimous written agreement by the Participants. The Commission
notes that each year, or more frequently if required by changes in the
rules of a Participant, each Participant will submit to the other
Participants, through the Chair of the OSG, an updated list of Common
Rules for review, and each Participant will confirm in writing to the
Chair of the OSG whether that Participant's rules listed in Exhibit A
continue to qualify

as Common Rules under the Plan. In reviewing the list of Common Rules,
the Participants may add additional rules that qualify as Common Rules,
will delete rules that are no longer identical or substantially similar
to the Common Rules, and will confirm that the remaining rules included
on Exhibit A continue to qualify as Common Rules. The Commission notes
that all amendments to the Plan, excluding certain changes to Exhibits
A and B, must be filed with and approved by the Commission.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ With respect to this proposed Plan, the Participants may
include an additional rule in the list of Common Rules on Exhibit A
without having to file an amendment to the Plan with the Commission,
as long as such rules of each Participant that are to be included in
Exhibit A meet the definition of Common Rules contained in the Plan
and are otherwise consistent with the allocation of regulatory
responsibility pursuant to the terms of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, no less frequently than every two years, the OSG will
allocate common members that conduct an options business among the
Participants, and the Participant to which a common member is allocated
will serve as the DOSR for that common member. The Plan also permits
the Participants, subject to notice, to terminate the Plan or cancel
their participation in the Plan. The Commission notes that a cancelling
Participant will retain its regulatory responsibilities under the Plan
until such time as the Commission has approved the cancellation or
termination of the Plan.
    The Commission also notes that the proposed Plan is wholly separate
from the multiparty options agreement made pursuant to Rule 17d-2 by
and among Amex, BSE, CBOE, ISE, NASD (n/k/a FINRA), NYSE, NYSE Arca,
and Phlx involving the allocation of regulatory responsibilities with
respect to common members for compliance with common rules relating to
the conduct of broker-dealers of accounts for listed options or index
warrants entered into on December 1, 2006, and as may be amended from
time to time.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55145 (January 22,
2007), 72 FR 3882 (January 26, 2007) (File No. S7-966) (notice) and
55532 (March 26, 2007), 72 FR 15729 (April 2, 2007) (File No. S7-
966) (order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    This Order gives effect to the Plan filed with the Commission in
File No. 4-551. The Participants shall notify all members affected by
the Plan of their rights and obligations under the Plan.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Act,\18\
that the Plan in File No. 4-551 by and between Amex, BSE, CBOE, ISE,
FINRA, NYSE Arca, and Phlx, filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the
Act,\19\ is hereby approved and declared effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is further ordered that those SRO Participants that are not the
DOSR as to a particular common member are relieved of those regulatory
responsibilities allocated to the common member's DOSR under the Plan.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-24467 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21862-21863]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08503]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9944-92-Region 1]

Availability of Final NPDES General Permit for Stormwater
Discharges From Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems in
Massachusetts

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability of final NPDES general permit.

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

SUMMARY: The Director of the Office of Ecosystem Protection, EPA--
Region 1, is providing a notice of availability of the final National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for
stormwater discharges from small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer systems
(MS4s) to certain waters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The
final Massachusetts small MS4 general permit establishes Notice of
Intent (NOI) requirements, prohibitions, and management practices for
stormwater discharges from small MS4s in Massachusetts. The final
Massachusetts small MS4 general permit reflects modifications to the
draft small MS4 general permit released for comment on September 30,
2014 and replaces the 2003 small MS4 general permit for MS4 operators
within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

DATES: The Massachusetts small MS4 general permit shall be effective on
July 1, 2017 and will expire at midnight on June 30, 2022. In
accordance with 40 CFR part 23, this permit shall be considered issued
for the purpose of judicial review at 1:00 p.m. eastern standard time
on April 27, 2016. Under section 509(b) of the Clean Water Act,
judicial review of this general permit can be requested by filing a
petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals within 120
days after the permit is considered issued. Under section 509(b)(2) of
the Clean Water Act, the requirements in this permit may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings to enforce these
requirements. In addition, this permit may not be challenged in other
agency proceedings.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Newton Tedder, Stormwater and
Construction Permits Section OEP 06-4, Environmental Protection Agency,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912; 617-
918-1038<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

    EPA is reissuing three final NPDES permits for discharges of
stormwater from small MS4s to certain waters within the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. The three general permits are:

MAR041000--Traditional cities and towns
MAR042000--Non-traditional state, federal, county, and other publicly
owned MS4s
MAR043000--Non-traditional transportation MS4s

    While these are technically distinct permits, for convenience they
have been grouped into a single document and this document refers to
the ``permit'' in the singular. The final general permit, appendices
and attachments, as well as response to comments on the draft permit
and supplemental fact sheet information are available at http://www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/MS4_MA.html.
    The conditions in the general permit are established pursuant to
Clean Water Act (CWA) section 402(p)(3)(iii) to ensure that pollutant
discharges from small MS4s are reduced to the Maximum Extent
Practicable (MEP), protect water quality, and satisfy the appropriate
requirements of the CWA. Further information on the requirements of the
permit related to MEP and water quality may be found in EPA's Response
to Comments document on the above Web site.
    EPA issued a final general permit to address stormwater discharges
from small MS4s in Massachusetts and New Hampshire on May 1, 2003. The
2003 general permit required small MS4 operators to develop and
implement a Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) designed to control
pollutants to the maximum extent practicable and protect water quality.
This final general permit for Massachusetts MS4s builds on the
requirements of the 2003 general permit. During 2010, EPA drafted two
separate Small MS4 general permits to replace the 2003 Small MS4 permit
for eligible operators located in Massachusetts; one for operators
located in the North Coastal watershed and the other for those located
in the Interstate, Merrimack and South Coastal watersheds. Based on
comments and information gathered while developing responses, EPA
modified the initial draft general permits and issued a draft permit
covering all eligible operators in Massachusetts pursuant to 40 CFR
124.6. EPA took public comments on this draft permit from September 30,
2014 to February 27, 2015. EPA received over 150 unique written letters
and oral comments on the draft permit. Concurrent with the release of
the final permit and supplemental materials EPA will make available a
Response to Comments received on the draft permit. The Response to
Comments will be available on the EPA Web site listed above. Changes to
the permit resulting from public comments include, but are not limited
to: Reduction of certain reporting requirements and metrics,
reorganization of certain requirements for clarity, and extension of
deadlines for certain required tasks and reports within the permit.

Obtaining Authorization

    In order for a small MS4 operator to obtain authorization to
discharge, it must submit a complete and accurate NOI containing the
information in Appendix E of the general permit. The NOI must be
submitted on or before September 29, 2017 (90 days from the effective
date of the final permit). A small MS4 operator must meet the
eligibility requirements of the general permit found in Part 1.2 and
Part 1.9 prior to submission of its NOI. A small MS4 operator will be
authorized to discharge under the permit upon receipt of written notice
from EPA following a public notice of the submitted NOI. EPA will
authorize the discharge, request additional information, or require the
small MS4 to apply for an alternative permit or an individual permit.
NOIs may be submitted electronically to EPA at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or sent via regular or overnight mail to:
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Stormwater and
Construction Permits Section OEP 06-1, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912. A copy of the NOI shall also be sent
to MassDEP at the following address: Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, One Winter Street--5th Floor, Boston,
Massachusetts 02108 ATTN: Frederick Civian, Stormwater Coordinator.

Other Legal Requirements

    In accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), EPA has
updated the provisions and necessary actions and documentation related
to potential impacts to endangered species from discharges and related
actions under the Massachusetts small MS4 general permit. EPA has
obtained concurrence from the appropriate federal services (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service) regarding
the requirements of this general permit.
    In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, EPA has
established provisions and documentation requirements for operators
seeking coverage under the Massachusetts small MS4 general permit to
ensure that discharges or actions taken under this permit will not
adversely affect historic properties and places.

    Authority:  This action is being taken under the Clean Water
Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

    Dated: April 4, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2016-08503 Filed 4-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 162 (Monday, August 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 52325]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21355]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4303-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: NYISO filing re: Voltage Support
Service to be effective 10/11/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110812-5170.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4304-000.
    Applicants: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.1: Initial Tariff Filing to be effective 10/12/
2011.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110812-5171.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4305-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 08-12-11 ITC Attachment FF
Correction to be effective 7/28/2010.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110812-5172.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4306-000.
    Applicants: Ameren Illinois Company.
    Description: Ameren Illinois Company submits tariff filing per
35.15: Cancellation of Rate Schedule 113 to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110812-5173.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4307-000.
    Applicants: Green Mountain Energy Company.
    Description: Green Mountain Energy Company submits tariff filing
per 35.12: Green Mountain Energy Company Application for Market-Based
Rate Authority to be effective 10/11/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110812-5180.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4308-000.
    Applicants: Reliant Energy Northeast LLC.
    Description: Reliant Energy Northeast LLC submits tariff filing per
35.12: Reliant Energy Northeast Application for Market-Based Rate
Authority to be effective 10/11/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110812-5189.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4309-000.
    Applicants: Troy Energy, LLC.
    Description: Troy Energy, LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
Revisions to Market-Based Rate Tariff of Troy Energy to be effective 8/
16/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/15/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110815-5052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 06, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings.

    Docket Numbers: RD11-9-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    Description: Petition of the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation for Approval of an Interpretation to Requirement R10 of
Reliability Standard TOP-002-2a--Normal Operations Planning.
    Filed Date: 04/15/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110415-5289.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 14, 2011.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 15, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-21355 Filed 8-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P