[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47562-47563]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19468]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 33616; File No. 812-14988]

Diamond Hill Funds and Diamond Hill Capital Management, Inc.

September 4, 2019.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application for an order pursuant to: (a) Section 6(c)
of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') granting an exemption
from sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; (b) section 12(d)(1)(J) of
the Act granting an exemption from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; (c)
sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from sections
17(a)(1), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and (d) section 17(d) of
the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint
arrangements and transactions. Applicants request an order that would
permit certain registered open-end management investment companies to
participate in a joint lending and borrowing facility.

Applicants:  Diamond Hill Funds, established as a business trust under
the laws of Ohio and registered under the Act as an open-end management
investment company with multiple series, and Diamond Hill Capital
Management, Inc. (the ``Adviser''), an Ohio corporation registered as
an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

Filing Dates:  The application was filed on December 19, 2018, and
amended on May 17, 2019.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on September 30, 2019 and should be accompanied by proof of
service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for
lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the 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 who wish to
be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: Diamond Hill Funds
and Diamond Hill Capital Management, Inc., 325 John H. McConnell Blvd.,
Suite 200, Columbus, Ohio 43215.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kieran G. Brown, Senior Counsel, at
202-551-6773, or David J. Marcinkus, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(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 by searching for the file number, or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Summary of the Application

    1. Applicants request an order that would permit the applicants to
participate in an interfund lending facility where each Fund could lend
money directly to and borrow money directly from other Funds to cover
unanticipated cash shortfalls, such as unanticipated redemptions or
trade fails.\1\ The Funds will not borrow under

the facility for leverage purposes and the loans' duration will be no
more than 7 days.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request that the order apply to the applicants
and to any other registered open-end management investment company
or series thereof (each, a ``Fund'' and collectively, the ``Funds'')
for which the Adviser or any successor-in-interest thereto or an
investment adviser controlling, controlled by, or under common
control with the Adviser or any successor-in-interest thereto serves
as investment adviser (each such investment adviser, an
``Adviser''). For purposes of the requested order, ``successor-in-
interest'' is limited to any entity that results from a
reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change in the type of
a business organization. No money market funds will participate in
the proposed credit facility as either borrowers or lenders.
    \2\ Any Fund, however, will be able to call a loan on one
business day's notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Applicants anticipate that the proposed facility would provide a
borrowing Fund with a source of liquidity at a rate lower than the bank
borrowing rate at times when the cash position of the Fund is
insufficient to meet temporary cash requirements. In addition, Funds
making short-term cash loans directly to other Funds would earn
interest at a rate higher than they otherwise could obtain from
investing their cash in repurchase agreements or certain other short
term money market instruments. Thus, applicants assert that the
facility would benefit both borrowing and lending Funds.
    3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief
will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application.
Among others, the Adviser, through a designated committee, would
administer the facility as a disinterested fiduciary as part of its
duties under the investment advisory and administrative agreements with
the Funds and would receive no additional fee as compensation for its
services in connection with the administration of the facility. The
facility would be subject to oversight and certain approvals by the
Funds' Board, including, among others, approval of the interest rate
formula and of the method for allocating loans across Funds, as well as
review of the process in place to evaluate the liquidity implications
for the Funds. A Fund's aggregate outstanding interfund loans will not
exceed 15% of its net assets, and the Fund's loans to any one Fund will
not exceed 5% of the lending Fund's net assets.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Under certain circumstances, a borrowing Fund will be
required to pledge collateral to secure the loan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Applicants assert that the facility does not raise the concerns
underlying section 12(d)(1) of the Act given that the Funds are part of
the same group of investment companies and there will be no duplicative
costs or fees to the Funds.\4\ Applicants also assert that the proposed
transactions do not raise the concerns underlying sections 17(a)(1),
17(a)(3), 17(d) and 21(b) of the Act as the Funds would not engage in
lending transactions that unfairly benefit insiders or are detrimental
to the Funds. Applicants state that the facility will offer both
reduced borrowing costs and enhanced returns on loaned funds to all
participating Funds and each Fund would have an equal opportunity to
borrow and lend on equal terms based on an interest rate formula that
is objective and verifiable. With respect to the relief from section
17(a)(2) of the Act, applicants note that any collateral pledged to
secure an interfund loan would be subject to the same conditions
imposed by any other lender to a Fund that imposes conditions on the
quality of or access to collateral for a borrowing (if the lender is
another Fund) or the same or better conditions (in any other
circumstance).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Applicants state that the obligation to repay an interfund
loan could be deemed to constitute a security for the purposes of
sections 17(a)(1) and 12(d)(1) of the Act.
    \5\ Applicants state that any pledge of securities to secure an
interfund loan could constitute a purchase of securities for
purposes of section 17(a)(2) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Applicants also believe that the limited relief from section
18(f)(1) of the Act that is necessary to implement the facility
(because the lending Funds are not banks) is appropriate in light of
the conditions and safeguards described in the application and because
the Funds would remain subject to the requirement of section 18(f)(1)
that all borrowings of a Fund, including combined interfund loans and
bank borrowings, have at least 300% asset coverage.
    6. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any
persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption
is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with
the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the
policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act
provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or
transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or
transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption
is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order
permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it
finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and
reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person
concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies
of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed
transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act. Rule
17d-1(b) under the Act provides that in passing upon an application
filed under the rule, the Commission will consider whether the
participation of the registered investment company in a joint
enterprise, joint arrangement or profit sharing plan on the basis
proposed is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of
the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis
different from or less advantageous than that of the other
participants.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-19468 Filed 9-9-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


               DEMONSTRATION OF ADEQUATE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES

The State of Connecticut has developed an Underground Storage Tank ("UST") Program to regulate petroleum and hazardous substance UST systems. Such UST systems are regulated under Sections 22a-449(d)-101 through 22a-449(d)-l13 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies ("RCSA"). The Connecticut Attorney General's Office has certified that the Connecticut program covers the same scope of jurisdiction as the federal program and does not exclude any part of the UST universe regulated under 40 CFR Part 280. This demonstration is required for Connecticut to update its UST regulations to incorporate the revised 2015 federal requirements. Connecticut previously had State Program Approval ("SPA") by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA") since 1994. Most of the substantive federal requirements contained in the 2015 revisions were previously adopted in Connecticut on August 8, 2012. The UST universe regulated by the Connecticut UST Program consists of over 3721 sites and 7186 USTs, of which, 1952 sites and 4637 USTs are federally regulated.

In addition to the UST universe regulated under 40 CFR Part 280, the Connecticut UST Program also regulates all residential heating fuel UST systems serving more than 4 living units as well as all commercial heating fuel UST systems.  These are systems which are excluded under the federal rule.

A. PROCEDURES FOR COMPLIANCE MONITORING

1. IDENTIFYING THE REGULATED COMMUNITY

Connecticut law requires owners and operators of petroleum and hazardous substance UST systems to notify DEEP and the local fire marshal's office for any new installations, replacing UST systems or moving UST systems from one location to another within 30 days of the completion of installation of such UST system. Such notification must include the UST system location and capacity, date of installation, contents, type of UST system, type of monitoring systems, if any, results of life expectancy determination in accordance with RCSA section 22a-449(d)-111 and other information that DEEP deems necessary. Owners and operators must also report within 30 days any changes in any information provided in a previous notification in accordance with RCSA Sections 22a-449(d)-102(b)(11). In addition, all owners and operators of UST systems must certify in the notification form compliance with requirements for: 1) installation of tanks and piping; (2) cathodic protections of steel tanks and piping; (3) financial responsibility; and (4)
release detection. Notifications are required to be submitted annually and accompanied by an annual fee pursuant to CGS Section 22a-449(e).

Notification in EZ-File is also required within 30 days of permanent closure of a UST system.  This notification includes information regarding closure sampling results and the
ability to upload closure reports.  A notification 30 days prior to notification is also required so that DEEP may observe tank closures and removals when staff are available to do so.

Annual notifications must be filed electronically on or before October 10[th] of each year using DEEP's online UST notification system portal, "EZ-File". EZ-File is designed to be used by UST owners, UST operators, and their environmental consultants through the subscriber agreement process and their wet-ink signatures. The online portal allows these entities to enter specific information and updates on UST facilities, including a certification that the information provided is true and accurate. EZ-File is Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule compliant pursuant to 40 CFR 281.40. Owners and operators also affirm that providing false or misleading information is punishable by applicable Connecticut law.

DEEP continues to use and upgrade EZ-File, not only for UST notification, but also for UST fee payment, and public access to UST information.  The system was rolled-out in October of 2013 with full implementation for UST owners/operators to submit their required notifications, as specified in the eligible activities listed in the LUST prevention grant guidance.  Because Connecticut has implemented legislative initiatives to compel e-government solutions, EZ-File has been required, disallowing paper notification in all but hardship situations.  In support of this effort, the system has been upgraded to produce outreach by mass e-mailing to alert and instruct UST owners and operators not currently using the system how to set up accounts.  In addition, instructions and tutorials are available on DEEP's website.  Filers submitting paper forms without an approved hardship form are being targeted for enforcement, consisting primarily of warning letters.  In addition, those failing to submit annual notifications have been identified for targeted inspections and further enforcement.

EZ-File also allows compliance tracking by the state, automatic notification to registered UST owners and operators of existing and potential compliance issues, real-time updates of information to the UST database of all compliance-related information including Significant Operational Compliance, Financial Responsibility, and all existing and new requirements including those related to EPAct.  To fully realize these benefits for both the users and the regulators, it is important to get as many notifications coming in through this portal as possible.  In addition, a number of needed enhancements to the system have been identified for development and implementation of those enhancements is ongoing.  Most recently, data generated through the system has been used to generate several mailings to UST owner and operators whose systems are approaching or have reached life expectancy.

On June 22, 2016, pursuant to RCSA section 22a-449(d)-111(d), DEEP issued an Approval of an Alternative Life Expectancy For Certain Underground Storage Tanks. For USTs subject to RSCA section 22a-22a-449(d)-101 et seq., that satisfy eligibility criteria and certain terms and conditions, this approval extends the life expectancy of a tank to 40 years from the date of installation. Prior to this approval being issued, most USTs had a life expectancy of 30 years. Notification to DEEP is required prior to the tank expiration date. Eligible USTs that meet the terms and conditions of the approval must send a Notice of Alternate Life Expectancy for USTs to DEEP, as well as update their notification in EZ-File to reflect the extended life expectancy. Failure by owners and operators to comply with the self-implementing terms and conditions may require tank removal given the tank is beyond its life expectancy pursuant to RCSA 22a-449(d)-111(d).

2. RECORD REVIEWS

Reviewing reports, notifications and records is a critical component of compliance monitoring with a goal of promoting compliance with the UST Regulations and Statutes in order to protect human health and the environment from potential hazards associated with leaks, spills, and releases from USTs.

Whenever a confirmed spill or release of petroleum or a regulated substance from an UST occurs, Connecticut requires owners and operators to perform initial response actions including reporting a release to DEEP within 24 hours by telephone, or electronic mail and notifying emergency fire response and public safety and health personnel. Owners and operators are also required to take immediate action to prevent any further release of regulated substances into the environment, and identify and mitigate fire, explosion and vapor hazards in accordance with RCSA section 22a-449(d)-106.

Under CGS section 22a-450, any person in charge of any establishment, including UST owners and operators, must immediately report to DEEP for review any spill, which, by accident, negligence or otherwise, causes the discharge, spillage, uncontrolled loss, seepage or filtration of oil or petroleum or chemical liquids or solid, liquid or gaseous products or hazardous wastes which poses a potential threat to human health or the environment. Reports of the facts must include the following:
 the location;
 the quantity and type of substance, material or waste;
 the date and the cause of the incident;
 the name and address of the owner; and
 the name and address of the person making the report and his relationship to the owner.

DEEP's Licensing and Enforcement Unit ("LEU") routinely reviews records during compliance inspections, including but not limited to: monthly inspections; automatic tank gauge electronic printouts; weekly reconciliation reports; annual line/tank leak detector testing results; annual notifications; and Financial Responsibility documentation and certifications.

DEEP's Corrective Action Unit ("CAU") reviews reports detailing UST system removal activities and UST system release cleanups including initial site investigations, site assessments, groundwater compliance monitoring reports, corrective action plans and risk-based corrective action determinations. To assist service providers, geologists, hydrogeologists and other environmental consultants conducting the work, DEEP has issued several technical guidance documents and fact sheets which are available on the DEEP's website.  These guidance documents and fact sheets including but not limited to, Sampling and Analytical Methods for Underground Storage Tank Closure, updated September 2019, Site Characterization Guidance Document, September 2007, Analytical Methods Used to Characterize Petroleum Releases, updated July 31, 2012, Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon Fractions Using the ETPH Analytical Method and Criteria Development, July 2012, Laboratory Quality Assurance Quality Control Reasonable Confidence Protocols, revised December 2010, and Reasonable Confidence Protocols for Laboratory Methods. The information gleaned from UST cleanup reports and associated correspondences is maintained in DEEP's LUST (Site Assessment Technical Services Unit) Case Management System/ Database.

3. COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS/COMPLAINT INVESTIGATIONS/SUSPECTED RELEASE REPORTS/ UST CLEANUP INSPECTIONS

DEEP has developed protocols for targeting of UST systems for compliance inspections.

The EPAct requires that state UST programs inspect every facility with USTs subject to the federal regulations that have not been permanently closed or undergone a change-in-service at least once every three years. In order to meet this requirement, Connecticut must complete an average of approximately 700 inspections annually to keep pace with the 3-year inspection requirement.  Inspections are scheduled in advance to meet EPA grant commitments and are unannounced to owners and operators. Connecticut uses LUST prevention grant funds to support its inspection activities, including but not limited to DEEP personnel, inspection reporting, and enforcement. Since 2009, a streamlined inspection procedure that includes the use of handheld computers to record findings by DEEP field staff was implemented. Connecticut's electronic inspection system (Inspector Tools/tablets) has greatly enhanced the State's ability to keep pace with this inspection schedule, provide for field-issued enforcement and promote statewide consistency.  The system also allows for violations and citations to easily be updated by program development staff and be pushed out to all the inspection staff devices. This allowed an easy transition after the 2012 regulatory changes and will facilitate a larger scale roll-out when further regulatory revisions become effective going forward.

In regard to prioritizing inspections, immediate response is provided for citizens' complaints or departmental referrals of UST system leaks, mitigation of contamination incidents, and especially for severely hazardous situations (e.g., leakage of gasoline UST system into sewer lines and other UST emergencies). Routine inspections are prioritized based on state and federal regulations, grant commitments and available resources. High priority inspections are tanks exceeding their authorized usage date, regulatory variance requests, expired integrity determination deadlines, critical water supply areas, aquifer and wellhead protection areas, and vital ecosystems such as Long Island Sound. Usage and integrity determination deadlines are tracked by EZ-File.

Connecticut's Inspection Process includes the following:
 Sites where UST systems are located will be inspected by DEEP field staff once every 3 years;
 DEEP field staff will arrive without notice and introduce themselves to the individual(s) on-site;
 A number of compliance points, including operational paperwork and the physical system will be inspected;
 DEEP field staff will record the findings on a tablet computer as the inspection is conducted;
 At the end of the inspection, DEEP will provide a report of the findings before leaving the facility; and
 DEEP field staff will request a signature solely for the purpose of documenting that the inspection report was received  -  the signature does not indicate concurrence with the findings or imply anything other than receipt of the report.

Typical inspections activities, performed by UST field staff, encompass:

 Interviews of owners/operators and examination of records for abnormal losses or gains;
 Reconciliation of daily inventory records;
 Examination of tank sites for indications of contamination including sampling of soil and surrounding water sources;
 Examination of the age/life expectancy of tanks and dates of installation to determine compliance with state and federal requirements (e.g., release detection);
 Sampling of product and scanning the site for evidence of additional tanks, spillage or potential violations;
 Monitoring of state and federal UST closure requirements;
 Monitoring UST installations;
 Checking release detection equipment; and
 Checking cathodic protection by performing structure soil test voltage readings.

In addition to compliance inspections, DEEP field staff try to inspect new installations at least once, and time permitting, conduct change-in-service and permanent closure  inspections. To facilitate the scheduling of these inspections, the DEEP requires 30-day written notices of intent to install, conduct change-in-service, or permanently close USTs. Results of all UST inspections including UST installation, change-in-service and permanent closure inspections are entered into the ESRUST.

Inspection of new facilities is covered under RCSA section 22a-449(d)-102. Connecticut's regulations stipulate that all new facilities and new components of substantially modified facilities must conform to the following standards:
(a)	Each underground tank or container shall:
 be a listed fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP) tank which is equipped with contact plates under all fill and gauge openings and is chemically compatible with the contained oil or petroleum liquid as determined by the tank or container manufacturer's warranty; or
 be a listed steel tank externally coated with a factory applied corrosion resistant coating approved by the manufacturer for the proposed use, and equipped with cathodic protection and permanent cathodic protection monitoring devices, and contact plates under all fill and gauge openings.
(b)	All other underground facility components shall:
 be protected against corrosion by use of non-corrosive materials or steel components with factory applied corrosion resistant coating and cathodic protection and permanent cathodic protection monitoring devices;
 be designed, constructed and installed so as to allow failure determination of all underground piping without the need for substantial excavation; and
 be chemically compatible	with the contained oil or petroleum liquid as determined by the manufacturer's warranty.

Further requirements for certification of correct installation of UST systems, for installation of cathodic protection systems, and for monitoring of said cathodic protection are also included in RCSA section 22a-449(d)-102.

To ensure proper installations, closures, and repairs of USTs in Connecticut, DEEP and local fire marshals work cooperatively to inspect UST activities for compliance with federal, state and municipal requirements under 40 CFR 280, RCSA section 22a-449(d)-102, and pertinent National Fire Protection Association ("NFPA") codes.

Permanent closure is based on NFPA Code 30 requirements for proper abandonment of UST facilities. Included in those requirements (see RCSA section 22a-449(d)-107) are specifications that no person or municipality shall use or operate an abandoned facility. Proper on-site abandonment of a UST facility constitutes either (a) excavation of the tank or (b) total drainage of residual product and total filling of the tank with a solid, inert material. Furthermore, RCSA section 22a-449(d)-113 stipulates the full disclosure of conditions of any tank abandoned on-site during transfer of ownership of a UST facility.

DEEP staff follow-up on any UST citizen complaints and suspected release reports received for facilities and/or sites located in their geographic territory. Based on findings, DEEP staff may issue an investigative report, identify required corrective actions and establish deadlines for any required work or compliance action.

Connecticut UST Program standard response procedures to owner or citizen reports of tank leaks include the following:
(a)	Field inspections by the UST field staff and/or from DEEP's Emergency Response Unit ("ERU") contingent; and
(b)	Determination of tank failure through attempted reconciliation of daily inventory records. When inventory reconciliation indicates an abnormal loss or gain which is not explainable by spillage, temperature variations or causes other than leakage, the owner or operator is responsible for immediate investigation and correction of the cause of the abnormal loss or gain. At a minimum, the owner or operator is required to take as many of the following steps as necessary to confirm an abnormal loss or gain and thereby assist DEEP in identification of a leak:
      (i)	When an inventory record error is not apparent, a recalculation to determine abnormal loss or gain shall be made starting from a point, where the records indicate no abnormal loss or gain;
      (ii)	A detailed visual inspection of those components of the facility which are readily accessible for evidence of failure shall be performed; and
      (iii) 	The dispensers of the particular oil or petroleum liquid in question shall be checked for proper calibration.

(c)	When abnormal loss or gain is unexplainable, staff from DEEP's ERU may be needed to rapidly mitigate the problem. These actions normally include:
      (i)	pumping of residual product from the suspect tank and excavation of the tank and integral piping.
      (ii) 	excavation of contaminated soil and sediment, aeration of trace amounts of hydrocarbon contamination if no detectable levels of PCB or other toxics are present.
      (iv)	deployment of oil containment materials, such as absorbent pads, boom, and filtration devices.
      (v)	installation of ground water monitoring wells.

In addition, DEEP's CAU staff may schedule one or more site inspections during initial site investigations, during site cleanups or during long-term compliance monitoring.  Results of LUST site inspections are entered into the LUST database.

4. PUBLIC REPORTING

Electronic database improvements have allowed the UST Program to increase public access to data base reports. The public information available on DEEP's website include notification information, certain enforcement information, and direct public access to EZ-File.

The EPAct requires that a state UST Program collect certain information and make that information available to the public.  Under EPAct, the information gathering was required to begin not later than October 1, 2007, and a summary of the first year's information (10/01/2007  -  09/30/2008) had to be available to the public not later than December 31, 2008 as well as annually thereafter.  Information that must be available to the public includes: the number of regulated UST facilities located within the state, the number of inspections conducted during the past year, the compliance rate found while conducting those inspections, and the number and causes of any releases to the environment that occurred during the year in question. The LUST Prevention Assistance funding is used, in part, to support staff time necessary to collect, analyze, and report this required information. The 2021 Public Record Summary Report is available on DEEP's website as required.

Connecticut has undertaken significant outreach efforts which include mass mailings (particularly mass e-mailings), website updates, guidance documents, and various meetings/presentations. The purpose of these efforts is to provide updates to the regulated community and to assist with compliance for Life Expectancy, Financial Responsibility, Operator Training, regulatory updates related to EPAct, UST notification using EZ-File, tank tightness requirements and general compliance issues.  These efforts include continuously updating information and tutorials on the DEEP's Underground Storage Tank website that are available to the public. DEEP will continue to utilize its electronic resources to inform UST owners and operators of specific UST regulatory requirements, including upcoming revisions to the regulations, to encourage compliance planning.

DEEP uses three main tools for receiving information, concerns and/or complaints about the UST Program in general, and specific UST and LUST facilities.  These tools include written correspondences or referrals, phone calls, e-mails, including anonymous complaints and the UST Program website. To facilitate phone calls, DEEP manages a UST helpline<PHONE_NUMBER>) with an Engineer of the Day ("EOD") staff person available from 8:00a to 4:30p EST each day to receive calls. To facilitate electronic communications, the Department established a<EMAIL_ADDRESS>e-mail address that is also monitored by the EOD staff assigned for the day.

These communications resources are managed centrally in DEEP's UST Program.  Inquiries of a general program nature are typically responded to by DEEP staff within 24 hours of receipt. Inquiries that are facility or site specific may be forwarded to the supervisor of the field staff or field staff for follow-up within 24 hours of the information reaching them.

In addition to the above assistance, UST Program staff also speak and participate in workshops, seminars, conferences and educational courses pertaining to USTs and will continue with this assistance. Connecticut also makes available copies of the UST regulations and original EPHM-6 notifications forms through DEEP's Environmental Quality Record Center (public file room) and town clerk's offices throughout the state.

DEEP also provides in-house training to its staff members pertaining to environmental policies and regulations. This training includes procedures of safety, sampling, instrumentation, documentation and other elements critical to inspection and enforcement activities. The UST Program will also take advantage of private and government sponsored training courses.

The EPAct also requires state UST programs to implement the operator training requirements. In Connecticut, all existing facilities with in-use and/or temporarily closed USTs must designate Class A, Class B and Class C Operators who have been trained and are currently certified in accordance with an approved training course in the operation and maintenance of the UST systems and emergency response to any releases or suspected releases from UST systems.  DEEP reviews and approves submitted training materials and maintains a list of the Approved UST Operator Training Certifications and Exams available on the DEEP's website.

5. DATA MAINTENANCE

Connecticut has developed multiple electronic databases to manage information on the UST Program: 1) EZ-File Notification of USTs; 2) Inspector Tool (tablet software); UST Registration & Stage II Administration System (a.k.a. ESRUST); 3) Site Information Management System (a.k.a. SIMS) including Report Manager (agency wide); 4) Open Data; and 5) LUST database. The various UST databases are linked by a computer-generated UST Facility ID number.

EZ-File is a public facing, web-based registration filing system required by UST owners and operators to manage UST data and submit electronic notifications to DEEP as required by law. EZ-File is designed to ensure that all elements of owner and operator notifications, including annual filing or updates, are completed properly. EZ-File automatically links notification data to Inspector Tool and ESRUST. EZ-File also contains a public portal to access registration/notification data.

Inspector Tool is a software program designed for DEEP field staff to enter sensitive inspection data on tablets and generate inspection reports, enforcement actions and Notices of Disabled Systems in the field. Inspector Tool also tracks geocoded GIS coordinates, links photographs to inspection reports and provides a multi-media checklist to help to identify violations of law for certain other programs (e.g., waste, air & water). Inspector Tool automatically syncs field and office generated compliance information to ESRUST.

ESRUST is a software program designed to gather, store and track sensitive enforcement data on the UST Program, including compliance inspection reports, enforcement actions and "Red Tagged" UST sites. ESRUST contains all compliance information from EZ-File and Inspector Tool. ESRUST automatically pushes registration and enforcement action data, and certain documents to SIMS. Other compliance specific data and information, including signed documents, needs to be added manually to SIMS.

SIMS is DEEP's enterprise-based, state-wide repository for permit, registration, and enforcement action data on all environmental interests associated with sites located in Connecticut. For this program, SIMS stores enforcement actions, including warning letters, NOVs, administrative formal actions and Red Tag Compliance Plans. SIMS also contains pre-programed reports, queries and charts available for use by DEEP staff in Report Manager. Report Manager is helpful to plan inspection and enforcement strategies and report grant commitments to U.S. EPA. DEEP staff may request additional queries and reports to have developed, as needed.

Open Data is a state-wide, web-based database that provides to the public certain UST Program data, including map details on site locations, UST facility and tank information, site contact information, enforcement summaries and compliance details for state and federally regulated USTs. The public may perform queries on such public information using this system. Open Data pulls the UST Program information from SIMS.

DEEP's LUST Database is a Microsoft Access tracking database accessible to staff from the UST Program and DEEP CAU. This database contains oil & chemical spills data and documents associated with leaking USTs. DEEP CAU uses this database track LUST sites.

DEEP's implementation of the UST notification using EZ-File, record review and data maintenance elements of the program has been markedly successful, including timely reviews/ inspections and enforcement actions, development of State forms and regulations, quality assurance on submitted notifications and progressive development of a nationally unparalleled automated electronic system for UST data retrieval and synthesis.

B. PROCEDURES FOR ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE

A primary component of the effort to meet the 3-year inspection requirement is enforcement in response to non-compliance.  Personnel need to develop documentation and evidence in support of both formal and informal enforcement actions in response to such non-compliance. Certain of these are able to be issued by the inspector in the field at the time of the inspection.  Such actions include red tags and the subsequent hearings associated with disabling UST systems, notices of violation, and warning letters. These field-issued enforcement actions have provided tremendous streamlining of the enforcement process, allowing staff time to be directed to more complex forms of enforcement actions and cases.

UST corrective actions include Warning Letters ("WLs") Notices of Violation ("NOVs"), Cost Recovery, Administrative and Consent Orders, and referrals to the Office of Attorney General for civil penalties and referrals to the State's Attorney for criminal penalties depending on types and magnitudes of violations.

DEEP's  has a full range of administrative and criminal authorities to handle UST compliance violations.  For both administrative and criminal violations, the maximum penalty is $25,000 per day of violation.  Each day the violation continues may be cited as a separate offense.  This maximum penalty applies on a per tank basis.  For criminal offenses, sentencing can also include incarceration.

1. INSPECTION DOCUMENTATION

A WL is a form of informal enforcement action which notifies owners and operators of alleged, minor violations for which issuance of a formal action or civil penalty is not anticipated. A WL describes the alleged violations and discusses needed corrective actions but does not require the submittal of records to achieve compliance with the alleged violation(s). A WL, in contrast to a NOV, does not typically contain a corrective action schedule. A WL is not a formal enforcement action and does not afford a person the right to a contested case hearing. UST compliance violations suitable for handling with a WL are generally associated with notification violations.  WLs are issued in the field by DEEP field staff using the Inspector Tool upon review by their supervisor and UST enforcement program staff, if appropriate. Failure to comply with a WL may result in an escalated enforcement action, including an NOV, or formal enforcement action being initiated pursuant to DEEP's Enforcement Response Policy.

If DEEP field staff identify problems or violations of Connecticut law other than alleged WL violations, DEEP may follow up with the owner or operator as follows:
 A Notice of Violation (NOV) may be issued at the time of the inspection or it may be mailed or emailed at a later date;
 Most violations are minor in nature and can be addressed without escalation to a formal enforcement action;
 Prompt correction of the violations and communication of that progress to DEEP is the best way to respond to any problems identified during the inspection;
 Certain, very serious violations (e.g. lack of leak detection system or "Significant Operational Compliance") may result in the UST system being Red-Tagged pursuant to CGS 22a-449(g); and
 If very significant problems/violations are found or violations noted through an NOV are not corrected, other enforcement tools (described further below) may be used by the DEEP enforcement staff.

The Red Tag Program's authority comes from Section 22a-449(g) of Connecticut General Statues (CGS).  Under this program, if DEEP field staff determine that one or more of the following violations exist at a UST system, DEEP may place a notice on or disable the system and require the tank contents to be pumped out until the violations are corrected:
 Release from a UST;
 Design, construction, installation and operation of UST system is not in accordance with the requirements of Section 22a-449o of the Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) or Sections 22a-449(d)-101 through 22a-449(d)-113 of the Regulations of CT State Agencies;
 Failure to have or operate proper leak detection, overfill or spill protection measures;
 The USTs are beyond life expectancy;
 Failure to have A, B, or C Operators; or
 Failure to have Financial Responsibility.

Deliveries to a "red tagged" UST are prohibited.  Within two business days of red tagging a system, DEEP must provide the owner or operator of the system with an opportunity for a hearing.   A red tagged UST may not be put back into service until the violations have been corrected to the satisfaction of DEEP.  DEEP may allow the owner or operator to place the UST system back in operation if:
 within 24 hours after notifying DEEP, that the violations have been corrected, and DEEP has not removed the red tags; and
       they notify and submit an affidavit to DEEP indicating that all violations were corrected, and the steps that were taken to achieve compliance.

4. FORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT

Formal enforcement actions are undertaken in accordance with DEEP's Enforcement Response Policy ("ERP"). If the evidence gathered suggests that the violations were deliberate, deceitful or dishonest, DEEP staff should discuss a possible referral to the Chief State's Attorney's Office or EPA for criminal investigation as described in more detail in DEEP's ERP.

Upon determining that formal enforcement is appropriate, DEEP enforcement staff prepare the formal enforcement documents, including but not limited to: Enforcement Action Summary (internal); a cover letter; a compliance order (unilateral order or consent order); a civil penalty calculated in accordance with the DEEP's Civil Penalty Policy ("CPP"), if appropriate; Formal Action Data Sheets; and land record filings and mailings to the town as required by state law. The civil penalty amount is a combination of a base penalty on a per day calculation basis and the addition or subtraction of mitigating and aggravating factors, respectively, as set forth in the CPP.

DEEP is exploring the use of a new expedited consent order to compel compliance of owners and operators, of UST systems that have exceeded their life expectancy.  It is anticipated to help enforcement staff keep up with these common violations and drive positive environmental outcomes.
DEEP's enforcement and civil penalty policies focus on securing a penalty that is appropriate to the violation.  As noted above, the civil penalty is calculated by first establishing an appropriate base penalty based on the class and magnitude of the particular violation as well as a multiday calculation. The base penalty may be further adjusted based on mitigating and aggravating factors and the economic benefit realized by the violator.  The penalty can be increased or decreased as deemed necessary to ensure that the penalty is appropriate to the violation.  DEEP can also compromise or settle a penalty with a Respondent for an amount deemed appropriate by DEEP taking into account the factors enumerated in the case.
8. ENFORCEMENT TRACKING

Tracking of enforcement is performed by requiring certification of compliance by the violator, and by maintaining computer tracking systems (ESRUST and SIMS) of all enforcement actions.

The UST Program issues approximately 350 Warning Letters, 175 Notices of Violation, 5 Administrative and Consent Orders, 50 Notices of Disabled Systems or Red Tags and 1 Attorney General Referral per year. Administrative Orders and Attorney General Referrals may be issued for a single site or multiple sites. Additionally, more than 400 enforcement actions are typically closed upon full compliance each year.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 29075]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13443]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL9963-83-OEI]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, State of Hawaii

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Hawaii's
request to revise its National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Implementation EPA-authorized program to allow electronic reporting.

DATES: EPA's approval is effective July 27, 2017 for the State of
Hawaii's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation
program, if no timely request for a public hearing is received and
accepted by the Agency.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop
2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
1175<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving,
electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to
EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA
approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on
consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the
state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic
reporting. Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and
modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option
of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures
available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An
application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the
state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to
implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered
by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems
that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.
    On May 15, 2017, the Hawaii Department of Health (HI DOH) submitted
an application titled ``Compliance Monitoring Data Portal'' for
revision to its EPA-approved drinking water program under title 40 CFR
to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed HI DOH's request to
revise its EPA-authorized program and, based on this review, EPA
determined that the application met the standards for approval of
authorized program revision set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In
accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to
approve Hawaii's request to revise its Part 142--National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program to allow electronic
reporting under 40 CFR part 141 is being published in the Federal
Register. HI DOH was notified of EPA's determination to approve its
application with respect to the authorized program listed above.
    Also, in today's notice, EPA is informing interested persons that
they may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the State
of Hawaii's request to revise its authorized public water system
program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(f).
Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of
publication of today's Federal Register notice. Such requests should
include the following information:
    (1) The name, address and telephone number of the individual,
organization or other entity requesting a hearing;
    (2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in EPA's
determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a hearing,
and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA to
consider when determining whether to grant the request;
    (3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the
request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the
signature of a responsible official of the organization or other
entity.
    In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide
notice of the hearing in the Federal Register not less than 15 days
prior to the scheduled hearing date. Frivolous or insubstantial
requests for hearing may be denied by EPA. Following such a public
hearing, EPA will review the record of the hearing and issue an order
either affirming today's determination or rescinding such
determination. If no timely request for a hearing is received and
granted, EPA's approval of the State of Hawaii's request to revise its
part 142--National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation
program to allow electronic reporting will become effective 30 days
after today's notice is published, pursuant to CROMERR section
3.1000(f)(4).

Matthew Leopard,
Director, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2017-13443 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 04/16/2008 06:56 PM

To

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: Pb- Two items for OMB

Lydia,

Thank you so much!  I do appreciate the quick response; I'll share this

with the reviewers who have asked for it.

Along the same line of interest, to support interagency reviewers of the

rule in their effort to respect EPA's request that we rely on the

printed materials rather than ask EPA staff to prepare and present

briefings, reviewers have requested the following studies cited in the

rulemaking.  I believe these are all studies referenced in the rule

preamble or risk assessment.  Could I trouble EPA to share these with me

so that I might distribute them to the interested scientist readers:

From Preamble:

Axelrad 2008,

Auinger 2008,

Chiodo 2008,

Hornung 2008,

Kordas 2008,

Tellez-Rojo 2008

From RIA:

Schwartz 2003

Thank you, Lydia, Karen and Deirdre -- if you could give me a sense of

when these might be available, that would be helpful.  I would like to

give reviewers a sense of whether they will have time to read the

studies or whether they should provide written comment/question instead.

Have a good evening,

heidi

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

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 6:27 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Fw: Pb- Two items for OMB

Here are the items we discussed today Heidi.

----- Forwarded by Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/16/2008 06:25 PM

-----

             Deirdre

             Murphy/RTP/USEPA

             /US                                                     To

                                      Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

             04/16/2008 05:59                                        cc

             PM                       Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

                                                                Subject

                                      Pb- Two items for OMB

Lydia,

Here are the two documents for OMB:

1. The email with subgroup means from Lanphear et al 2000:

(See attached file: AuingerFeb11-2008-LanphearEtal2000.doc)

2.  The technical memo on air-related IQ loss (See attached file: Lead

NAAQ-REview Docket - Murphy-Pekar 2008.pdf)

Deirdre


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76339-76341]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29960]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71053; File No. SR-ISE-2013-63]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees

December 12, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on November 27, 2013, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the proposed rule change, as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE proposes to exclude from its ADV calculations any trading
day on which the Exchange is closed early for holiday observance. The
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to exclude from its average daily volume
(``ADV'') calculations any trading day on which the Exchange is closed
early for holiday observance. The Exchange provides volume-based tiered
rebates for Priority Customer complex orders when these orders trade
with non-Priority Customer orders in the complex order book, or trade
with quotes and orders on the regular order book. These complex order
rebates are provided to members in six tiers in both Standard and Mini
Options based on the member's ADV in Priority Customer complex
contracts. On September 30, 2013 the Exchange filed with the Commission
an immediately

effective rule filing that, among other things, amended its Schedule of
Fees to permit the Exchange to exclude from its ADV calculation, when
determining Priority Customer complex order tiers, any day that the
market is not open for the entire trading day.\3\ On November 1, 2013
the Exchange further amended its Schedule of Fees to increase its
Market Maker Plus rebate in Standard Options and Mini Options for
Market Makers that meet the quoting requirements for Market Maker Plus
and are affiliated with an Electronic Access Member that executes a
total affiliated Priority Customer ADV of 200,000 contracts in a
calendar month.\4\ When introducing this new Market Maker Plus rebate
the Exchange also included language indicating that, for purposes of
determining total affiliated Priority Customer ADV, any day that the
market is not open for the entire trading day may be excluded from such
calculation. Currently, each of these provisions allows the Exchange to
exclude days where the Exchange declares a trading halt in all
securities or honors a market-wide trading halt declared by another
market. In these filings, however, the Exchange noted that, in contrast
to the NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC (``PHLX'') and NASDAQ Options Market
(``NOM'') filings on which this language was based,\5\ it would not
exclude days on which the Exchange is closed early for holiday
observance. The Exchange has since determined that it would be more
equitable to exclude these days as well. While members are aware in
advance of days subject to an early scheduled close--for example, the
Friday after Thanksgiving--these are still low volume days, and
including these days in the ADV calculation would have the detrimental
effect of lowering members' daily and monthly ADV and thereby
qualifying members for lower rebates. The Exchange believes that this
effective cost increase during months where the Exchange has scheduled
early market closes is undesirable to the Exchange and its members, and
is therefore proposing to interpret this provision in the same manner
as NOM and PHLX.\6\ The Exchange notes that it will not be making any
textual changes to its fees as this proposed change brings its
interpretation in line with that of other markets with substantially
similar language to that already included in the Schedule Fees
[sic].\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70657 (October 10,
2013), 78 FR 62899 (October 22, 2013) (ISE-2013-51).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70872 (November 14,
2013), 78 FR 69718 (November 20, 2013) (ISE-2013-57).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70472 (September
23, 2013), 78 FR 59738 (September 27, 2013) (PHLX-2013-93); 70470
(September 23, 2013), 78 FR 59740 (September 27, 2013) (NASDAQ-2013-
117).
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it is designed to provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. The
Exchange believes that it is equitable and reasonable to eliminate days
subject to an early scheduled closed [sic] from its ADV calculation
because it preserves the Exchange's intent behind adopting volume-based
pricing, and conforms the rules of the Exchange with those of other
markets. The Exchange further believes that the proposed change is non-
discriminatory because it applies equally to all members and to all
volume tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\10\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary,
the Exchange believes that the proposed modification to its ADV
calculation is pro-competitive and will result in lower total costs to
end users, a positive outcome of competitive markets. Moreover, this
proposed rule change conforms the rules of the Exchange with those of
other markets that have adopted substantially similar rules for
excluding certain days from their ADV calculations. The Exchange
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily direct their order flow to competing venues. In such an
environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed fee changes reflect this competitive environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 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-ISE-2013-63 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-ISE-2013-63. 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-ISE-2013-63 and should be
submitted on or before January 7, 2014.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-29960 Filed 12-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P