[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16173-16174]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06854]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9944-23-OLEM]

FY2016 Supplemental Funding for Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund
(RLF) Grantees

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of the Availability of Funds.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to make
available approximately $8 million to provide supplemental funds to
Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) capitalization grants previously awarded
competitively under section 104(k)(3) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund pilots awarded under section
104(d)(1) of CERCLA that have not transitioned to section 104(k)(3)
grants are not eligible to apply for these funds. EPA will consider
awarding supplemental funding only to RLF grantees who have
demonstrated an ability to deliver programmatic results by making at
least one loan or subgrant. The award of these funds is based on the
criteria described at CERCLA 104(k)(4)(A)(ii).
    The Agency is now accepting requests for supplemental funding from
RLF grantees. Requests for funding must be submitted to the appropriate
EPA Regional Brownfields Coordinator (listed below) by April 25, 2016.
Funding requests for hazardous substances and/or petroleum funding will
be accepted. Specific information on submitting a request for RLF
supplemental funding is described below and additional information may
be obtained by contacting the EPA Regional Brownfields Coordinator.

DATES: This action is effective March 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES: A request for supplemental funding must be in the form of a
letter addressed to the appropriate Regional Brownfields Coordinator
(see listing below) with a copy to Debi Morey<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debi Morey, U.S. EPA,<PHONE_NUMBER>
or the appropriate Brownfields Regional Coordinator.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization
Act added section 104(k) to CERCLA to authorize federal financial
assistance for brownfields revitalization, including grants for
assessment, cleanup and job training. Section 104(k) includes a
provision for EPA to, among other things, award grants to eligible
entities to capitalize Revolving Loan Funds and to provide loans and
subgrants for brownfields cleanup. Section 104(k)(4)(A)(ii) authorizes
EPA to make additional grant funds available to RLF grantees for any
year after the year for which the initial grant is made (noncompetitive
RLF supplemental funding) taking into consideration:
    (I) The number of sites and number of communities that are
addressed by the revolving loan fund;
    (II) the demand for funding by eligible entities that have not
previously received a grant under this subsection;
    (III) the demonstrated ability of the eligible entity to use the
revolving loan fund to enhance remediation and provide funds on a
continuing basis; and
    (IV) such other similar factors as the [Agency] considers
appropriate to carry out this subsection.

Eligibility

    In order to be considered for supplemental funding, grantees must
demonstrate that they have expended existing funds and that they have a
clear plan for quickly expending requested additional funds. Grantees
must demonstrate that they have made at least one loan or subgrant
prior to applying for this supplemental funding and have significantly
depleted existing available funds. For FY2016, EPA defines
``significantly depleted funds'' as any grant where $400,000 or less
remains uncommitted. Additionally, the RLF recipient must have
demonstrated a need for supplemental funding based on, among other
factors, the number of sites that will be addressed; demonstrated the
ability to make loans and subgrants for cleanups that can be started
and completed expeditiously (i.e., ``shovel-ready'' projects) and will
lead to redevelopment; demonstrated the existence of additional
leveraged funds to complete the project in a timely manner and move
quickly from cleanup to redevelopment, including the use of tax
incentives such as new market tax credits, direct funding or other
resources to advance the project to completion; demonstrated the
ability to administer and revolve the capitalization funding in the RLF
grant; demonstrated an ability to use the RLF grant to address funding
gaps for cleanup; and demonstrated that they have provided a community
benefit from past and potential loan(s) and/or subgrant(s). Special
consideration may

be given to those communities affected by plant closures or other
economic disruptions; can demonstrate projects that have a clear
prospect of aiding the in-sourcing of manufacturing capacity and
keeping and/or adding jobs, or otherwise creating jobs, in the affected
area; or will benefit a community that has been identified as part of
EPA's Cross Agency Strategy on Working to Make a Visible Difference in
Communities. EPA encourages innovative approaches to maximizing
revolving and leveraging with other funds, including use of grants
funds as a loan loss guarantee, combining with other government or
private sector lending resources. Applicants for supplemental funding
must contact the appropriate Regional Brownfields Coordinator below to
obtain information on the format for supplemental funding applications
for their region. When requesting supplemental funding, applicants must
specify whether they are seeking funding for sites contaminated by
hazardous substances or petroleum. Applicants may request both types of
funding.

                            Regional Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Address/phone Number/
            Region                    States               email
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Region 1: Frank Gardner,    CT, ME, MA, NH,    5 Post Office Square,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>         RI, VT.            Boston, MA 02109-
                                                    3912, Phone (617)
                                                    918-1278 Fax (617)
                                                    918-1291.
EPA Region 2: Lya Theodoratos,  NJ, NY, PR, VI...  290 Broadway, 18th
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                          Floor, New York, NY
                                                    10007, Phone (212)
                                                    637-3260 Fax (212)
                                                    637-3083.
EPA Region 3: Tom Stolle,       DE, DC, MD, PA,    1650 Arch Street,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>            VA, WV.            Mail Code 3HS51,
                                                    Philadelphia,
                                                    Pennsylvania 19103,
                                                    Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
                                                    Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EPA Region 4: David Egetter,    AL, FL, GA, KY,    Atlanta Federal
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>         MS, NC, SC, TN.    Center, 61 Forsyth
                                                    Street, S.W., 10TH
                                                    FL, Atlanta, GA
                                                    30303-8960, Phone
<PHONE_NUMBER> Fax
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EPA Region 5: Keary Cragan,     IL, IN, MI, MN,    77 West Jackson
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>          OH, WI.            Boulevard, Mail Code
                                                    SE-4J, Chicago,
                                                    Illinois 60604-3507,
                                                    Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
                                                    Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EPA Region 6: Mary Kemp,        AR, LA, NM, OK,    1445 Ross Avenue,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>             TX.                Suite 1200 (6SF-PB),
                                                    Dallas, Texas 75202-
                                                    2733, Phone (214)
                                                    665-8358 Fax (214)
                                                    665-6660.
EPA Region 7: Susan Klein,      IA, KS, MO, NE...  11201 Renner Blvd,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                              Lenexa, Kansas
                                                    66219, Phone (913)
                                                    551-7786 Fax (913)
                                                    551-8688.
EPA Region 8: Dan Heffernan,    CO,MT, ND, SD,     1595 Wynkoop Street
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>      UT, WY.            (EPR-B), Denver, CO
                                                    80202-1129, Phone
<PHONE_NUMBER> Fax
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EPA Region 9: Noemi Emeric-     AZ, CA, HI, NV,    75 Hawthorne Street,
 Ford, Emeric-                   AS, GU.            WST-8, San
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                               Francisco, CA 94105,
                                                    Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
                                                    Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EPA Region 10: Susan Morales,   AK, ID, OR, WA...  1200 Sixth Avenue,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                            Suite 900, Mailstop:
                                                    ECL-112 Seattle, WA
                                                    98101, Phone (206)
                                                    553-7299 Fax (206)
                                                    553-0124.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: March 17, 2016.
David R. Lloyd,
Director, Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, Office of Land
and Emergency Management.
[FR Doc. 2016-06854 Filed 3-24-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Policy

Science Advisory Council for Exposure

Policy Number:	12

Regarding:	Recommended Revisions to the Standard Operating Procedures
(SOPs) for Residential Exposure Assessments

Date:		Original: December 18, 1997;  Revised: February 22,  2001

Index terms:	Dermal exposure, turf, carpets, indoor surfaces,
non-dietary ingestion, handler exposure input values

Contact:	Deborah. Smegal, Jeff Dawson, Jeff Evans

ISSUE:

This policy is a revision of key input variables presented in the,
Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Exposure Assessments,
dated December 18, 1997.  It provides recommended values for addressing
post application dermal, inhalation and non-dietary ingestion routes of
exposure to lawn care pesticides, indoor broadcast treatments and crack
and crevice treatments.   This policy also includes revised assumptions
for “area treated” when conducting a residential handler assessment.

BACKGROUND:

This policy is a result of discussions in HEDs Exposure Science Advisory
Council (Expo SAC) and should be used in conjunction with the current
residential SOPs.  Key post application variables presented in the
revised policy include transfer efficiency (percent transferable residue
assumptions for turf, carpet and vinyl treatments) and transfer
coefficients.   The revised inhalation values reflect the available
information presented in the Agency’s Exposure Factors Handbook.  The
transfer efficiency values address the transfer of pesticide residues to
wet hands for use in non-dietary ingestion assessments and also reflect
a reasonable worse case dermal exposure estimate when used with the
revised transfer coefficients in dermal exposure assessments.  The
document strongly urges assessors to use caution when using Occupational
and Residential Exposure Task Force (ORETF) member Turf Transferable
Residue (TTR) studies with the current transfer coefficients as this
combination may under-predict dermal exposure.   The ORETF has submitted
a post application dermal exposure model for use with member TTR
studies.   This document is under review and will be presented to the
SAC when all the issues are discussed and addressed by the ORETF.

POLICY:

Use the following table as a guide for choosing standard values, when no
other supporting data or information are available.

Table 1:  Revised Residential SOP Assumptions

February 2001

Exposure Scenario

 (SOP #)

Parameter

Previous Assumption

Current Assumption

Source

Residential Postapplication

Hand to mouth  (2.3.2

8.4)

Aggregate SOP 2.3.2. with:

SOP 2.3.3 Object-to-mouth

 and

SOP 2.3.4

Soil ingestion

hand transfer efficiency (fraction of ai available for transfer to hands
from foliage)

20%

5% of application rate available for transfer from treated turf to wet
hands

The 5% transfer factor is based on data by Clothier (2000).  Clothier
measured percent transfer efficiency  means of  0.156% (Std. Dev
0.138%), 2.72% (Std. Dev. 1.12%) 4.18% (Std  Dev. 1.53%) for the
pesticides chlorpyrifos, chlorothalonil, and cyfluthrin respectively.
The results are based on a single hand presses of volunteers hands
(wetted with their own saliva) onto St. Augustine turf treated with the
above mentioned pesticides.   These types of transfer efficiency data
are needed to assess the hand-to-mouth exposure pathway when using
hand-to-mouth frequency data based on videotapes or other observational
data as discussed below under frequency.   The wet values were 2 to 3
times higher than similar hand presses performed by  volunteers whose
hands were dry.

surface area of hands

350 cm2

20 cm2

This value is based on the following recommendations and assumptions:

1) To address hand-to-mouth exposure, the February 1999 Scientific
Advisory Panel (SAP) suggested that each hand-to-mouth event consists
the insertion of 1 to 3 fingers.   The same SAP also suggested the use
of a palmar surface area (both hands) of 114 cm2 .  This value is
consistent with values reported for children ages 37 to 42 months (111
cm2) and 43 to 48 months (116 cm2) by Snyder (1975).  Children in these
age groups are considered ‘pre-schoolers’ according to the American
Red Cross (1990 Safety Checklist).

2) The problem of assigning surface area values to the palms and fingers
was solved by Gurunathan (1998) who simply dividing the palmar surface
area of the hands by 2, with each half representing the palms and palmar
surface of the fingers.   Since the hand-to-mouth has been defined by
the SAP as 1 to 3 fingers (5.7 to 17.1 cm2 ) a screening level of 20 cm2
was selected based on the assumption that each hand-to-mouth event
equals 3 fingers.  A criticism of hand-to-mouth frequency data based on
video tapes is that it is not clear if the counting of hand-to-mouth
events are based on finger insertions or if the hands were simply
located near the mouth (Kissel et al., 1998).

exposure frequency

1.56 times/hour

20 times/hour for short-term exposure scenarios and

9.5 times/hour for intermediate term

Reed et al., (1999) reported hourly frequencies of  hand-to-mouth events
in pre school children aged 2 to 5 years based on observations using
video tapes.   The data consist of 20 children at daycare centers and 10
children at home.  A range of 0 to 70 events per hour were reported.
The 1999 SAP recommended the use of the 90th percentile value of 20
events.   A mean of 9.5 events was also reported by Reed, which is
similar to the mean reported by Zartarian et al., 1995 and 1997 using
similar video tape techniques while observing 4 farmworker children (2-4
years).

saliva extraction factor

100%

50%

It has been recognized in the literature that there is incomplete
removal of residues on the hands by hygiene washes using water,
surfactants, ethanol, or isopropanol (Fenske and Lu, 1994; Kissel et
al., 1998; Wester and Maibach, 1989).   These, references suggest
removal efficiency as low as 10%.  Camann et al., 1995, investigated the
use of surgical sponges wetted with human saliva to remove residues from
hands of volunteers.   Removal efficiency of 50 percent by saliva was
reported for the pesticides chlorpyrifos, poperonyl butoxide and
pyrethrin.  Thus, for screening purposes, the value of 50% is
recommended.

exposure time

2 hours

2 hours

This is based on the 75th percentile value (i.e., 120 minutes) for
playing on grass for ages 1-4 years and ages 5-11 years (Tsang and
Klepeis 1996 as cited on pg. 15-79 of EPA 1997, Exposure Factors
Handbook, EFH).  The data were truncated at the 75% percentile.  23% of
children ages 1-4 years played on grass more than 2 hours/day (p.
15-78).  In comparison, the 95th percentile for playing outdoors is 3.5
hours, the 95th percentile for time spent on school grounds/playgrounds
is 2.9 hours, while the 95th percentile for time spent at home in the
yard or other areas outside the home is 5.75 hours for children 1-4
years (p. 15-96, 15-124 and 15-136 of EPA EFH, 1997).

Object to mouth (formerly grass ingestion) (2.3.3)

Aggregate SOP 2.3.3. with:

SOP 2.3.2 Hand-to-mouth

 and

SOP 2.3.4

Soil ingestion

Use dislodgeable foliar residue data, not turf transferable residue data

20%

Tier 1:

20% of application rate available for transfer to mouth

Tier 2:

Use percent dislodgeable value from chemical specific  DFR data
available for Ag Crops

Tier 3:

Chemical specific DFR data for turfgrass

This scenario addresses the mouthing, not eating, of turfgrass that may
be grasped by a child.

The first tier assumption of 20% dislodgeability is based on the large
body of  DFR residue data available for agricultural crops.  These data
rely on the use of a surfactant combined with the mechanical shaking of
treated leaf disc samples.  This process may provide reasonable estimate
of an infant or small child's ability to extract residues from the
leaf/wax matrix.

As a second tier, chemical specific DFR data available for agricultural
crops may be used since this is more reflective of the
chemical/formulation specific aspects of dislodgeability related to the
pesticide you are evaluating.

If chemical specific DFR data are available for turfgrass, these data
may be used as a third tier.   However, there are limited data available
based on this method.  Available Turfgrass DFR data indicate percent
dislodgeability in the range of 3-5% (e.g. Hurto and Prinster 1993,
Cowell et al., 1993).   DFRs as low as ~0.5% for semi-volatile (10-4,-5
Torr) pesticides such as DDVP and diazinon were reported by Goh et al.,
1986 and Sears, 1987.

The 50% extraction value (of residues on the hand) is not recommended
for use in this scenario since the saliva extraction value assumption
addresses the removal of residues from the hand, as a result of contact
with the treated turf,  by saliva during the mouthing event. (See SOP
2.3.2.).

surface area

	25 cm2/day

Surface area represents a 2.x2 inches or 4 in2 area and is intended to
represent the approximate area from which a child may grasp a handful of
grass or "mouth" an object such as a toy.  HED believes this represents
an upper-percentile value.

Dermal Exposure from Lawns (2.2)

Turf Transferable Residue (TTR)

20%

chemical-specific data or 5% of application rate

There is interdependence of the transferable residue value and the human
activity expressed in the transfer coefficient.   The TC for short term
exposures is based on a study by evaluated by Formoli (1996) of the
California Department of Pesticide Regulation, in which propetamaphos
was applied to carpets.  The transferable residues in that study were
~1% of the application  rate.  The TTR method used to measure concurrent
transferable residues was the California roller (also referred to as the
cloth roller and CDFA roller).  Other proprietary studies using this
method suggest 1.6-3% transferability.  The California EPA, in a letter
to the Agency during the time the SOPs were taken to the SAP also affirm
that the transferability of this method is less than 5%.

TTR data generated by ORETF members rely on a modified version of the
California roller (ORETF roller) that appears to have a much lower
transfer efficiency (percent of application rate) than the original
version.   Many TTR data submitted by ORETF members show  percent
transferabilities of less than 1% of the application rate for sprayable
formulations and less than  0.5% of the application rate for granular
formulations.   ORD has conducted a round robin test of TTR methods that
included the ORETF roller (Fortune 1997).  While ORD concluded that the
ORETF roller performed the best of all methods, transfer efficiency for
three liquid herbicide formulations indicated a transfer efficiency of
~0.5%.  The ORETF data should not be used with the revised Transfer
Coefficients shown below since these revised TCs are based on TTR
transfer efficiencies of ~1-5% (transfer efficiency = % of the
application rate).   The ORETF is generating task force specific
transfer coefficients to be used with the ORETF member TTR data.   ORETF
post application exposure data has been submitted and is being reviewed.

turf transfer coefficient (TC)

43,000 cm2/hr for adults

8,700 cm2/hr for children

Short-term:

14,500 cm2/hr for adults

5,200 cm2/hr for children (1-6 yrs)

The TC for short term exposures is based on a review of a study by
Formoli (1996) in which propetamaphos was applied to carpets.
Individual volunteers wore cotton tights, shirts, socks and gloves and
performed Jazzercise® for a period of 20 minutes.  The normalized
hourly value from this study is 43,000 cm2/hr.  The TC for the 20 minute
duration is (14,500 cm2/20 minutes).   This 20 minute TC was used to
predict results from a biological monitoring study (7 µg/kg/day) based
on exposure to a spray application of 4 pounds per acre (a.i) for 2-4
hour durations (1 µg/kg/day for granular formulation).  This biological
monitoring study is reported in the literature as (Vacarro et al., 1996)
and submitted to the Agency as MRID 430420-03 (liquid) and 441671-01
(granular).   In Vacarro,  individuals performed choreographed
activities ranging from low or no contact (sunbathing and picnicking on
a blanket, 1.5 hours) as well as activities resulting in contact
(crawling, playing frisbee( and touch football, 2.5 hours).   Volunteers
wore short-sleeved shirts and short pants (defined as running attire).
Enclosed footwear was worn only during the touch football session.
Bottom line, 20 minutes of Jazzercise = one hour of exposure.  For the
spray example:

 4 lb ai/A (44.8 µg/cm2) x 5% (transfer efficiency) x 14500 cm2/hr x
3%/70 = 13.9 µg/kg/day).

[In Vacarro, a 4 lb ai/acre rate was used.  Chlorpyrifos has a dermal
absorption rate of 3%]

Remember this SOP also requires an exposure duration of 2 hours.

Jazzercise( transfer coefficients are based on total deposition to
outside dosimeters (assuming no clothing protection).  This is why
critics often suggest it is  “children rolling naked on the grass”.
This  is not an accurate characterization of the TC since the revision
is based on a comparison of the short term study Jazzercise( to longer
term studies with volunteers wearing typical summer clothing performing
high and low to no contact activities.

Intermediate-term:

7,300 cm2/hr for adults

2,600 cm2/hr for children (1-6 yrs)

Based on Formoli (1996) and Vacarro et al. (1996) as discussed above.
Bottom line: 20 minutes of Jazzercise = 2 hours of exposure.

Exposure duration

2 hours

2 hours

This is based on the 75th percentile value (i.e., 120 minutes) and
121minutes per day  is the value listed for percentiles above the 75th
percentile for playing on grass for ages 1-4 years and ages 5-11 years
(N 206 and N 185 respectively) Tsang amd Klepeis 1996 as cited on pg.
15-79 of Exposure Factors Handbook, EFH Vol. III, 1997.  The data were
truncated at the 75% percentile.  23% of children ages 1-4 years played
on grass more than 2 hours/day (p. 15-78).

Dermal Exposure from Indoor Pesticide Use (8.2)

Indoor surface Transferable Residue

50%

5% of application rate–carpets (8.2.1 and 8.4)

10% of application rate–hard surfaces (8.2.2 and 8.4)

Camann et al. (1995) - mean wet hand transfer efficiencies (human
saliva) from plush carpets for the respective pesticides chlorpyrifos,
pyrethrin I and piperonyl butoxide  - 1.1% (Std. Dev 0.6%) , 4.8% (Std.
Dev. 2.4%) and 2.8% (0.9%).

Clothier (1999b) - wet palm (human saliva) transfer efficiencies from
new carpet for the respective pesticides chlorpyrifos, pyrethrin I and
piperonyl butoxide - 1.21% (Std. Dev 1.00%), 1.87% (Std. Dev. 1.38%) and
2.03% (Std. Dev. 1.04%).

Clothier (1999b) wet palm (human saliva) transfer efficiencies from used
carpet for the respective pesticides chlorpyrifos, pyrethrin I and
piperonyl butoxide - 0.47% (Std. Dev. 0.38%), 1.64% (Std. Dev. 0.86%)
and 0.87% (Std. Dev. 5.6%).

Clothier (1999a) - wet palm (human saliva) transfer efficiencies from
sheet vinyl flooring for the respective pesticides chlorpyrifos,
pyrethrin I and piperonyl butoxide - 4.38% (Std. Dev 2.83%), 8.89% (Std.
Dev. 4.66%) and 4.06% (Std. Dev. 2.64%).

Indoor surface transfer coefficient (TC)

43,000 cm2/hr for adults

8,700 cm2/hr for children

Short-and intermediate- term:

16,700 cm2/hr for adults

6,000 cm2/hr for children (1-6 yrs)

The original TC is from Formoli (1996) as discussed under turfgrass.
The revision is based on Ross (1990, 1991) where a normalized hourly TC
of 200,000 cm2/hour was measured following 20 minutes of Jazzercise(
(66,666 cm2/20 minutes).   Similar comparisons were made to another
study performed by Vacarro where volunteers performed scripted activites
on treated carpets.  The volunteers wore bathing suits for durations of
4 hours.   Activities include crawling and playing with blocks.  While
this scenario may be unreasonable for adults, it may be reasonable for
young children wearing  diapers. The twenty minute duration TC 66,666 (
4 hrs = 16,700.

Exposure duration

8 hours

8 hours for carpets/textile surfaces

4 hours for hard surfaces

The 8 hour duration of exposure is based on professional judgement for
upper-percentile dermal contact time with treated carpets, or other
textile surfaces (i.e., furniture, bedding) that may contain pesticide
residues as a result of direct application or indirect deposition.  This
assumed 8-hour value is based on the mean total time spent indoors for
young children (1-4 years) of 21 hours (p. 15-147 of EPA EFH 1997), and
subtracting the amount of time spent sleeping, eating, and bathing
(approximately 13 hours).

The 4 hour value for hard surfaces is based on the 90th percentile
values for time spent in the kitchen and bathroom for all age groups
(adults and children) (p. 15-129 and 15-130, EPA EFH 1997).  The
duration for young children exposure is slightly less.

Inhalation

(2.0 and 8.3)

adult hourly inhalation rate for short-term exposures

0.55 m3/hr (daily rate of 13.3 m3/hr divided by 24 hours)

rest:  0.4 m3/hr

sedentary activity:  0.5 m3/hr

light activity: 1m3/hr

moderate activity: 1.6 m3/hr

The hourly inhalation rates for adults are the values recommended by EPA
Exposure Factors Handbook 1997, pg 5-24.  These values should be used to
assess short-term scenarios of a few hours in duration, such as
postapplication inhalation exposures following lawn treatment, foggers
and crack and crevice treatments (depending on chemical-specific data,
such as air measurements, vapor pressure, persistence).

child (1-6 year) hourly inhalation rate for short-term exposures

0.36 m3/hr (daily rate of 8.7 m3/day divided by 24 hours)

rest:  0.3 m3/hr

sedentary activities:  0.4 m3/hr

light to moderate (i.e., play):  0.7 m3/hr

The hourly inhalation rates for children are the values recommended by
EPA Exposure Factors Handbook 1997, pg 5-24, except the light to
moderate rate, which is based on data for play and walking activities
(for children 3-5.9 years based on Adams 1993, pg 5A-3 of EPA 1997,
EFH), and also represents the average of 1 hour light activity and 1
hour of moderate activity for children ages 3-<10 years based on data
from Layton 1993 (i.e., average of 0.5 m3/hr for light activity and 1
m3/hr for moderate activity, pg 5-16 EPA EFH 1997).  These values should
be used to assess short-term scenarios of a few hours in duration, such
as post application inhalation exposures following lawn treatment,
foggers and crack and crevice treatments (depending on chemical-specific
data such as air measurements, vapor pressure, persistence).

adult daily inhalation rate

13.3 m3/day (avg of males and females)

11.3 m3/day for females

15.2 m3/day for males

13.3 m3/day for avg of males and females

Recommended average inhalation rates presented on pg 5-24 of EPA 1997,
Exposure Factors Handbook.  These values should be used to assess
short-term scenarios of a few days  in duration, such as post
application inhalation exposures following crack and crevice treatments,
and termiticide treatments (depending on chemical-specific data such as
air measurements, vapor pressure, persistence).

child daily  inhalation rate

8.7 m3/day (children 1-6 yrs)

8.7 m3/day (children 1-12 yr)

4.5 m3/day (children < 1 yr)

Recommended average inhalation rates presented on pg 5-24 of EPA 1997,
Exposure factors Handbook.  These values should be used to assess
short-term scenarios of a few days  in duration, such as post
application inhalation exposures following crack and crevice treatments,
and termiticide treatments (depending on chemical-specific data such as
air measurements, vapor pressure, persistence).

Table 2:  Revised Residential SOPs for Area Treated

(February 2001)

Equipment or Site

Turf

Garden

Shrubs &

Ornamentals

Indoor

Comments/Proposals

Area Treated (units are noted below)

Belly grinder

0.5 A (broadcast)

or

1000 ft2 (spot)

1000 ft2

1000 ft2

NA

Lawn broadcast remains at 0.5 A

(avg. from PHED is  0.8 A/rep & 1.2 hr/rep).

This value represents the mean to upper-percentile range of the
distribution of lawn size.  Recent lawn size survey data suggest that up
to 0.5 acre represents 73% of the 2,300 respondents, while nearly 16% of
the respondents had lawn sizes that ranged from 0.57 to 1 acre (Outdoor
Residential Use and Usage Survey and National Gardening Association
Survey 1999).  In this study, 2,300 respondents of 4,100 knew the size
of their lawn.

Garden & shrub/ornamental values reduced from 10000 ft2, supported by
Nat. Home Garden Survey

Push granular spreader

0.5 acre

NA

NA

NA

total area treated, not typical for spot treatments, value not modified.

This value represents the mean to upper-percentile range of the
distribution of lawn size (see belly grinder comments).

Aerosol Can

1 can

(2 fogger cans)

1 can

(2 fogger cans)

1 can

(2 fogger cans)

3 cans of spray paint, 1 cans for pesticide

Number cans reduced from 2 to 1 per event.  Supported by PHED (~0.5
hours/can), fogger & spray paint values unchanged

Granular by Hand

1000 ft2

1000 ft2

1000 ft2

NA

spot treatments only per SOPs,

value is unchanged

Low Pressure Handwand

5 gallons

or

1000 ft2 (spot)

5 gallons

or

1000 ft2 (spot)

5 gallons

or

1000 ft2 (spot)

0.5 gallons

spot treatments on lawns; use gallons basis first but 1000 ft2 can also
be used for turf & gardens, garden & indoor values reduced supported by
PHED and Nat. Home Garden Survey

Backpack

See Low Pressure Handwand

Not commonly used in indoor assessments (i.e., do not include)

Hose end

0.5 A (broadcast)

or

1000 ft2 (spot)

1000 ft2

or

100 gallons of finish spray, see siphon rates and other information

1000 ft2

or

100 gallons of finish spray, see siphon rates and other information

NA

Broadcast area represents the mean to upper-percentile range of the
distribution of lawn size (see belly grinder comments).

Based on data from http://www.ortho.com

Output is 2 gallons of finish spray per minute, can siphon from 1 tsp to
8 oz make-up solution per gallon applied, make-up tank capacity is 32
oz, use 4 tanks/event over an hour duration which = 100 gallons of
finish spray when load time is considered, case-by-case labels should be
considered

Airless Sprayer

NA

NA

NA

15 gallons

reserved for homeowner use outdoors, values are unchanged

Paintbrush & Roller

NA

1 gallon

1 gallon pesticide

1 gallon pesticide, 2 gallons paint, 5 gallons deck preservative

paint is for indoor or outdoors, paint values are unchanged, insecticide
paint-on has been added

Fire Ant

5 mounds treated (personal communication with Mike Hennessey of BEAD)

If broadcast on whole lawns or spot treatments on lawns, see
bellygrinder

Sprinkler Can

See Hose-end sprayer for spot treatments only

Pets

NA

NA

NA

1 pet

10% for dip, shampoo, dusts and ½ can for RTUs of any formulation if
instructions are ad libitum, values reduced for RTUs

Dusts

1 container for all uses (e.g., rose dusts) except pets where ½ RTU

Trigger Pump

See Aerosol Can

Flea Collar

NA

NA

NA

1 pet

value is unchanged

References

Adams, W.C.  1993.  Measurement of breathing rate and volume in
routinely performed daily activities.  Final Report.  Contract No.
A033-205.  Prepared for the California Air Resources Board, Research
Division.  Submitted by Human Performance Laboratory, Physical Education
Dept. University of California, Davis, CA.  June.

American Red Cross (1990).  Safety Checklist from the American Red Cross
Child Care Course, Health and Safety Units.

Camann, D.E.; Majumadar T.K.; Ellenson W.D.; and Lewis, R.G. (1996)
Transfer Efficiency of Pesticides from Carpet to Saliva-Moistened Hands,
in Measurement of Toxic and Related Air Pollutants: Proceeding of an
International Specialty Conference, Publication VIP-64, Air & Waste
Management Association, Pittsburgh, PA, 1996, pp. 532-540.

Camann, D.E.; Majumadar T.K.; and Geno, P. (1995) Determination of
Pesticide Removal Efficiency from Human Hands Wiped with Gauze Moistened
with Three Salivary Fluids, Final Report to EPA  by ManTech under
Contract 68-D5-0049.

Clothier, J.M. (1999a) Dermal Transfer Efficiency of Pesticides from
New, Vinyl Sheet Flooring to Dry and Wetted Palms. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Research
Triangle Park, NC

Clothier, J.M. (1999b) Dermal Transfer Efficiency of Pesticides from
Carpets to Dry and Wetted Palms. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Exposure Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC

Clothier, J.M. (2000) Dermal Transfer Efficiency of Pesticides from Turf
Grass to Dry and Wetted Palms.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Exposure Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC

Cowell, J.E.; Adams, S.A.; Kunstman, J.L.; and Mueth, M.G. (1993)
Comparison of Foliar Dissipation and Turf Dislodgeable Residue Sampling
Techniques.  Pesticides in Urban Environments, ACS Symposium Series 522,
pp. 100-112.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1997 Exposure Factors
Handbook (EFH).  Office of Research and Development.  EPA/600/002Fa,c.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  Standard Operating
Procedures for Residential Exposure Assessment.  Office of Pesticide
Programs, U.S. EPA, Arlington, VA

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  Overview of Issues Related
to the Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Exposure
Assessment.  Presented to the EPA Scientific Advisory Panel for the
meeting on September 21, 1999.   U.S. EPA, Arlington, VA.

Fenske, R.A. and Lu, C. 1994.  Determination of Handwash Rremoval
Efficiency: Incomplete Removal of the Pesticide Chlorpyrifos from Skin
by Standard Handwash Techniques.  Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 55: 425-432.

Formoli,T.A. (1996) Estimation of Exposure of Persons in California to
Pesticide Products that Contain Propetamphos. HS-1731, California
Environmental Protection Agency.

Fortune, C.R., U.S. EPA National Exposure Research Laboratory Human
Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division RTP (1997).  Evaluation of
Methods for Collecting Dislodgeable Foliar Residues from Turf.

Goh, K.S.; Edmiston S.; Maddy K.T. and Margetich S. (1986) Dissipation
of Dislodgeable Foliar Residue for Chlorpyrifos and Dichlorvos Treated
Lawn: Implication for Safe Reenty.  Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
37:33-40.

Gurunathan, S.; Robson, M.; Freeman, N.; Buckley, B.; Roy, A.; Meyer,
R.; Bukowski, J.; and Lioy, P.J. (1998) Accumulation of Chlorpyrifos on
Residential Surfaces and Toys Accessible to Children,  Environmental
Health Perspectives, Vol. 106. Number 1.

Hurto, K.A.: Prinster, M.G. (1993) Dissipation of Turfgrass Foliar
Dislodgeable Residues of Chlorpyrifos, DCPA, Diazinon, Isofenphos, and
Pendimethalin.  Pesticides in Urban Environments, ACS Symposium Series
522, pp. 86-99.

Kissel, J.C.;  Shirai, J.H.; Richter, K.Y.;  Fenske R.A. (1998)
Empirical Investigation of Hand-to-Mouth Transfer of Soil.  Bulletin
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 60:379-386.

Outdoor Residential Pesticide use and Usage Survey and National
Gardening Association Survey. 1999.  Submitted by the Outdoor
Residential Exposure Task Force.  D. Johnson, Stewart Agricultural
Research Services, Inc. R. Thompson, DOANE Marketing Research, Inc., B.
Butterfield, National Gardening Association.  November 12.  Volume 8 and
9 of 17.

Reed, K.J.; Jimenez, M.; Freeman, N.C.G; Lioy,  P. J. (1999)
Quantification of Children’s Hand and Mouthing Activities through a
Videotaping Methodology; Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental
Epidemiology. 9, 513-520.

Ross, J; Fong, H.R.; Thonsinthusak, T; Margetich, S; Krieger, R. (1991)
Measuring Potential Dermal Transfer of Surface Pesticide Residue
Generated from Indoor Fogger Use: Using the CDFA Roller Method.
Chemosphere. 22:975-984.

Ross, J.; Thongsinthusak, T.; Fong, H.R.; Margetich, S.; Krieger, R.
(1990) Measuring Potential Dermal Transfer of Surface Pesticide Residue
Generated from Indoor Fogger Use. Chemosphere. 20:349-360.

Sears, M.K. (1987) Dislodgeable Residues and Persistence of Diazinon,
Chlorpyrifos and Isofenphos Following their Application to Turfgrass.
Pestic. Sci. 1987, 20:223-231.

Snyder, R. G.; Spencer, M.L.; Owings, C.L. and Scheider, L.W. (1975)
Anthropometry of Infants, Children and Youths to Age 18 for Product
Safety Design SP-40, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

Vacarro, J.R.; Nolan, R.J.; Murphey, P.G. and Berbrich, D.B. (1996)
ASTM STP 1287. Tichenor, B.A. Ed., American Society for Testing and
Materials. pp. 166-183.

Wester, R.C. and Maibach, H.I. (1989) Dermal Decontamination and
Percutaneous Absorption.  In: Percutaneous Absorption. 2nd ed. R.
Bronaugh and H.I. Maibach, editors. New York: Marcel Dekker, pp 335-342.

Zartarian, V.G.; Ferguson, A.C.; and Leckie, J.O. (1997) Quantified
Dermal Activity Data from a Four-Child Pilot Field Study (1997) JEAEE
7(4): pp 543-552.

Zartarian, V.G.; Streicker, J.;  Rivera, A.; Cornejo, C.S.; Molina, S.;
Valadez, O.F.; and Leckie, J.O. (1995) A Pilot Study to Collect
Micro-Activity Data of Two-to Four-Year-Old Farm Labor Children in
Salinas Valley, California. JEAEE 5(1): pp 21-34.

 PAGE  1


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 71784]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25096]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2016-103]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Air Tractor
Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before November 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number {FAA-2016-
8929{time}  using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alphonso Pendergrass<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 7, 2016.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2016-8929.
    Petitioner: Air Tractor Inc.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  21.17(c) and (d).
    Description of Relief Sought: Air Tractor requests that it be
exempt from the normal 3-year duration for an application for type
certification per 14 CFR 21.17(c) for its AT-1002, Type certificate
project. Air Tractor also requests to be exempt from 14 CFR 21.17(d) to
keep the projects originally established airworthiness requirements for
no less than 4 years from the date of extension.

[FR Doc. 2016-25096 Filed 10-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18561-18562]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07330]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2007-D-0369]

Draft and Revised Draft Guidances for Industry Describing
Product-Specific Bioequivalence Recommendations; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of additional draft and revised draft product-specific
bioequivalence (BE) recommendations. The recommendations provide
product-specific guidance on the design of BE studies to support
abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs). In the Federal Register of
June 11, 2010, FDA announced the availability of a guidance for
industry entitled ``Guidance for Industry on Bioequivalence
Recommendations for Specific Products; Availability,'' which explained
the process that would be used to make product-specific BE
recommendations available to the public on FDA's Web site. The BE
recommendations identified in this notice were developed using the
process described in that guidance.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comments on
these draft and revised draft guidances before it begins work on the
final versions of the guidances, submit either electronic or written
comments on the draft and revised draft product-specific BE
recommendations listed in this notice by June 2, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the individual
BE guidances to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance recommendations.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft product-specific BE
recommendations to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments
to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kris Andr[eacute], Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (HFD-600), Food and Drug Administration, 7520
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of June 11, 2010 (75 FR 33311), FDA
announced the availability of a guidance for industry entitled
``Guidance for Industry on Bioequivalence Recommendations for Specific
Products; Availability,'' which explained the process that would be
used to make product-specific BE recommendations available to the
public on FDA's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm.
    As described in that guidance, FDA adopted this process as a means
to develop and disseminate product-specific BE recommendations and
provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to consider and comment
on those recommendations. Under that

process, draft recommendations are posted on FDA's Web site and
announced periodically in the Federal Register. The public is
encouraged to submit comments on those recommendations within 60 days
of their announcement in the Federal Register. FDA considers any
comments received, and either publishes final recommendations or
publishes revised draft recommendations for comment. Recommendations
were last announced in the Federal Register on November 6, 2013 (78 FR
66745). This notice announces draft product-specific recommendations,
either new or revised, that are posted on FDA's Web site.

II. Drug Products for Which New Draft Product-Specific BE
Recommendations Are Available

    FDA is announcing the availability of a new draft guidance for
industry on product-specific BE recommendations for drug products
containing the following active ingredients:

Table 1--New Draft Product-Specific BE Recommendations for Drug Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
A..............................  Amphotericin B.
                                 Atorvastatin calcium; Ezetimibe.
                                 Axitinib.
B..............................  Brinzolamide.
                                 Buprenorphine.
                                 Buprenorphine hydrochloride.
                                 Buprenorphine hydrochloride; Naloxone
                                  hydrochloride.
C..............................  Clobazam.
D..............................  Desoximetasone (multiple reference
                                  listed drugs and dosage forms).
                                 Diazoxide.
E..............................  Erythromycin.
                                 Estradiol.
F..............................  Fentanyl citrate.
G..............................  Guaifenesin.
H..............................  Hydrochlorothiazide; Metoprolol
                                  succinate.
L..............................  Levonorgestrel (multiple reference
                                  listed drugs).
                                 Linagliptin; Metformin hydrochloride.
M..............................  Mesalamine.
P..............................  Perampanel.
                                 Pindolol.
                                 Prednisolone acetate.
R..............................  Rabeprazole sodium.
T..............................  Teriflunomide.
                                 Tranylcypromine sulfate.
V..............................  Verteporfin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Drug Products for Which Revised Draft Product-Specific BE
Recommendations Are Available

    FDA is announcing the availability of a revised draft guidance for
industry on product-specific BE recommendations for drug products
containing the following active ingredients:

   Table 2--Revised Draft Product-Specific BE Recommendations for Drug
                                Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
A..............................  Abiraterone acetate.
                                 Amlodipine besylate; Benazepril
                                  hydrochloride.
B..............................  Brimonidine tartrate (multiple
                                  reference listed drugs).
D..............................  Doxycycline hyclate.
                                 Dronabinol.
                                 Dutasteride; Tamsulosin hydrochloride.
I..............................  Icosapent Ethyl.
L..............................  Leuprolide acetate (multiple reference
                                  listed drugs and strengths).
M..............................  Metoprolol succinate.
                                 Morphine sulfate.
                                 Mycophenolate mofetil (multiple
                                  reference listed drugs and dosage
                                  forms).
                                 Mycophenolic acid.
N..............................  Naltrexone.
O..............................  Octreotide acetate.
T..............................  Trimethoprim.
                                 Triptorelin pamoate
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a complete history of previously published Federal Register
notices related to product-specific BE recommendations, please go to
http://www.regulations.gov and enter Docket No. FDA-2007-D-0369.
    These draft and revised draft guidances are being issued consistent
with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). These
guidances represent the Agency's current thinking on product-specific
design of BE studies to support ANDAs. They do not create or confer any
rights for or on any person and do not operate to bind FDA or the
public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies
the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

IV. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments on any of
the specific BE recommendations posted on FDA's Web site to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessaary to send one set of
comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document. The guidances, notices, and received
comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the
docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

V. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: March 27, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-07330 Filed 4-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 66396]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26202]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IS20-90-000]

Notice of Tariff Filing: Enterprise TE Products Pipeline Company
LLC

    Take notice that on November 26, 2019, Enterprise TE Products
Pipeline Company LLC (Enterprise TE) filed Tariff 54.49.0 to extend
emergency transportation service of propane from Mont Belvieu, Texas to
Monee, Illinois. Enterprise TE states it has received additional
requests from third-party Shippers to continue propane service for a
period of time beyond the original date on which Enterprise TE intended
to terminate the propane service. Enterprise TE states in order to
continue to assist in alleviating these conditions, and as agreed by
Enterprise TE at the alternative dispute resolution procedures meeting
convened by Commission Staff on November 25, 2019, Enterprise TE is
filing to extend the availability of propane service on the segment.
Enterprise TE seeks waiver pursuant to 18 CFR 341.14 of the notice
requirements in section 6(3) of the Interstate Commerce Act to make the
tariff effective December 13, 2019.
    Notice is given that the deadline pursuant to 18 CFR 343.3 for
filing protests to Enterprise TE filing is hereby shortened to and
including December 4, 2019. The deadline for filing responses is
shortened to and including December 6, 2019.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Protest Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on December 4, 2019.
    Response Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on December 6, 2019.

    Dated: November 27, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-26202 Filed 12-3-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 169 (Monday, August 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 53835]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19129]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4538-DR;Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Mississippi; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4538-DR), dated April 23, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on August 24, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Brett H.
Howard, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Jose M. Girot as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

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

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-19129 Filed 8-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33571-33572]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12387]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77879; File No. SR-Nasdaq-2016-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proposed Rule Change To Require Listed Companies to Publicly Disclose
Compensation or Other Payments by Third Parties to Board of Director's
Members or Nominees

 May 20, 2016.
    On March 15, 2016, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Exchange'') filed
with the

Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change relating to
requiring listed companies to publicly disclose compensation or other
payments by third parties to board of director's members or nominees.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on April 5, 2016.\3\ The Commission has received five comments
on the proposal by four commenters.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77481 (Mar. 30,
2016), 81 FR 19678.
    \4\ See Letters to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from
Andrew A. Schwartz, Associate Professor of Law, University of
Colorado Law School, Boulder, Colorado dated April 25 and 26, 2016;
Bobby Franklin, President & CEO, National Venture Capital
Association dated April 26, 2016; John Hayes, Chair, Corporate
Governance Committee, Business Roundtable dated April 26, 2016; and
John Endean, President, American Business Conference dated April 28,
2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is May 20, 2016. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period
for Commission action on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\6\ and for the
reason noted above, designates July 4, 2016, as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No.
SR-Nasdaq-2016-013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-12387 Filed 5-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


29. To improve clarity, it would be useful to move the request for
information to the beginning of the document and include the rest as
background.

30. When will the Santa Monica Study be ready?

31. We recommend that EPA include the following questions, to help EPA
collect useful information on how regulation of avgas may cause
commercial disruptions:

How many companies manufacture AvGas today?

Do we have to import AvGas to meet current demand?

How is AvGas transported to airports? (either piped into airports or by
truck)

For companies developing alternatives, what is the best estimate as to
when they’d be able to meet current demand?

Where does the research stand on a standard for unleaded fuel for
high-performance engines?

To what extent are U.S. operators of general aviation aircraft concerned
that any changes made to U.S. avgas requirements (such as, for example,
requiring manufacturers to produce engines that consume non-leaded
fuels), could disrupt their ability to fly to/from locations outside the
United States because of a potential lack of those non-leaded fuels?

To what extent are U.S. manufacturers and other sellers of general
aviation aircraft concerned that a change in U.S. avgas requirements
could affect the international competitiveness of their products by, for
example, decreasing the demand for U.S. aircraft overseas if they are
not compatible with avgas used in those non-U.S. markets?

Page 13 line 12:  It is indicated that 100LL is the most commonly
available type of avgas but it is not clear here if this is the most
commonly used.  Suggest noting this here and not later in the paragraph
as it is presented.

Page 14 line 6:  It is noted that if all avgas was 100LL, it would
account for approximately 34,000 tons of lead emitted to the air.  Would
this be double if 100 octane only were used as indicated by the doubling
of the concentration of lead in 100 octane relative to 100LL?

Page 17 line 8:  It is mentioned that EPA has discussed it
“endangerment finding” authority at length in recent notices.  It
should be noted here that these endangerment findings are with respect
to green house gases and not lead.

Page 17 line 18:  Concentrations of the standard are presented in text
unites of micrograms per cubic meter but in previous and future text
units are presented as µg/m3.  We suggest notations be used
consistently throughout the document.

Page 20 line 10:  It is noted that EPA has found that air pollutant
emissions that amount to 1.2 percent of the total inventory met the
statutory test for contribution.  How does this value compare to the
value for lead in avgas? (What percent of Pb in avgas contributes to the
total inventory of Pb?)

Page 29 line 12:  It is noted that particles size influences the amount
of time spent in [insert “the”] aerosol phase.  It should be noted
as well this influences their residence time in the atmosphere.

Page 30 line 6:  It is noted “Once deposited to surfaces, lead can
subsequently be resuspended into the ambient air and, because of the
persistence of lead, emissions of this metal contribute to environmental
media concentrations for many years into the future”.  It should be
added that the emissions contribute to environmental media
concentrations for many years into the future “as it is cycled within
and between environmental media such as soil, air, and water”.

Page 31 line 6:  Insert at the end of the paragraph “as described
above”.

Page 48 top:  Volume of avgas produced presented in gallons yet
concentrations of Pb in avgas are presented in g/L.  We suggest the
gallon notation also be converted to liters here and present the
concentrations in g/L as well as g/gal as noted in the equation in the
next paragraph.

Page 51 last ¶:  General aviation and air taxi acronyms are presented
here but should be defined in the preceding paragraph where GA and TA
are listed with no definition.

Page 53 last ¶: What is the concentration of Pb in 100 Octane in units
of g/L so that one may compare to the 0.56 g/L presented for 100LL in
the previous sentence?

Page 57 line 17: typo: “an” should be “and”

Page 62 last ¶:  Particulate emissions from piston-engine aircraft are
presented as 10,000 µg/m3.  It would be helpful to put this value in
perspective with respect to ambient air TSP air quality standards (i.e.,
for particles less than 2.5 micron in diameter, the 24 hour attainment
standard is 35 µg/m3).

Page 63 ¶2:  “due to their “small” size”… We suggest an
(i.e., typically less than one micron in diameter).

Page 71 ¶1:  It is noted “We are requesting comment on the
availability of additional monitoring or modeling studies that evaluate
the air quality impact of lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft as
well as potential impacts on soil, house dust, surface water or other
environmental media”, we suggest adding a request for comment on
studies that will also assess potential impact on public health and
welfare.

Page 86 top:  There is a discussion of lead concentrations in fish.  In
an effort to put these numbers in perspective, fish advisory levels for
lead in fish should be presented too.

Summary of interagency working comments on draft rule under EO 12866.

These comments do not necessarily represent the views of OMB and are
subject to further policy review.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4426-4430]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00625]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79763; File No. SR-DTC-2016-802]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of No Objection To Advance Notice Filing Relating To Processing
of Transactions in Money Market Instruments

January 9, 2017.
    The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') on September 23, 2016 advance
notice SR-DTC-2016-802 (``Advance Notice'') pursuant to Section
806(e)(1) of the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of
2010 (``Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act'') \1\ and
Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) \2\ under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') to establish a change in the processing of
transactions in money market instruments (``MMI'').\3\ The Advance
Notice was published for

comment in the Federal Register on November 9, 2016.\4\ The Commission
did not receive any comments on the Advance Notice. This publication
serves as notice of no objection to the Advance Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1). The Financial Stability Oversight
Council designated DTC a systemically important financial market
utility on July 18, 2012. See Financial Stability Oversight Council
2012 Annual Report, Appendix A, http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/Documents/2012%20Annual%20Report.pdf. Therefore, DTC is
required to comply with the Payment, Clearing and Settlement
Supervision Act and file advance notices with the Commission. See 12
U.S.C. 5465(e).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
    \3\ MMI are short-term debt securities issued by financial
institutions, large corporations, or state and local governments
that generally mature 1 to 270 days from their original issuance
date, and include, but are not limited to, commercial paper,
banker's acceptances, and short-term bank notes. Most MMI trade in
large denominations (typically, $250,000 to $50 million) and are
purchased by institutional investors.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79224 (November 3,
2016), 81 FR 78884 (November 9, 2016) (SR-DTC-2016-802). DTC also
filed a related proposed rule change with the Commission pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,
seeking approval of changes to its rules necessary to implement the
Advance Notice. 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) and 17 CFR 240.19b-4,
respectively. Notice of the proposed rule change was published in
the Federal Register on October 11, 2016. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 34-79046 (October 5, 2016), 81 FR 70200 (October 11,
2016) (SR-DTC-2016-008). On, November 18, 2016, the Commission
extended to January 9, 2017 the date by which it shall either
approve, disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether
to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 34-79351 (November 18, 2016), 81 FR 85295
(November 25, 2016) (SR-DTC-2016-008). The Commission did not
receive any comments on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Advance Notice

    The Advance Notice is a proposal by DTC to modify (i) the DTC
Rules, By-laws and Organization Certificate (``Rules''),\5\ (ii) the
DTC Settlement Service Guide (``Settlement Guide''),\6\ and (iii) the
DTC Distributions Service Guide (``Distributions Guide''),\7\ to change
the way in which DTC processes transactions in money market instruments
(``MMI''). The proposal would affect DTC's processing of issuances of
MMI securities as well as maturity presentments, income presentments,
principal presentments, and reorganization presentments (collectively,
``presentments'' and with issuances of MMI securities, ``MMI
Obligations'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.aspx.
    \6\ Available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/
legal/service-guides/Settlement.pdf.
    \7\ Available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/
legal/service-guides/
Distributions%20Service%20Guide%20FINAL%20November%202014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, DTC proposes to: (i) With respect to delivery of MMI
securities, require purchasers of the securities (or their custodian,
if applicable) to acknowledge that they agree to receive the securities
via DTC's Receiver Authorized Delivery (``RAD'') system before DTC
processes the transaction; (ii) with respect to cash, require an
issuing and paying agent (``IPA'') of an MMI issuer to acknowledge its
funding obligations for MMI presentments before DTC processes the
transaction, except in limited circumstances where there are no funding
obligations; \8\ (iii) implement an enhanced process to check certain
MMI transactions against DTC's risk management controls (referred to as
``MMI Optimization''); (iv) eliminate the largest provisional net
credit risk management control; and (v) eliminate DTC's receive versus
payment net additions control, as described below. In addition, the
proposal would amend DTC's Distributions Guide to conform to the
proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ An affirmative MMI funding acknowledgement by the IPA would
not be required where the aggregate amount of an issuer's delivery
of MMI securities that have been approved in RAD exceeds the
aggregate amount of presentments because payment for those
securities would fully fund the presentments. In such a case, the
IPA would be deemed to have provided a funding acknowledgement and
DTC would process the transactions, subject to risk management
controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Background

    Today, according to DTC, when an issuer issues MMI securities at
DTC, the IPA for that issuer sends issuance instructions to DTC
electronically, which results in crediting the applicable MMI
securities to the DTC account of the IPA. The MMI securities are then
delivered by DTC to the accounts of the applicable DTC participants
(``Participants'') that are purchasing the issuance, typically as
custodians for individual investors, in accordance with their purchase
amounts. The IPA's delivery instructions may be free of payment or,
most often, for payment (i.e., delivery versus payment or ``DVP'').
Unlike deliveries free of payment, DVP transactions are subject to
DTC's risk management controls for both the IPA and the receiving
Participants, which means they are monitored for Net Debit Cap and
Collateral Monitor sufficiency.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ DVP transfers at DTC are structured so that the completion
of delivery of securities to a Participant in end-of-day settlement
is contingent on the receiving Participant satisfying its end-of-day
net settlement obligation, if any. The risk of Participant failure
to settle is managed through risk management controls that would
enable DTC to complete settlement despite the failure to settle of
the Participant, or affiliated family of Participants, with the
largest net settlement obligation. The two principal controls are
the Net Debit Cap and Collateral Monitor. The largest net settlement
obligation of a Participant or affiliated family of Participants
cannot exceed DTC liquidity resources, based on the Net Debit Cap,
and must be fully collateralized, based on the Collateral Monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When MMI securities of a particular acronym \10\ mature, the
current presentment process involves DTC automatically sweeping the
matured positions from the applicable Participant accounts and debiting
the settlement account of the applicable IPA for the amount of the
matured position, with corresponding credits made to the settlement
accounts of the deliverers. Because presentments are currently
processed automatically at DTC, IPAs have the option to refuse to pay
(``RTP'') for maturing MMI Obligations to protect against the
possibility that an IPA may not be able to fund settlement because it
has not received funds from the relevant issuer. An IPA that refuses
payment for a presentment (i.e., refuses to make payment for the
delivery of matured MMI securities for which it is the designated IPA
and/or pay interest or dividend income on MMI securities for which it
is the designated IPA) must notify DTC of its RTP. An IPA may notify
DTC of an RTP until 3:00 p.m. ET on the date of the affected
presentment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ MMI of an issuer are designated by DTC using unique four-
character identifiers referred to as acronyms. An MMI issuer can
have multiple acronyms representing its securities. MMI transactions
and other functions relating to MMI are done on an ``acronym-by-
acronym'' basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the current Rules, the effect of an RTP is for DTC to reverse
all processed MMI security deliveries of that MMI acronym, including
issuances, related funds credits and debits, and presentments, which
means that the securities would fail to settle. This reversal of
processed (but not yet settled) transactions could override DTC's risk
management controls (i.e., Collateral Monitor and Net Debit Cap) and
could result in a Participant's account having, unexpectedly, a net
debit balance that exceeds its Net Debit Cap and/or having insufficient
collateral to secure its settlement obligations throughout the day.
Thus, RTPs can create uncertainty and pose systemic risk with respect
to a Participant's and, ultimately, DTC's ability to complete end-of-
day net funds settlement.
    Currently, to mitigate the risks associated with an RTP, the Rules
and the Settlement Guide provide for the Largest Provisional Net Credit
control (``LPNC Control''). Under the LPNC Control, DTC withholds from
each Participant's Net Debit Cap the two largest intraday net MMI
credits owed to that Participant. The MMI credits withheld are not
included in the calculation of the Participant's Collateral Monitor or
its net debit balance. This provides protection in the event that
processed (but not yet settled) MMI transactions are reversed by DTC as
a result of an RTP.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71888 (April 7,
2014), 79 FR 20285 (April 11, 2014) (SR-DTC-2014-02) (clarifying the
LPNC procedures in the Settlement Guide) and Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 68983 (February 25, 2013), 78 FR 13924 (March 1, 2013)
(SR-DTC-2012-10) (updating the Rules related to LPNC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to DTC, its Rules and procedures relating to settlement

processing for the MMI program \12\ were designed to limit credit,
liquidity, and operational risk for DTC and Participants. In connection
with ongoing efforts by DTC to evaluate the risk associated with the
processing of MMI Obligations, DTC has determined that the risks
presented by intra-day reversals of processed MMI Obligations should be
eliminated to prevent the possibility that a reversal could override
DTC's risk controls and heighten liquidity and settlement risk. DTC
also states that eliminating intra-day reversals of processed MMI
Obligations would enhance intra-day finality and allow for the
elimination of the LPNC Control, which creates intra-day blockage and
affects liquidity through the withholding of settlement credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The procedures applicable to MMI settlement processing are
set forth in the Settlement Guide. Supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Changes

    The proposal would eliminate provisions for intra-day reversals of
processed MMI Obligations based on an IPA's RTP or issuer insolvency of
which DTC becomes aware, as described below.
    Pursuant to the proposal, DTC would no longer automatically process
MMI Obligations. DTC's processing of MMI Obligations involves the
delivery of cash and/or securities. With respect to securities, DTC
would require purchasers of MMI issuances (or their custodian, if
applicable) to acknowledge in RAD that they agree to receive the MMI
securities before DTC processes the transaction. With respect to cash,
an IPA would make an MMI funding acknowledgment using a new DTC
platform designed to accept such acknowledgments. When an MMI funding
acknowledgement is received, DTC would attempt to process transactions
in the acronym(s) for which the MMI funding acknowledgment pertains.
    If the IPA has provided an MMI funding acknowledgment for the full
amount of presentments, then all transactions in that acronym would be
sent to the normal DTC processing system and tested against DTC's risk
management controls. If the IPA provides an MMI funding acknowledgement
for only partial funding of the presentments, then DTC would undertake
the proposed ``MMI Optimization'' process to determine whether risk
management controls would be satisfied by all deliverers and purchasers
of the acronym and determine whether all parties would maintain
adequate positions to complete the applicable transactions. However, as
long as the issuances that could satisfy deliverer and purchaser risk
controls for that MMI acronym are equal to or greater than the maturing
presentments of that acronym, the applicable transactions (i.e., those
that pass risk controls) could be processed without an IPA's funding
acknowledgement.
    If DTC does not receive the necessary acknowledgments from both the
IPA and purchasers for an acronym for which maturing MMI Obligations
are due on that day and/or DTC is aware, through ordinary business
channels, that the issuer of an acronym is insolvent (``Acronym Payment
Failure''), then DTC would not process transactions in the acronym.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ DTC would automatically consider an Acronym Payment Failure
that occurred due to an IPA's failure to provide timely MMI funding
acknowledgement (i.e., provide the acknowledgment by 3:00 p.m. ET)
as an RTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the event of an Acronym Payment Failure, DTC would: (i) Prevent
further issuance and maturity activity for the acronym in DTC's system;
(ii) prevent deliveries of MMI securities of the acronym and halt all
activity in that acronym; (iii) set the collateral value of the MMI
securities in the acronym to zero for purposes of calculating the
Collateral Monitor of any affected Participant; and (iv) notify
Participants of the Acronym Payment Failure via DTC's current
notification process. Notwithstanding the occurrence of an Acronym
Payment Failure, the IPA would remain liable for funding pursuant to
any MMI funding acknowledgment previously provided for that business
day.
    A ``Temporary Acronym Payment Failure'' would occur when an IPA
notifies DTC that it temporarily refuses to pay income presentments,
and only income presentments, for an acronym, which typically would be
due to an issuer's inability to fund income presentments on that day. A
Temporary Acronym Payment Failure would only be initiated if there are
no maturity presentments, principal presentments, and/or reorganization
presentments on that business day. DTC would require the issuer and/or
IPA to resolve such a situation by the next business day.
    In the event of a Temporary Acronym Payment Failure, DTC would: (i)
Temporarily devalue to zero all of the issuer's MMI securities for
purposes of calculating the Collateral Monitor, unless and until the
IPA acknowledges funding with respect to the income payments on the
following business day; (ii) notify Participants of the delayed
payment; and (iii) block from DTC's systems all further issuances and
maturities by that issuer for the remainder of the business day on
which notification of the Temporary Payment Failure was received by
DTC. An IPA would not be able to avail itself of a Temporary Acronym
Payment Failure for the same acronym on consecutive business days.
    The Commission understands that the proposal would not: (i)
Decrease the total number and value of transactions that would pass
DTC's risk controls throughout the processing day; or (ii) increase the
volume of transactions that would fail to settle. The Commission also
understands that the proposal would reduce blockage caused by DTC. Non-
MMI transactions and fully funded MMI transactions would likely have a
reduction in blockage as a result of the elimination of the LPNC
Control. The elimination of the LPNC Control would no longer withhold
billions of dollars of settlement credits as it does today, thus
permitting MMI transactions subject to the LPNC Control to process
earlier in the day. Moreover, it is expected that the value and volume
of MMI transactions recycling due to failure to meet DTC's risk
management controls during the late morning and afternoon periods would
be reduced, as a result of such transactions being held outside of
DTC's processing system while they await the necessary acknowledgments.
    Similar to the LPNC Control, the RVPNA Control is used to prevent a
Participant from delivering free of value or undervalued any MMI
securities that were received for payment on the same day.\14\ For
example, under DTC's current rules, if Participant A delivers MMI
securities to Participant B for payment, and then Participant B
delivers the same MMI securities to Participant C free of payment
(subject to risk management controls), the delivery to Participant C is
final when the securities are credited to Participant C. DTC would,
therefore, be unable to reverse the delivery to Participant C and,
thus, DTC could not reverse the delivery from Participant B to
Participant A. The RVPNA Control protects DTC against being unable to
reverse such transactions of MMI Securities in the event of an RTP by
the IPA. Because DTC would no longer permit the reversal of processed
MMI transactions, DTC would no longer need the RVPNA Control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For purposes of RVPNA, MMI securities are considered
undervalued if they are delivered for less than 10 percent below
market value.

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

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Although the Act does not specify a standard of review for an
advance notice, its stated purpose is instructive: To mitigate systemic
risk in the financial system and promote financial stability by, among
other things, promoting uniform risk management standards for
systemically important financial market utilities and strengthening the
liquidity of systemically important financial market utilities.\15\
Section 805(a)(2) of the Act authorizes the Commission to prescribe
risk management standards for the payment, clearing, and settlement
activities of designated clearing entities and financial institutions
engaged in designated activities for which it is the Supervisory Agency
or the appropriate financial regulator.\16\ Section 805(b) of the Act
states that the objectives and principles for the risk management
standards prescribed under Section 805(a) shall be to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 12 U.S.C. 5461(b).
    \16\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Promote robust risk management;
     promote safety and soundness;
     reduce systemic risks; and
     support the stability of the broader financial system.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has adopted risk management standards under Section
805(a)(2) of the Act \18\ and Section 17A of the Exchange Act \19\
(``Clearing Agency Standards'').\20\ The Clearing Agency Standards
require registered clearing agencies to establish, implement, maintain,
and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably
designed to meet certain minimum requirements for their operations and
risk management practices on an ongoing basis.\21\ Therefore, it is
appropriate for the Commission to review proposed changes in advance
notices against the objectives and principles of these risk management
standards as described in Section 805(b) of the Act and in the Clearing
Agency Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \20\ See 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22. Securities Exchange Act Release No.
68080 (October 22, 2012), 77 FR 66220 (November 2, 2012) (S7-08-11).
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 805(b) of the Act

    The Commission believes that the proposed changes in the Advance
Notice are consistent with the objectives and principles described in
Section 805(b) of the Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Commission believes that the changes proposed in the
Advance Notice promote robust risk management. Under the proposal, DTC
would no longer automatically process MMI presentments. Instead, before
it processes a presentment, DTC would require purchasers of MMI
issuances (or their custodian, if applicable) to acknowledge in RAD
that the purchasers agree to receive the MMI securities before DTC
processes the transaction. The proposal would also require the
applicable IPA to provide an MMI funding acknowledgment, as applicable.
The MMI funding acknowledgement would be a commitment by the IPA to
make the applicable funds available to DTC. Although the proposed
changes would establish new requirements before DTC would process such
MMI transactions, the Commission believes that the benefits of
eliminating the risk of a potential override of DTC's risk management
controls from an RTP supports such requirements.
    DTC also would employ the proposed MMI Optimization, which would,
for MMI transactions that await funding, continually test the net
effect of transactions, across multiple MMI issuers, on receiving and
delivering Participants' risk controls and then process the
transactions once the controls are met. MMI Optimization would help
maximize processing and facilitate more timely settlement of
transactions, thus reducing risks that transactions may not settle.
    Second, the Commission believes that the changes proposed in the
Advance Notice promote safety and soundness. Currently, as described
above, if DTC were to reverse MMI transactions because of an RTP, the
reversal could override DTC's risk management controls. The Advance
Notice would eliminate RTPs and resulting reversals of MMI
transactions, and thus eliminates this opportunity to override DTC's
risk management controls.
    Third, the Commission believes that the Advance Notice helps reduce
systemic risk. As described above, DTC would no longer automatically
process MMI presentments. Rather, DTC would require purchasers to
authorize delivery via RAD and IPAs to provide a funding acknowledgment
before processing MMI presentments, as applicable. Because these
changes would eliminate the risk of reversals due to an RTP, the
changes would mitigate the risk of a potential override of DTC's risk
management controls. In turn, this would reduce DTC's exposure to
potential failures, promote DTC's safety and soundness, as discussed
above, and thereby reduce the systemic risk to the financial system.
    Fourth, the Commission believes that the Advance Notice promotes
the stability of the broader financial system. As described above, the
LPNC Control currently withholds from each Participant the two largest
intraday net MMI credits out of all of the MMI credits owed to that
Participant in order to protect DTC from a Participant breaching its
Net Debit Cap or having insufficient collateral in the event of a
reversed because of an RTP. However, withholding the credits makes them
unavailable to the Participant, which can cause blockage (i.e., the
failure of a transaction to process because of insufficient liquidity)
for the Participant. Meanwhile, the RVPNA Control limits a
Participant's ability to deliver MMI that the Participant is also due
to receive that day. By preventing Participants from delivering certain
MMI securities, the RVPNA Control creates blockage.
    Because DTC would no longer process MMI transactions without a
purchaser's RAD acknowledgement and an IPA's MMI funding
acknowledgement, as applicable, RTPs and resulting intraday reversals
no longer present the risk that the LPNC and RVPNA Controls are meant
to address. As such, DTC would eliminate these controls. This change
would make available to Participants the intraday credits that were
previously withheld, which would decrease intraday liquidity blockage
for the Participant and enable DTC to process MMI transactions earlier.
Thus, Participants would have less exposure to intraday reversals that
increase liquidity and settlement risk and a more complete view of
their actual intraday net debit and credit balances.
    For the above reasons, the Commission believes that the changes
proposed in the Advance Notice promote robust risk management, promote
safety and soundness, reduce systemic risks, and support the stability
of the broader financial system consistent with Section 805(b) of the
Act.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(d) of the Exchange Act

    The Commission also believes that the Advance Notice is consistent
with the Clearing Agency Standards, in particular Rule 17Ad-22(d)(12)
under the Exchange Act.\24\ Rule 17Ad-22(d)(12) requires DTC to
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures

reasonably designed to ensure that final settlement occurs no later
than the end of the settlement day; and require that intraday or real-
time finality be provided where necessary to reduce risks.\25\ Through
this proposal, DTC would no longer process MMI transactions
automatically but, rather, would first require an IPA's funding
acknowledgment and a purchaser's RAD acknowledgment, as applicable.
Where a funding acknowledgement is provided, DTC would no longer permit
an RTP, thus eliminating the risk of an intraday reversal of a
processed MMI transaction. Additionally, the proposal would eliminate
the LPNC and RVPNA Controls, which would help eliminate the blockage
caused by the LPNC Control's withholding of Participants' two largest
net credits for MMI transactions and the RVPNA Control's restriction on
delivering certain MMI securities. Each of these proposed changes, both
individually and collectively, would help ensure that final settlement
occurs at the end of the day. As such, the Commission believes that the
changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(d)(12) under the Exchange Act.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(12).
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    It is therefore noticed, pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(I) of the
Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act,\27\ that the
Commission does not object to the Advance Notice (SR-DTC-2016-802) and
that DTC is authorized to implement the proposed change as of the date
of this notice or the date of an order by the Commission authorizing
DTC to implement DTC's proposed rule change SR-DTC-2016-008 that is
consistent with this Advance Notice, whichever is later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(I).

    By the Commission.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-00625 Filed 1-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P