1 Fact Sheet: Announcement of Preliminary Regulatory Determinations for Priority Contaminants on the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 1. What is the Contaminant Candidate List?

The Safe Drinking Water Act ( SDWA), as amended in 1996, requires EPA to publish a list of contaminants ( referred to as the Contaminant Candidate List, or CCL) to assist in prioritysetting efforts. SDWA also requires the Agency to select five or more contaminants from the current CCL and determine, by August 2001, whether or not to regulate these contaminants with a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation ( NPDWR).

The CCL was developed with considerable input from the scientific community and stakeholders. A draft CCL requesting public comment was published in October of 1997 and a final in March of 1998. The CCL contains 60 contaminants ( 50 chemicals and 10 microbes) that are not subject to any current or proposed NPDWRs.

2. What contaminants are EPA considering for regulation?

In 1998, 20 of the 60 contaminants were classified as priorities for regulatory determination because it was believed at that time that there were sufficient data to evaluate both exposure and risk to public health, and to support a determination of whether or not to proceed to promulgation of an NPDWR.

Since then, 12 of the 20 priority contaminants were found to have insufficient information to support a regulatory determination. In addition, sodium was added to the list of regulatory determination priorities.

Below are the 9 contaminants that have sufficient data and information to consider for a determination of whether or not to regulate. Please see the appendix for summary information on each contaminant. ° Acanthamoeba   microscopic amoeba commonly found in the environment ° Aldrin   banned insecticides, used primarily on corn and cotton ° Dieldrin   banned insecticides, used primarily on corn and cotton ° Hexachlorobutadiene   used primarily to make rubber compounds ° Manganese   essential nutrient, occurs naturally, and has a variety of uses ° Metribuzin   herbicide used primarily on soybeans, potatoes, and alfalfa ° Naphthalene   intermediary manufacturing product and moth repellent ° Sodium   essential nutrient, naturally occurring element ° Sulfate   present in the diet, naturally occurring element 2 3. What did EPA decide and what happens next?

Our preliminary determination is that regulatory action is not appropriate or necessary for any of the nine contaminants. After a 60 day comment period and stakeholders meeting, EPA will publish the final determinations in late 2002. Should the Agency determine that regulations are necessary, they must be proposed in late 2004, and promulgated by the summer of 2005.

4. What analyses did EPA undertake to make this decision?

When making a determination to regulate, SDWA requires consideration of three areas: projected adverse health effects, extent of contaminant occurrence, and whether regulation would present a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction ( see SDWA § 1412( b)( 1)( A)).

EPA developed the evaluation approach based on recommendations from National Research Council ( NRC) and the National Drinking Water Advisory Council ( NDWAC, one of the formal means that we work with stakeholders on drinking water issues). For each of the nine contaminants, EPA evaluated the sufficiency of current analytical and treatment methods; the best available peer reviewed data on health effects; and up to approximately seven million analytical records on contaminant occurrence. For those contaminants with adequate methods, as well as health effects and occurrence data, EPA employed an approach to assist in making preliminary regulatory determinations that follows the themes recommended by the NRC and NDWAC to satisfy the three SDWA requirements under section 1412( b)( 1)( A)( i)( iii). The process was independent of many of the more detailed and comprehensive risk management factors that will influence the ultimate regulatory decision making process. Thus, a decision to regulate is the beginning of the Agency regulatory development process, not the end.

Specifically, EPA characterized the human health effects that may result from exposure to a contaminant found in drinking water. Based on this characterization, EPA estimated a health related bench mark level for each contaminant. Then, for a given contaminant EPA estimated the number of public water systems and population served by those systems above these bench mark values, and the geographic distribution using a large number of state occurrence data that broadly reflect national coverage. Use and environmental release information, and ambient water quality data, were used to augment the State data and evaluate the likelihood of contaminant occurrence.

The findings from these evaluations were used to make a preliminary determination on whether to regulate a contaminant based on the three SDWA statutory requirements. The findings of these evaluations are summarized in the appendix.

In addition, EPA has asked the Science Advisory Board to review the supporting data and analysis, the approach used for making regulatory determinations, and the preliminary regulatory determinations. 3 5. Additional Considerations EPA is only making regulatory determinations on CCL contaminants that have sufficient information to support a regulatory determination at this time. The Agency continues to conduct research and/ or to collect occurrence information on the remaining CCL contaminants. EPA has been aggressively conducting research to fill identified data gaps and recognizes that stakeholders may have a particular interest in the timing of future regulatory determinations for other contaminants on the CCL. Stakeholders may be concerned that regulatory determinations for such contaminants should not necessarily wait until the end of the next regulatory determination cycle.

In this regard, it is important to recognize that the Agency is not precluded from monitoring, conducting research, developing guidance, or regulating contaminants not included on the CCL to address an urgent threat to public health ( see SDWA section 1412( b)( 1)( D)); or taking action on CCL contaminants when information becomes available. The Agency continues to conduct research and/ or to collect occurrence information for contaminants on the CCL ( except the nine for which preliminary determinations are being made) and may proceed with regulatory determination prior to the end of the next regulatory determination cycle.

We are soliciting comment on which of the remaining CCL contaminants stakeholders believe should have the highest priority for future regulatory determinations and their reasons in support of such comments.

6. Where can I find more information about this notice and the CCL?

For general information on the CCL, please visit the EPA Safewater Web site at http:// www. epa. gov/ safewater or contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1 800 426 4791. The Safe Drinking Water Hotline is open Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, from 9: 00 a. m. to 5: 30 p. m. Eastern Time. In addition to this fact sheet, the following documents are electronically available to the public at EPA's web site on the CCL:

( A) The Federal Register announcing the preliminary regulatory determinations for priority contaminants on the CCL; and ( B) The technical support documents for the CCL Regulatory Determinations Federal Register:

< Analysis of National Occurrence of the 1998 Contaminant Candidate List ( CCL) Regulatory Determination Priority Contaminants in Public Water Systems. < Health Effects Support Document for Acanthamoeba < Health Effect Support Document for Aldrin and Dieldrin < Regulatory Determination Support Document for Aldrin and Dieldrin < Health Effects Support Document for Hexachlorobutadiene 4 < Regulatory Determination Support Document for Hexachlorobutadiene < Health Effects Support Document for Manganese < Regulatory Determination Support Document for Manganese < Health Effect Support Document for Metribuzin < Regulatory Determination Support Document for Metribuzin < Health Effect Support Document for Naphthalene < Regulatory Determination Support Document for Naphthalene < Draft Drinking Water Advisory: Consumer Acceptability Advice and Health Effects Analysis on Sodium < Regulatory Determination Support Document for Sodium < Draft Drinking Water Advisory: Consumer Acceptability Advice and Health Effects Analysis on Sulfate < Regulatory Determination Support Document for Sulfate For a hard copy of this fact sheet ( EPA 815 F 02 003), the Federal Register notice, and/ or any of the supporting documents for the CCL Regulatory Determinations notice, please contact EPA's Water Resource Center at 1 800 832 7828. Appendix 1 CCL Regulatory Determination Information Sheet Acanthamoeba Background < Acanthamoeba are microscopic amoeba commonly found in the environment.

Adverse health effects < Several species have been found to infect humans. The two major disease conditions are keratitis and granulomatous amoebic encephalitis ( GAE).  Acanthamoeba keratitis. Keratitis, or corneal infection, occurs when amoebas enter the eye via contact lenses or through a cut in the cornea. Infection occurs predominantly in individuals who wear soft contact lenses and is thought to be a consequence of improper storage, handling, and disinfection of the lenses or lense case; wearing lenses in hot tubs and during swimming; and the formation of bacterial biofilms on contact lenses and lens storage cases. Acanthamoeba keratitis is not known to be produced by ingestion of drinking water, inhalation during showering, or other standard uses of drinking water.  GAE. Occurs mostly in chronically ill individuals with compromised immune systems. Routes of entry are the respiratory tract and skin lesions.

Occurrence and exposure < Acanthamoeba are found worldwide in a wide range of environmental media, it is assumed that finished drinking water may be source of exposure, however, PWSs do not monitor for Acanthamoeba. < Between 1973 and 1996 an estimated 700 Acanthamoeba keratitis cases occurred in the U. S. There appears to be an increased incidence in keratitis over the past decade that may be attributed to the increase in the number of contact lens wearers. < GAE is not a reportable disease in the U. S.; however, about 110 cases of GAE have been reported world wide; 64 cases have been reported in the U. S., of which 30 cases were diagnosed in AIDS patients. Reports indicate that the possible routes of entry of Acanthamoeba in individuals are through the respiratory tract and from skin lesions. Thus, it is unlikely that any of the cases were associated with ingestion of Acanthamoeba in drinking water.

Preliminary regulatory determination < The Agency has made the preliminary determination not to regulate Acanthamoeba with a NPDWR since regulation would not present a meaningful opportunity for health risk for the people served by public drinking water systems. Several species of Acanthamoeba infect humans and can be found worldwide in a range of environmental media ( e. g., soil, dust, and fresh water). Because of this, it is assumed that finished drinking water may be source of exposure. However, Acanthamoeba keratitis is not known to be produced by ingestion of drinking water, inhalation Appendix 2 during showering, or other standard uses of drinking water. Rather, keratitis is associated with poor hygiene practices among contact lens wearers. GAE has been reported in a very small number of individuals known to be at risk for developing this disease; there have been a total of 64 U. S. cases which is a low incidence even considering the possible vulnerability of an estimated number of immunocompromised and diabetic individuals of 10 million. It is unlikely that any of the cases were associated with ingestion of Acanthamoeba in drinking water. < An effective means to protect public health is to identify those groups of individuals who may be at risk or more sensitive than the general population to the harmful effects of Acanthamoeba in drinking water and target them with protective measures ( e. g., encourage contact lens wearers to follow manufacturers' or health care practitioners' instructions for cleaning and rinsing their contact lens). EPA intends to release a guidance document addressing the risks of Acanthamoeba infection. Appendix 3 CCL Regulatory Determination Information Sheet Aldrin and Dieldrin Background < Aldrin and dieldrin are the common names of two structurally similar insecticides. They are discussed together because aldrin readily changes to dieldrin in the body and in the environment, and they cause similar adverse health effects. < Popular pesticides for corn and cotton from 1950 1970. < Banned in 1974 except to control termites, banned for all uses in 1987. < EPA issued health advisories in 1992 ( aldrin) and 1988 ( dieldrin).

Adverse health effects < Both are classified as, " likely to be carcinogenic to humans." < EPA used only the best available peer reviewed data and analyses to characterize health effects. Based on this characterization, the Agency estimated a health related benchmark, or Health Reference Level1 ( HRL = 0.002 Fg/ L for both aldrin and dieldrin), against which to evaluate the occurrence data.

Occurrence and exposure < For the most part, exposure occurs when people eat contaminated foods. < Aldrin and dieldrin were monitored under the Agency's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring program2 from 1993 1999. < EPA estimated the number of PWSs with detections > ½ HRL and > HRL; the population served at these bench mark values; and the geographic distribution using a large number of State occurrence data that broadly reflect national coverage.  Aldrin detections > ½ HRL and > HRL. 0.02% of the reporting PWSs ( 2 out of 12,165) experienced detections of aldrin at > ½ HRL, and > HRL affecting 0.02% of the population served ( 8,600 out of 47.8 million people).  Dieldrin detections > ½ HRL and > HRL. 0.09% of the reporting PWSs ( 11 out of 11,788) have detections of dieldrin at > ½ HRL, and > HRL 0.07% of the population served ( 32,000 out of 45.8 million).

Preliminary regulatory determination ° The Agency has made the preliminary determination not to regulate aldrin or dieldrin with a NPDWR since regulation would not present a meaningful opportunity for health risk for the people served by public drinking water systems. EPA recognizes that aldrin and dieldrin are probable human carcinogens, but the chemicals have been banned for most uses since 1974, and have relatively low levels of occurrence in drinking water supplies. It is likely that there will be so few people exposed to aldrin and dieldrin in their drinking water that a national regulation to Appendix 4 control these two pesticides may not be significant in reducing cancer risk. Appendix 5 CCL Regulatory Determination Information Sheet Hexachlorobutadiene Background ° Used to make rubber compounds, also used as a solvent.

Adverse health effects ° Classified as, " likely to be a carcinogen to humans." ° EPA used only the best available peer reviewed data and analyses to characterize health effects. Based on this characterization, the Agency estimated a health related benchmark, or Health Reference Level1 ( HRL = 1 Fg/ L), against which to evaluate the occurrence data.

Occurrence and exposure ° Most exposure to hexachlorobutadiene comes from breathing it in workplace air. People living near hazardous waste sites containing hexachlorobutadiene may be exposed to it by breathing air or by drinking contaminated water. ° Hexachlorobutadiene was monitored under the Agency's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring program2 from 1988 1992 (" Round 1") and 1993 1999 (" Round 2"). ° EPA estimated the number of PWSs with detections > ½ HRL and > HRL; the population served at these bench mark values; and the geographic distribution using a large number of State occurrence data that broadly reflect national coverage.  Round 1 detections > ½ HRL and > HRL. 0.16% of the reporting PWSs ( 20 out of 12,284) had detections > ½ HRL, affecting 0.57% of the population served ( 407,000 out of 71.6 million). The percentage of reporting PWSs with detections > HRL is 0.11% ( 14 out of 12,284), affecting 0.37% of the population served ( 263,000 out of 71.6 million).  Round 2 detections > ½ HRL and > HRL. 0.08% of the reporting PWSs > ½ HRL ( 18 out of 22,736), affecting 2.3% of the population served ( 1.6 out of 67 million). The percentage of the reporting PWSs with detections > HRL is 0.02% ( 4 out of 22,736), affecting 0.005% of the population served ( 3,350 out of 67 million). ° Qualifying statement  Round 1 monitoring results are influenced by the State of Florida, which may have incomplete and problematic data that may inflate the occurrence estimate.  Although the two rounds differ somewhat ( for population exposed to concentrations greater than the HRL), the differences are relatively small ( approximately a quarter million), and the maximum estimate still shows a very low occurrence. The lower of the two rounds represents the more recent data.

Preliminary regulatory determination Appendix 6 ° The Agency has made the preliminary determination not to regulate hexachlorobutadiene with an NPDWR because the contaminant does not occur with a frequency, or at levels, of public health concern. Monitoring data indicate that hexachlorobutadiene is infrequently detected in public water supplies. In addition to the fact that these detections are low, it is important to note that when hexachlorobutadiene is detected, it very rarely exceeds the HRL or a value of one half the HRL. Appendix 7 CCL Regulatory Determination Information Sheet Manganese Background ° Essential nutrient, occurs naturally at low levels in soil, water, and food ° Variety of uses: production of steel, batteries, matches, animal feed, ceramics and nutritional supplements.

Adverse health effects ° Manganese is needed for normal growth and function; however, several diseases are associated with both deficiencies and excess intake of manganese. ° Major source of manganese intake in humans ( with the exception of possible occupational exposure) is dietary ingestion; however, manganese is not considered to be very toxic when ingested with food, and reports of adverse effects are rare. ° Several reports of toxicity to humans exposed to manganese by inhalation which can lead to neurological symptoms ( e. g., tremor, gait disorders, etc.). Much less is known about oral intake of manganese. ° EPA used only the best available peer reviewed data and analyses to characterize health effects. Based on this characterization, the Agency estimated a health related benchmark, or Health Reference Level1 ( HRL = 300 Fg/ L), against which to evaluate the occurrence data.

Occurrence and exposure ° Monitored under the NIRS study3. ° EPA estimated the number of PWSs with detections > ½ HRL and > HRL; the population served at these bench mark values; and the geographic distribution using a large number of State occurrence data that broadly reflect national coverage.  Detections > ½ HRL. 6.1% of the reporting ground water PWSs had detections > ½ HRL ( 60 out of 989), affecting about 4.6% of the population served ( 68,200 out of 1.5 million).  Detections > HRL. 3.2% of the reporting ground water PWSs with detections > HRL ( 32 out of 989) affecting 2.6% of the population served ( 39,000 out of 1.5 million).

Preliminary regulatory determination ° The Agency has made the preliminary determination not to regulate manganese with a NPDWR because it is generally not considered to be very toxic when ingested with the diet and since drinking water accounts for a relatively small proportion of manganese intake. Thus, regulation would not present a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by PWSs. Appendix 8 CCL Regulatory Determination Information Sheet Metribuzin Background ° Herbicide, applications primarily targeted to soybeans, potatoes, alfalfa, and sugar cane. ° Geographic distribution of use reflects the distribution of these crops across the U. S.

Adverse health effects ° Evidence is inadequate to classify as a human carcinogen. ° For non carcinogenic effects, the thyroid and liver are the most sensitive organs ( impacting organ weight, serum levels, and enzyme activity). ° EPA used only the best available peer reviewed data and analyses to characterize health effects. Based on this characterization, the Agency estimated a health related benchmark, or Health Reference Level1 ( HRL = 91 Fg/ L), against which to evaluate the occurrence data.

Occurrence and Exposure ° Monitored under the Agency's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring program2 from 1993 1999. ° EPA estimated the number of PWSs with detections > ½ HRL and > HRL; the population served at these bench mark values; and the geographic distribution using a large number of State occurrence data that broadly reflect national coverage.  Detections > ½ HRL or > HRL. No PWSs had a detections > ½ HRL or > HRL.

Preliminary regulatory determination ° The Agency has made the preliminary determination not to regulate metribuzin with a NPDWR because it does not occur with a frequency, or at levels, of public health concern. Appendix 9 CCL Regulatory Determination Information Sheet Naphthalene Background ° Naturally present in fossil fuels and is formed when wood or tobacco are burned. ° Used in the manufacture of plastics, dyes, solvents, and other chemicals. ° Crystalline naphthalene is used as a moth repellent and as a solid block deodorizer for diaper pails and toilets.

Adverse health effects ° Classified as a possible human carcinogen, via inhalation. ° Effects on the liver and eye ( cataracts) after chronic exposure. ° High doses cause break down of the red blood cells. ° EPA used only the best available peer reviewed data and analyses to characterize health effects. Based on this characterization, the Agency estimated a health related benchmark, or Health Reference Level1 ( HRL = 140 Fg/ L), against which to evaluate the occurrence data.

Occurrence and exposure ° The major source of human exposure to naphthalene is through moth balls through either breathing the vapors or handling. ° People also may be exposed by breathing tobacco smoke and air near industries that produce naphthalene. ° Usually naphthalene is not found in water because it evaporates or biodegrades quickly. ° Monitored under the Agency's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring program2 from 1988 1992 (" Round 1") and 1993 1999 (" Round 2"). ° EPA estimated the number of PWSs with detections > ½ HRL and > HRL; the population served at these bench mark values; and the geographic distribution using a large number of State occurrence data that broadly reflect national coverage.  Round 1 detections > ½ HRL and > HRL. 0.01% of the reporting PWSs ( 1 out of 13,452) had detections at both > ½ HRL and > HRL, affecting 0.007% of the population served ( 5,400 out of 77.2 million).  Round 2 detections > ½ HRL and > HRL. 0.01% of the reporting PWSs had detections > ½ HRL ( 2 out of 22,923), affecting 0.002% of the population served ( 1,300 out of 67.5 million). No PWSs had detections > HRL.

Preliminary regulatory determination ° The Agency has made the preliminary determination not to regulate naphthalene with an NPDWR because it is not known to occur in public water systems at levels of public health Appendix 10 concern. Monitoring data indicate that naphthalene is infrequently detected in public water supplies. When naphthalene is detected, it very rarely exceeds the HRL or a value of one half of the HRL. Appendix 11 CCL Regulatory Determination Information Sheet Sodium Background ° Essential nutrient, naturally occurring element ° Used in de icing roads, water treatment chemicals, domestic water softeners Adverse health effects ° A large body of evidence suggests that excessive sodium intake may contribute to age related increases in blood pressure ( hypertension). High blood pressure is a multi factorial disorder with dietary sodium as one of a number of factors influencing its incidence. ° EPA used only the best available peer reviewed data and analyses to characterize health effects. Based on this characterization, the Agency estimated a health related benchmark value based on dietary intake because of the lack of suitable dose response data. A benchmark value of 120,000 Fg/ L was used to evaluate the occurrence data.

Occurrence and exposure ° Food is the main source of exposure, primarily in the form of sodium chloride ( table salt). ° Discretionary sodium intake is variable and can be quite large. The FDA has found that most American adults tend to eat between 4,000 and 6,000 mg/ day. ° Sodium restricted diets range from below 1,000 to 3,000 mg/ day. ° Monitored under the NIRS study3. ° EPA estimated the number of PWSs with detections > ½ benchamrk value and > benchmark; the population served at these bench mark values; and the geographic distribution using a large number of State occurrence data that broadly reflect national coverage.  Detections > ½ benchmark. 22.6% of the reporting ground water PWSs have detections > ½ benchmark value ( 224 out of 989) affecting approximately 18.5% of the population served ( 274,000 out of 1.5 million people).  Detections > benchmark. 13.2% of the reporting ground water PWSs with detections > benchmark vaule ( 131 out of 989) affecting approximately 8.3% of the population served ( 123,000 out of 1.5 million people).

Preliminary regulatory determination ° The Agency has made the preliminary determination not to regulate sodium with an NPDWR since the amount of sodium in drinking water is not projected to cause adverse health effects and since drinking water accounts for a relatively small proportion of sodium intake. Thus, regulation would not present a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by PWSs. Appendix 12 ° This preliminary decision is based on the minor impact of the sodium in drinking water when compared to the sodium in foods. ° There are inconsistencies and uncertainties in the data on the relationship between sodium intake and cardiovascular disease for populations with normal or subnormal blood pressures. Blood pressure is greatly influenced by nutrients in the diet, lifestyle, and behavioral patterns rather than sodium itself. ° EPA intends to issue an advisory to provide guidance to communities that may be exposed to elevated concentrations of sodium chloride or other sodium salts in their drinking water. The advisory will provide appropriate cautions for individuals on low sodium or sodium restricted diets. Appendix 13 CCL Regulatory Determination Information Sheet Sulfate Background ° Present in the diet, naturally occurring element ° Used for a variety of commercial purposes ° SDWA requires the following:  That EPA make a determination whether to regulate sulfate; and  EPA and the CDC to conduct a study to establish a dose response relationship for adverse effects of sulfate, including the health effects that may be experienced by sensitive subpopulations ( i. e., infants and travelers).

Adverse health effects ° Laxative effect following high acute exposures (> 500 mg/ L) ° Sulfate Study  In January of 1999, EPA and the CDC completed the study required by SDWA.  Investigators were unable to study infants because they could not identify enough exposed individuals from which to draw a study population.  In experimental trials with adult volunteers representing a transient population, the investigators did not find an association between acute exposure to sodium sulfate in tap water and reports of diarrhea. ° Sulfate Workshop  As a supplement to the Sulfate Study, the CDC, in coordination with EPA, convened an expert workshop, open to the public, in September of 1998.  Expert scientists reviewed the literature and the Sulfate Study results and favored a health advisory for sulfate containing drinking water levels greater than 500 mg/ L.  The most sensitive endpoint was considered to be diarrhea. ° EPA adopted the recommendation by experts at the Sulfate Workshop of 500 mg/ L as a healthrelated benchmark, or Health Reference Level1 ( HRL), against which to evaluate the occurrence data.

Occurrence and exposure ° Monitored under the Agency's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring program2 from 1993 1999. ° EPA estimated the number of PWSs with detections > ½ HRL and > HRL; the population served at these bench mark values; and the geographic distribution using a large number of State occurrence data that broadly reflect national coverage.  Detections > ½ HRL. 5% of the reporting PWSs had detections > ½ HRL ( 820 out of 16,495 PWSs), affecting about 10.2% of the population served ( 5.1 million out of 50.4 Appendix 14 million people).  Detections > HRL. 1.8% of the reporting PWSs had detections > HRL ( 300 out of 16,495 PWSs), affecting about 0.9% of the population served ( 448,300 out of 50.4 million people).

Preliminary Regulatory Determination ° The Agency has made the preliminary determination not to regulate sulfate with an NPDWR since regulation would not present a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public drinking water systems. ° This preliminary decision is based on the weight of evidence suggesting that the risk of adverse health effects to the general population is limited and acute ( a short duration laxative related response) and occurs at high drinking water concentrations (> 500 mg/ L, and in many cases > 1,000 mg/ L). ° In addition, either people develop a tolerance for high concentrations of sulfate in drinking water, or they decrease the amount of the water they drink at one time, most likely because of the taste of the water ( the taste threshold is 250 mg/ L). ° EPA intends to issue an advisory to provide guidance to communities that may be exposed to drinking water contaminated with high sulfate concentrations. Appendix 15 Foot notes 1For hexachlorobutadiene, manganese, metribuzin and naphthalene EPA derived a health related benchmark, or " HRL", against which to evaluate the occurrence data using the RfD approach as follows: HRL = ( RfD x BW)/ DW x RSC. Where: RfD = Reference Dose BW = Body weight for and adult, assumed to be 70 kg DW = Drinking water consumption, assumed to be 2 L/ day RSC = The relative source contribution, or the level of exposure believed to result from drinking water when compared to other sources ( e. g., air), and is assumed to be 20% for the HRL unless noted otherwise. The HRL's for sulfate and sodium are unique to each contaminant. The available data do not support the derivation of an RfD for sulfate. However, 500 mg/ L is a concentration at which adverse effects did not occur in any of the reported studies. This value was used as the HRL. The value used to evaluate the occurrence data is not designated as an HRL because of the lack of suitable dose response data and the considerable controversy regarding the role of sodium in the etiology of hypertension. Instead a benchmark value is used. The benchmark for sodium was derived from the recommended daily dietary intake ( 2.4 g/ day) as dissolved in 2 liters of water ( 1.2 g/ L). It is important to note that the recommended intake is not related directly to dose response information and is lower than most estimates of the present average daily intake of the U. S. population. A RSC of 10% was applied in recognition that foods and discretional use of table salt are the major source of sodium exposure. This results in a benchmark value of 120 mg/ L, assuming 2 liters of water per day ( i. e., 2,400 mg/ day/ 2L x 10% = 120 mg/ L).

2Occurrence data for most of the regulatory determination priority contaminants ( aldrin, dieldrin, hexachlorobutadiene, metribuzin, naphthalene, and sulfate) are from the monitoring results ( State finished drinking water occurrence data) under the Agency's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring ( UCM) program. These data form part of the Agency's basis for its estimates of national occurrence. The UCM program was initiated in 1987 to fulfill a SDWA requirement of the 1986 amendments that PWSs [ all non purchased community water systems ( CWSs) and non purchased non transient non community water systems ( NTNCWS)] monitor for specified " unregulated" contaminants to gather scientific information on their occurrence for future regulatory decision making purposes. The UCM program was implemented in two phases, or " rounds." The first round of UCM monitoring began in 1987, and the second in 1993. EPA reviewed, edited and filtered the data to meet various data quality objectives for the purposes of this analysis. Only data meeting the quality objectives described below were used. Round 1 consists of data from 24 States with approximately 3.3 million analytical records from approximately 22,000 PWSs. Round 2 of data from 20 States with approximately 3.7 million records from slightly more than 27,000 PWSs. The actual number of systems and records varies for each contaminant according to the number of reported records for a particular contaminant. An additional EPA study conducted in the mid 1980s, the National Inorganic and Radionuclide Survey ( NIRS), provides a statistically representative sample of the national occurrence of many regulated and unregulated inorganic contaminants in ground water CWSs. Appendix United States Environmental Protection Agency April 2002 Office of Water ( 4607M) EPA 815 F 02 003 www. epa. gov/ water 16 3An additional EPA study conducted in the mid 1980s, the National Inorganic and Radionuclide Survey ( NIRS), provides a statistically representative sample of the national occurrence of many regulated and unregulated inorganic contaminants in ground water CWSs. The NIRS database includes manganese and sodium and provides contaminant occurrence data from 989 community water systems served by ground water. The NIRS does not include surface water systems. The selection of CWSs included in NIRS was designed so that the contaminant occurrence results are statistically representative of national occurrence at CWSs using ground water sources ( the survey was focused on ground water systems, in part, because ground water has a higher occurrence and concentrations of naturally occurring IOCs). Most of the NIRS data are from smaller systems ( based on population served) and each of the 989 statistically randomly selected CWSs was sampled at a single time between 1984 and 1986. The NIRS data were collected from ground water CWSs in 49 States. Data were not available for the State of Hawaii. NIRS data were designed to be stratified based on system size ( population served by the system), and uniform analytical detection limits were employed.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 169 (Wednesday, August 31, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 59991]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20974]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP16-493-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on August 12, 2016, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC
(Columbia), having its principal place of business at 5151 San Felipe,
Suite 2500, Houston, TX 77056 filed in the above referenced docket an
application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and
Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to
install and operate compressions, pipeline and appurtenant facilities
located in Louisa and Goochland Counties, Virginia, referred to as the
Central Virginia Connector Project (Project), all as more fully set
forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open
to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Tyler
Brown, Senior Counsel, 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, TX 77056;
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>; by faxing<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by emailing
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Specifically, the applicant proposes the following modifications:
(i) Replace unit at Louisa CS, (ii) convert replaced units to standby,
(iii) increase horsepower (HP) by 2,080 HP, (iv) install 0.12 mile of
8-inch-diameter pipeline, (v) install station pipe and valve to make
section at Boswell's Tavern bi-directional, and (vi) install meter
station near Goochland CS. The increase in HP will provide an
additional capacity of 45 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d). The
total cost of the Project is $52,387,031.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9),
within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of
Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: September 15, 2016.

    Dated: August 25, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-20974 Filed 8-30-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 222 (Thursday, November 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81202-81203]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27599]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79289; File No. SR-FINRA-2016-041]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Implementation Date for
Alternative Trading Systems To Report Sequence Numbers Under Rule 4554

November 10, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 8. 2016, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule
change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\3\ which
renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is proposing to delay implementation of Rule 4554(b)(8). The
proposed rule change would not make any other changes to FINRA rules.
    The proposed rule change does not make any changes to the text of
FINRA rules.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    In May 2016, the SEC approved Rule 4554 to further enhance FINRA's
ability to reconstruct an ATS's order book and better perform its
order-based surveillance, which includes surveillance for layering,
quote spoofing, and mid-point pricing manipulation. To accomplish this,
Rule 4554 requires ATSs to report order information for each order they
receive in an NMS stock beyond that set forth in the OATS rules, such
as order re-pricing events (e.g., changes to an order that is pegged to
the National Best Bid or Offer (``NBBO'')) and order display and
reserve size information.\4\ Rule 4554 sets forth four categories of
reporting requirements: (1) Data to be reported by all ATSs at the time
of order receipt; (2) data to be reported by all ATSs at the time of
order execution; (3) data to be reported by ATSs that display
subscriber orders; and (4) data specific to ATSs that are registered as
ADF Trading Centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77798 (May 10,
2016), 81 FR 30395 (May 16, 2016) (SR-FINRA-2016-010). Some of these
requirements do not apply to all ATSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 4554(b) requires that all ATSs report eight categories of
information at the time of order receipt, including the sequence number
assigned to the order event by the ATS's matching engine.\5\ When FINRA
announced the SEC's approval of Rule 4554, it established an
implementation date of November 7, 2016; however, FINRA noted that it
anticipated submitting a proposed rule change to the SEC that would
require ATSs to provide a sequence number for all OATS event types.\6\
FINRA noted that it ``is deferring the implementation of this
requirement to report a sequence number for new orders.'' \7\ In this
proposed rule change, FINRA is proposing that the requirement that ATSs
report a sequence number when reporting new orders not be implemented
on November 7, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Rule 4554(b)(8). Rule 4554(b) also requires all ATSs, at the
time of order receipt, to report: (1) Whether the ATS displays
subscriber orders outside of the ATS and, if the ATS displays
subscriber orders outside of the ATS, whether subscriber orders are
displayed to subscribers only, or are distributed for publication in
the consolidated quotation data; (2) whether the ATS is an ADF
Trading Center as defined in FINRA Rule 6220; (3) whether the order
can be routed away from the ATS for execution; (4) whether there are
any counter-party restrictions on the order; (5) a unique identifier
representing the specific order type other than market and limit
orders that have no other special handling instructions; (6) the
NBBO (or relevant reference price) in effect at the time of order
receipt and the timestamp of when the ATS captured the effective
NBBO (or relevant reference price); and (7) the market data feed the
ATS used to obtain the NBBO (or relevant reference price).
    \6\ See Regulatory Notice 16-28, at n.3 (August 2016).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA anticipates filing a proposed rule change with the SEC in the
near future to extend the requirement to report a sequence number
beyond order receipt because, without a sequence number on all order
events, FINRA is unable to properly sequence events when a single ATS
MPID reports order events in the same symbol with identical timestamps.
However, because a proposed rule change has not yet been filed, FINRA
is filing this proposed rule change to delay the implementation of the
requirement in Rule 4554(b)(8) that ATSs report the sequence number
assigned to the order event by the ATS's matching engine at the time of
order receipt. FINRA will announce the implementation date for this
requirement at the time it announces the implementation date for the
extension of the requirement to all OATS order events.
    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness and has requested that the SEC waive the requirement that
the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the
date of the filing, so FINRA can implement the proposed rule change
immediately.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\8\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes the proposed rule change is consistent
with the Act in that it will provide ATSs with additional time to
implement the requirement in Rule 4554(b)(8) and will not require ATSs
to begin reporting the sequence number assigned to the order event by
the ATS's matching engine at the time of order receipt until such time
as sequence numbers are required for all OATS event types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).

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

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed delay in
implementation of Rule 4554(b)(8) will reduce the burden on members by
allowing additional time to implement the requirement to report the
sequence number assigned to the order event by the ATS's matching
engine at the time of order receipt.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)\11\ permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. FINRA has requested that the Commission waive the
30-day operative delay so that the proposed rule change will become
operative on filing. FINRA stated that it anticipates extending the
requirement to report a sequence number beyond order receipt because,
without a sequence number on all order events, FINRA is unable to
properly sequence events when a single ATS MPID reports order events in
the same symbol with identical timestamps. However, because a proposed
rule change has not been filed, FINRA is delaying the implementation of
the requirement in Rule 4554(b)(8). For these reasons, the Commission
believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon
filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2016-041 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2016-041. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2016-041, and should
be submitted on or before December 8, 2016.

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27599 Filed 11-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 66)]
[Notices]
[Page 16018-16020]
[DOCID:fr08ap09-112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59676; File No. SR-CBOE-2009-020]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Change the Close of Trading Hours on the Last Day of
Trading in Expiring Quarterly Index Expirations

April 1, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 18, 2009, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CBOE proposes to amend Rule 24.6 to change the close of trading
hours from 3:15 p.m. (Chicago time) to 3 p.m. (Chicago time) on the
last day of trading in expiring Quarterly Index Expirations (``QIXs'').
The filing also proposes to amend Rule 24.9(c) by adding the Mini-SPX
Index to the list of broad-based indices on which the Exchange may list
QIXs. In addition, the filing proposes to amend Rule 24.9 by making
technical

changes that add the Mini-SPX Index to the lists of European-style
exercise and A.M. settled options approved for trading on the Exchange.
The text of the rule proposal is available on the Exchange's Web site
(http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary
and at the Commission.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend Rule 24.6 to
change the close of trading hours from 3:15 p.m. (Chicago time) to 3
p.m. (Chicago time) on the last day of trading in expiring Quarterly
Index Expirations (``QIXs''). The Exchange proposes that the change to
the close of trading hours on the last trading day applies to all
outstanding expiring QIXs that expire at the end of the second calendar
quarter in 2009 and thereafter.
    QIXs were introduced in 1993 and are separate from the Quarterly
Option Series Pilot Program provided for in Rule 5.5 and 24.9.\5\ QIXs
are cash-settled options on certain specified broad-based indices that
expire on the first business day of the month following the end of a
calendar quarter.\6\ QIXs trade simultaneously with, not independent
of, traditional options on the same underlying index. QIXs are subject
to the same rules that currently govern the trading of traditional
index options, including sales practice rules, margin requirements, and
floor trading proceedings. Contract terms for QIXs are similar to
traditional index options, with one general exception: the exercise
settlement value is based on the index value derived from the closing
prices of component stocks. In addition, the contract multiplier for
QIXs may be set at 500 rather than the customary 100. Positions in QIXs
are aggregated with option contracts on the same broad-based index and
are subject to the applicable overall position limit.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 31800 (February
1, 1993), 58 FR 7274 (February 5, 1993) (SR-CBOE-92-13) (QIX
approval order).
    \6\ See id. and Rule 24.9(c).
    \7\ See Rule 24.4(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, QIXs are priced in the market based on corresponding
futures values. On the last day of trading, the closing prices of the
component stocks (which are used to derive the exercise settlement
value) are known at 3 p.m. (Chicago time) (or soon after) when the
equity markets close. Despite the fact that the exercise settlement
value is fixed after 3 p.m. (Chicago time), trading in expiring QIXs
continues, however, for an additional fifteen minutes until 3:15 p.m.
(Chicago time) and are not priced on corresponding futures values, but
rather the known cash value. At the same time, the prices of non-
expiring QIX series continue to move and be priced in response to
changes in corresponding futures prices.
    Because of the pricing divergence that occurs between 3 and 3:15
p.m. on the final trading day in expiring QIXs (e.g., switch from
pricing off of futures to cash), the Exchange believes that there is a
risk to allow investors to continue trading expiring QIX contracts
after 3 p.m. (Chicago time) on the last day of trading. As a result,
the Exchange seeks to remedy any confusion by changing the close of
trading hours from 3:15 p.m. (Chicago time) to 3 p.m. (Chicago time)
for expiring QIXs on the last day of trading.
    It is expected that other options exchanges that have adopted QIX
rules will submit similar proposals.
    The Exchange is also proposing to amend Rule 24.9(c) by adding the
Mini-SPX Index to the list of broad-based indices on which the Exchange
may list QIXs, which offers an additional method of tailoring portfolio
hedges that expires on the last day of the calendar quarter. Finally,
the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 24.9 by making technical
changes that add the Mini-SPX Index to the lists of European-style
exercise and A.M. settled options approved for trading on the
Exchange.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In the original filing to list and trade Mini-SPX Index
options, the Exchange inadvertently omitted to add the Mini SPX-
Index to the lists of European-style exercise and A.M settled
options approved for trading on the Exchange. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 32893 (September 14, 1993) 58 FR 49070
(September 21, 1993) (SR-CBOE-93-12) (Mini-SPX Index option approval
order). Options on the reduced-value version of the Standard &
Poor's S&P 500 Stock Index are known as ``Mini-SPX Index options.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Because the Exchange believes that the current rule proposal will
lessen investor confusion, the Exchange believes the rule proposal is
consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act
applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\9\ Specifically, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section
6(b)(5) Act \10\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule does not (i) significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory
organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to
file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the
date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission,\11\ the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of
such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such
rule change if it appears to the Commission

that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2009-020 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2009-020. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2009-020 and should be
submitted on or before April 29, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-7974 Filed 4-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 553]
[FR Doc No: 2020-29293]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4472-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

New York; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New York (FEMA-4472-DR), dated December 19, 2019, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on December 3, 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, Lai Sun Yee, of
FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this
disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Seamus K. Leary 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. 2020-29293 Filed 1-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P