[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41455-41460]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16530]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69929; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-091]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Penny Pilot Option Rebates To Add Liquidity

July 3, 2013.
    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 June 27, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by NASDAQ.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ proposes to modify Chapter XV, entitled ``Options Pricing,''
at Section 2 governing pricing for NASDAQ members using the NASDAQ
Options Market (``NOM''), NASDAQ's facility for executing and routing
standardized equity and index options. Specifically, NOM proposes to
amend certain Customer,\3\ Professional \4\ and NOM Market Maker \5\
Rebates to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Customer'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a Participant for clearing in the Customer range at
The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which is not for the
account of broker or dealer or for the account of a ``Professional''
(as that term is defined in Chapter I, Section 1(a)(48)).
    \4\ The term ``Professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s) pursuant to Chapter
I, Section 1(a)(48). All Professional orders shall be appropriately
marked by Participants.
    \5\ The term ``NOM Market Maker'' is a Participant that has
registered as a Market Maker on NOM pursuant to Chapter VII, Section
2, and must also remain in good standing pursuant to Chapter VII,
Section 4. In order to receive NOM Market Maker pricing in all
securities, the Participant must be registered as a NOM Market Maker
in at least one security.
    \6\ The Penny Pilot was established in March 2008 and in October
2009 was expanded and extended through June 30, 2013. See Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 57579 (March 28, 2008), 73 FR 18587 (April
4, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-026) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness establishing Penny Pilot); 60874 (October 23, 2009),
74 FR 56682 (November 2, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-091) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness expanding and extending Penny
Pilot); 60965 (November 9, 2009), 74 FR 59292 (November 17, 2009)
(SR-NASDAQ-2009-097) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness
adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 61455 (February 1,
2010), 75 FR 6239 (February 8, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-013) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to
Penny Pilot); 62029 (May 4, 2010), 75 FR 25895 (May 10, 2010) (SR-
NASDAQ-2010-053) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness
adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 65969 (December 15,
2011), 76 FR 79268 (December 21, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-169) (notice
of filing and immediate effectiveness extension and replacement of
Penny Pilot); 67325 (June 29, 2012), 77 FR 40127 (July 6, 2012) (SR-
NASDAQ-2012-075) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness and
extension and replacement of Penny Pilot through December 31, 2012);
and 68519 (December 21, 2012), 78 FR 136 (January 2, 2013) (SR-
NASDAQ-2012-143) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness and
extension and replacement of Penny Pilot through June 30, 2013). See
also NOM Rules, Chapter VI, Section 5. The Exchange recently filed a
proposed rule change to extend the pilot through December 31, 2013.
See SR-Phlx-2013-64, which is not yet published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the
Exchange has designated that the amendments be operative on July 1,
2013.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ proposes to modify Chapter XV, entitled ``Options Pricing,''
at Section 2(1) governing the rebates and fees assessed for option
orders entered into NOM. The Exchange proposes to amend the Customer,
Professional and NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add
Liquidity and make other technical amendments to the Section 2(1) as
described more fully below.
    Today, the Exchange offers an eight-tiered Rebate to Add Liquidity
in Penny Pilot Options to Customers and Professionals as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Rebate to add
                                      Monthly volume         liquidity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1.........................  Participant adds                  $0.25
                                  Customer and
                                  Professional liquidity
                                  of up to 0.20% of
                                  total industry
                                  customer equity and
                                  ETF option average
                                  daily volume (``ADV'')
                                  contracts per day in a
                                  month.
Tier 2.........................  Participant adds                   0.40
                                  Customer and
                                  Professional liquidity
                                  of 0.21% to 0.30% of
                                  total industry
                                  customer equity and
                                  ETF option ADV
                                  contracts per day in a
                                  month.
Tier 3.........................  Participant adds                   0.43
                                  Customer and
                                  Professional liquidity
                                  of 0.31% to 0.49% of
                                  total industry
                                  customer equity and
                                  ETF option ADV
                                  contracts per day in a
                                  month.
Tier 4.........................  Participant adds                   0.45
                                  Customer and
                                  Professional liquidity
                                  of 0.5% or more of
                                  total industry
                                  customer equity and
                                  ETF option ADV
                                  contracts per day in a
                                  month.
Tier 5.........................  Participant adds (1)               0.42
                                  Customer and
                                  Professional liquidity
                                  of 25,000 or more
                                  contracts per day in a
                                  month, (2) the
                                  Participant has
                                  certified for the
                                  Investor Support
                                  Program set forth in
                                  Rule 7014, and (3) the
                                  Participant executed
                                  at least one order on
                                  NASDAQ's equity market.

Tier 6.........................  Participant has Total              0.45
                                  Volume of 130,000 or
                                  more contracts per day
                                  in a month, of which
                                  25,000 or more
                                  contracts per day in a
                                  month must be Customer
                                  or Professional
                                  liquidity.
Tier 7.........................  Participant has Total              0.47
                                  Volume of 175,000 or
                                  more contracts per day
                                  in a month, of which
                                  50,000 or more
                                  contracts per day in a
                                  month must be Customer
                                  or Professional
                                  liquidity.
Tier 8.........................  Participant (1) has                0.48
                                  Total Volume of
                                  325,000 or more
                                  contracts per day in a
                                  month, or (2) adds
                                  Customer or
                                  Professional liquidity
                                  of 1.00% or more of
                                  national customer
                                  volume in multiply-
                                  listed equity and ETF
                                  options classes in a
                                  month or (3) adds
                                  Customer or
                                  Professional liquidity
                                  of 60,000 or more
                                  contracts per day in a
                                  month and NOM Market
                                  Maker liquidity of
                                  40,000 or more
                                  contracts per day per
                                  month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend Tier 8 which currently pays a
rebate of $0.48 per contract to a Participant that: (i) Has Total
Volume \7\ of 325,000 or more contracts per day in a month; (ii) adds
Customer or Professional liquidity of 1.00% or more of national
customer volume in multiply-listed equity and ETF options classes in a
month; or (iii) adds Customer or Professional liquidity of 60,000 or
more contracts per day in a month and NOM Market Maker liquidity of
40,000 or more contracts per day in a month. The Exchange is proposing
to continue to pay a $0.48 per contract rebate for Tier 8 and amend the
criteria to qualify for this rebate tier. The Exchange proposes to pay
the Tier 8 rebate to a Participant that: (i) has Total Volume of
325,000 or more contracts per day in a month (as is the case today); or
(ii) has Total Volume of 200,000 or more contracts per day in a month
of which 70,000 or more contracts per day in a month must be Customer
and/or Professional liquidity; or (iii) adds Customer or Professional
liquidity of 1.00% or more of national customer volume in multiply-
listed equity and ETF options classes in a month (as is the case
today). The Exchange would eliminate the criteria whereby a Participant
can achieve the Tier 8 rebate by adding Customer or Professional
liquidity of 60,000 or more contracts per day in a month and NOM Market
Maker liquidity of 40,000 or more contracts per day per month. The
Exchange believes that Participants will be incentivized to achieve a
Tier 8 rebate as they are today and additional Participants may be able
to qualify with the new criteria, which focuses on Customer and/or
Professional liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Total Volume is defined as Customer, Professional, Firm,
Broker-Dealer, Non-NOM Market Maker and NOM Market Maker volume in
Penny Pilot Options or Non-Penny Pilot Options which either adds or
removes liquidity on NOM. See Chapter XV, Section 2(1) of the NOM
Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to make a technical amendment to the
Penny Pilot Options Customer and Professional Rebates to Add Liquidity
to clarify the text of these rebates. The Exchange today permits
Participants to add Customer or Professional liquidity for Tiers 1
through 7. Participants may add either Customer or Professional
liquidity to qualify for these rebate tiers. The Exchange proposes to
add the words ``/or'' to clarify that Customer and/or Professional
liquidity may be added to Tiers 1 through 5. The Exchange also proposes
to amend Tiers 6 and 7 in similar fashion to add``and/'' to specify
Customer or Professional liquidity may be added. Similarly the Exchange
proposes to add the word ``and/'' in note 2 of Section (2)(1) of
Chapter XV which provides that ``[a] Participant that adds Firm, Non-
NOM Market Maker or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options or
Non-Penny Pilot Options of 15,000 contracts per day or more in a given
month will receive a Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options of
$0.20 per contract and will pay a Fee for Adding Liquidity in Non-Penny
Pilot Options of $0.36 per contract.'' This would make clear that a
Participant may add Penny and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options to qualify for
the rebate. Finally, the Exchange proposes a similar amendment to note
b in Section 2(1) Chapter XV which provides that ``[f]or purposes of
Tiers 6, 7 and 8, ``Total Volume'' shall be defined as Customer,
Professional, Firm, Broker-Dealer, Non-NOM Market Maker and NOM Market
Maker volume in Penny Pilot Options and Non-Penny Pilot Options which
either adds or removes liquidity on NOM.'' The Exchange would add the
words ``/or'' to make clear that Total Volume can consist of Penny
Pilot Options or Non-Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange believes that
these amendments will provide greater clarity to the pricing. The
Exchange otherwise does not propose to amend Tiers 1 through 7 of the
Customer and Professional Rebates to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options.
    Today, the Exchange offers a four-tiered Rebate to Add Liquidity in
Penny Pilot Options to NOM Market Makers as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Rebate to add
                                    Monthly volume          liquidity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1........................  Participant adds NOM    $0.25
                                 Market Maker
                                 liquidity in Penny
                                 Pilot Options of up
                                 to 39,999 contracts
                                 per day in a month.

Tier 2........................  Participant adds NOM    0.30
                                 Market Maker
                                 liquidity in Penny
                                 Pilot Options of
                                 40,000 to 109,999
                                 contracts per day in
                                 a month.

Tier 3........................  Participant and its     0.37
                                 affiliate under
                                 Common Ownership
                                 qualify for Tier 8 of
                                 the Customer and
                                 Professional Rebate
                                 to Add Liquidity in
                                 Penny Pilot Options.

Tier 4........................  Participant adds NOM    0.28 or $0.38 in
                                 Market Maker            the following
                                 liquidity in Penny      symbols BAC,
                                 Pilot Options of        GLD, IWM, QQQ
                                 110,000 or more         and VXX or
                                 contracts per day in    $0.40 in SPY.
                                 a month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Tier 2 NOM Market Maker Rebate
to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options which currently pays a $0.30
per contract rebate to a Participant that adds NOM Market Maker
liquidity in Penny Pilot Options of 40,000 to 109,999 contracts per day
in a month to 40,000 to 69,999 contracts per day in a month to achieve
the same rebate.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the Tier 3 NOM Market Maker
Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options which currently pays a
$0.37 per contract rebate to reduce that rebate to $0.32 per contract
and amend the criteria to qualify for a Tier 3 rebate. Currently, a
Participant and its affiliate under Common Ownership \8\ that qualify
for Tier 8 of the Customer and Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in
Penny Pilot Options qualify for a Tier 3 NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add
Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange is proposing to
eliminate the current Tier 3 criteria and instead pay the new $0.32 per
contract NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options to Participants that add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny
Pilot Options of 70,000 to 99,999 contracts per day in a month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``Common Ownership'' is defined in Chapter XV of
the NOM Rules as Participants under 75% common ownership or control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend the Tier 4 NOM Market Maker
Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options which currently pays
rebate of $0.28 \9\ or $0.38 per contract in the following symbols,
Bank of America Corporation (``BAC''), SPDR Gold Shares (``GLD''),
iShares Russell 2000 Index (``IWM''), PowerShares QQQ (``QQQ''), iPath
S&P 500 VIX ST Futures ETN (``VXX''), or $0.40 per contract in SPDR S&P
500 (``SPY'') if Participants add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny
Pilot Options of 110,000 or more contracts per day in a month. The
Exchange is proposing to increase the Tier 4 rebate of $0.28 per
contract, which is paid on all qualifying Penny Pilot Options,
excluding BAC, GLD, IWM, QQQ, VXX and SPY, to $0.32 per contract.\10\
In addition, the Exchange proposes to decrease the requisite number of
contracts that a Participant must add in NOM Market Maker liquidity in
Penny Pilot Options to achieve a Tier 4 rebate from 110,000 to 100,000
or more contracts per day in a month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The $0.28 per contract Tier 4 NOM Market Maker rebate would
be paid on all qualifying Penny Pilot Options, excluding BAC, GLD,
IWM, QQQ, VXX and SPY.
    \10\ The Exchange is not proposing to amend the $0.38 per
contract rebate in BAC, GLD, IWM, QQQ or VXX or the $0.40 per
contract rebate in SPY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is not proposing to amend the Tier 1 NOM Market Maker
Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange would also
eliminate the text referencing Tiers 3 and 4 of the NOM Market Maker
Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options which provides that
``[i]n the instance that a Participant qualifies for both a Tier 3 and
a Tier 4 NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Option rebate, the Exchange would
pay the Participant the Tier 3 rebate unless the Participant is
eligible for an increased rebate in one of the following symbols: BAC,
GLD, IWM, QQQ, VXX and SPY, in which case the Tier 4 rebate would be
applied.'' This language is no longer necessary because a Participant
would not be able to qualify for both a Tier 3 and a Tier 4 rebate with
the proposed changes.
    The Exchange believes that the amendment to the NOM Market Maker
Rebate to Add Liquidity will continue to incentivize NOM Market Makers
to post liquidity on the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\11\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that they provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among Participants and issuers and other persons using any facility or
system which NASDAQ operates or controls as described in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend the Customer, Professional and NOM
Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity are
reasonable because the Exchange will continue to offer competitive
Customer, Professional and NOM Market Maker rebates in order to attract
liquidity to the market to the benefit of all market participants. The
Exchange believes that offering Customers and Professionals and NOM
Market Makers the opportunity to earn higher rebates is reasonable
because by incentivizing Participants to select the Exchange as a venue
to post Customer and Professional liquidity will attract additional
order flow to the benefit of all market participants and incentivizing
NOM Market Makers to post liquidity will also benefit participants
through increased order interaction.
    The Exchange believes that the amendments to the Penny Pilot
Options Rebates to Add Liquidity are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for various reasons. The Exchange believes that
continuing to pay Customers and Professionals tiered Rebates to Add
Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options, as proposed herein, is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory as compared to other market participants.
Pursuant to this proposal, the Exchange would pay the highest Tier 1
Rebates to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options of $0.25 per contract
to Customers, Professionals and NOM Market Makers for transacting one
qualifying contract as compared to other market participants.\13\ The
Exchange believes that Customers are entitled to higher rebates because
Customer order flow brings unique benefits to the market through
increased liquidity which benefits all market participants. The
Exchange believes that continuing to offer Professionals the same Penny
Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity as Customers is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory for the reasons which follow. The Exchange
believes that offering Professionals the opportunity to earn the same
rebates as Customers, as is the case today, and higher rebates as
compared to Firms, Broker-Dealers and Non-NOM Market Makers, and in
some cases NOM Market Makers, is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange does not believe that the amount of
the rebate offered by the Exchange has a material impact on a
Participant's ability to execute orders in Penny Pilot Options. By
offering Professionals, as well as Customers, higher rebates, the
Exchange hopes to simply remain competitive with other venues so that
it remains a choice for market participants when posting orders and the
result may be additional Professional order flow for the Exchange, in
addition to increased Customer order flow. A Participant may not be
able to gauge the exact rebate tier it would qualify for until the end
of the month because Professional volume would be commingled with
Customer volume in calculating tier volume.\14\ A Professional could
only otherwise presume the Tier 1 rebate would be achieved in a month
when determining

price.\15\ Further, the Exchange initially established Professional
pricing in order to ``. . . bring additional revenue to the Exchange.''
\16\ The Exchange noted in the Professional Filing that it believes ``.
. . that the increased revenue from the proposal would assist the
Exchange to recoup fixed costs.'' \17\ The Exchange also noted in that
filing that it believes that establishing separate pricing for a
Professional, which ranges between that of a customer and market maker,
accomplishes this objective.\18\ The Exchange does not believe that
providing Professionals with the opportunity to obtain higher rebates
equivalent to that of a Customer creates a competitive environment
where Professionals would be necessarily advantaged on NOM as compared
to NOM Market Makers, Firms, Broker-Dealers or Non-NOM Market Makers.
Also, a Professional is assessed the same fees as other market
participants, except Customers and NOM Market Makers, as discussed
herein.\19\ For these reasons, the Exchange believes that continuing to
offer Professionals the same rebates as Customers is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory. Finally, the Exchange believes that NOM Market
Makers should be offered the opportunity to earn higher rebates as
compared to Non-NOM Market Makers, Firms and Broker Dealers \20\
because NOM Market Makers add value through continuous quoting \21\ and
the commitment of capital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and Broker-Dealers receive a
$0.10 per contract Penny Pilot Option Rebate to Add Liquidity. In
addition, Participant that adds Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker or
Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny
Pilot Options of 15,000 contracts per day or more in a given month
will receive a Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options of
$0.20 per contract.
    \14\ Customer and Professional volume is aggregated for purposes
of determining which rebate tier a Participant qualifies for with
respect to the Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options.
    \15\ A Professional would be unable to determine the exact
rebate that would be paid on a transaction by transaction basis with
certainty until the end of a given month when all Customer and
Professional volume is aggregated for purposes of determining which
tier the Participant qualified for in a given month.
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64494 (May 13,
2011), 76 FR 29014 (May 19, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-066)
(``Professional Filing''). In this filing, the Exchange addressed
the perceived favorable pricing of Professionals who were assessed
fees and paid rebates like a Customer prior to the filing. The
Exchange noted in that filing that a Professional, unlike a retail
Customer, has access to sophisticated trading systems that contain
functionality not available to retail Customers.
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64494 (May 13,
2011), 76 FR 29014 (May 19, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-066).
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64494 (May 13,
2011), 76 FR 29014 (May 19, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-066). The Exchange
noted in this filing that it believes the role of the retail
customer in the marketplace is distinct from that of the
professional and the Exchange's fee proposal at that time accounted
for this distinction by pricing each market participant according to
their roles and obligations.
    \19\ The Fee for Removing Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options is
$0.48 per contract for all market participants, except Customers and
NOM Market Makers. Customers are assessed $0.45 per contract and NOM
Market Makers would continue to be assessed $0.47 per contract.
    \20\ Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and Broker-Dealers are paid a
$0.10 per contract Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options
and have the opportunity to earn a higher Penny Pilot Options Rebate
to Add Liquidity of $0.20 per contact if they transact 15,000
contracts per day or more in a given month of Penny Pilot Options or
Non-Penny Pilot Options liquidity.
    \21\ Pursuant to Chapter VII (Market Participants), Section 5
(Obligations of Market Makers), in registering as a market maker, an
Options Participant commits himself to various obligations.
Transactions of a Market Maker in its market making capacity must
constitute a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute
to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and Market Makers
should not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are
inconsistent with such course of dealings. Further, all Market
Makers are designated as specialists on NOM for all purposes under
the Act or rules thereunder. See Chapter VII, Section 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend the Customer and Professional
Rebates to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options is reasonable because
the Exchange is offering Participants meaningful incentives to increase
their participation on NOM in terms of higher Penny Pilot Options
Rebates to Add Liquidity. The Exchange's proposal to amend Tier 8 to
eliminate the criteria which qualifies a Participant that adds Customer
or Professional liquidity of 60,000 or more contracts per day in a
month and NOM Marker Maker liquidity of 40,000 or more contracts per
day in a month to a $0.48 per contract rebate and replace that criteria
with new criteria that pays the same rebate if the Participant has
Total Volume of 200,000 or more contracts per day in a month, of which
70,000 or more contracts per day in a month must be Customer and/or
Professional liquidity is reasonable because it should continue to
incentivize Participants to add liquidity on NOM. The new criteria
focuses on Total Volume which consists of Customer, Professional, Firm,
Broker-Dealer, Non-NOM Market Maker and NOM Market Maker volume in
Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options which either adds or
removes liquidity on NOM. The Exchange believes that offering
Participants an option to transact a lower amount of Total Volume
(200,000 contracts) as compared to the 325,000 contracts of Total
Volume, which would also qualify a Participant for a Tier 8 rebate, and
also requiring that 70,000 of that Total Volume be comprised of
Customer and/or Professional liquidity further incentivizes
Participants to add Customer and Professional liquidity to NOM. The
criteria that is being eliminated required 60,000 or more contracts per
day of Customer and/or Professional liquidity and 40,000 or more
contracts of NOM Market Maker liquidity. The Exchange believes that it
is reasonable to incentivize Participants to add a greater amount of
Customer and/or Professional liquidity combined with other volume as a
means to qualify for the Tier 8 rebate. This proposal only impacts one
of the ways in which a Participant may qualify for the Tier 8 rebate.
Participants that today do not qualify for the Tier 8 rebate may be
able to qualify with the new criteria. In addition, other exchanges
employ similar incentive programs.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See CBOE Fees Schedule. CBOE offers each Trading Permit
Holder (``TPH'') a credit for each public customer order transmitted
by the TPH which is executed electronically in all multiply-listed
option classes, excluding QCC trades and executions related to
contracts that are routed to one or more exchanges in connection
with the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan,
provided the TPH meets certain percentage thresholds in a month as
described in the Volume Incentive Program. See also Phlx's Pricing
Schedule at Section B which contains the Customer Rebate Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend Tier 8 to eliminate the criteria
which qualifies a Participant that adds Customer or Professional
liquidity of 60,000 or more contracts per day in a month and NOM Marker
Maker liquidity of 40,000 or more contracts per day in a month to a
$0.48 per contract rebate and replace that criteria with new criteria
that pays the same rebate if the Participant has Total Volume of
200,000 or more contracts per day in a month, of which 70,000 or more
contracts per day in a month must be Customer and/or Professional
liquidity is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because this
amendment will be applied to all market participants in a uniform
matter. Any market participant is eligible to receive the rebate
provided they transact a qualifying amount of Customer and Professional
volume in Penny Pilot Options.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the NOM Market Maker Rebates to
Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options is reasonable because it should
incentivize NOM Market Makers to post liquidity on NOM. NOM Market
Makers are valuable market participants that provide liquidity in the
marketplace and incur costs unlike other market participants. The
Exchange believes that encouraging NOM Market Makers to be more
aggressive when posting liquidity benefits all market participants
through increased liquidity. The Exchange believes that the NOM Market
Maker rebate proposal is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it does not misalign the current rebate structure because NOM
Market Makers will continue to earn higher rebates as compared to
Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and Broker-Dealers and will earn the same
or lower rebates as

compared to Customers and Professionals.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Tier 1 NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in
Penny Pilot Options is the same rebate as the proposed Tier 1
Customer and Professional rebate in Penny Pilot Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend the number of qualifying contracts
in Tier 2 of the NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add
Liquidity from 40,000 to 109,999 contracts to 40,000 to 69,999
contracts per day in a month is reasonable because today Participants
that transact between 40,000 to 69,999 contracts of NOM Market Maker
Penny Pilot Options would continue to qualify for Tier 2 and
Participants that qualify from 70,000 to 109,999 contracts would
qualify for the new proposed Tier 3 rebate of $0.32 per contract.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the Tier 3 rebate, which currently
requires a Participant and its affiliate under Common Ownership that
qualify for Tier 8 of the Customer and Professional Rebate to Add
Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options to receive a Tier 3 rebate of $0.37
per contract, and replace it with new criteria which requires that a
Participant add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot Options of
70,000 to 99,999 contracts per day in a month to qualify for a new Tier
3 rebate rate of $0.32 per contract is reasonable because it would
increase the rebate paid to certain Participants who currently
qualifying for a Tier 2 rebate. Also, those Participants and its
affiliate under Common Ownership that qualify for a Tier 8 rebate would
continue to receive the Customer and Professional Rebates to Add
Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options rebate and may separately qualify for
another NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options. The Exchange is offering a different rebate incentive to
remain competitive while continuing to encourage NOM Market Makers to
aggressively post liquidity on NOM.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Tier 4 to lower the number of NOM
Market Maker Penny Pilot Options contract from 110,000 to 100,000 is
reasonable because additional Participants may be able to qualify for a
Tier 4 NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options.
The Exchange also believes that the proposal to pay an increased Tier 8
rebate of $0.32 per contract as compared to $0.28 per contract for all
symbols excluding BAC, GLD, IWM, QQQ, VXX \24\ and SPY \25\ is
reasonable because the increased rebate should encourage other market
participants to add NOM Marker Maker liquidity to obtain a higher
rebate in certain symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ These symbols pay a $0.38 per contract rebate.
    \25\ SPY pays a $0.40 per contract rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes offering NOM Market Makers the opportunity to
receive higher rebates as compared to Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and
Broker-Dealers is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all
NOM Market Makers may qualify for the NOM Market Maker rebate tiers and
every NOM Market Maker is entitled to a rebate solely by adding one
contract of NOM Market Maker liquidity on NOM. Also, as mentioned, the
NOM Market Maker would receive the same rebate in Tier 1 as compared
Customers and Professionals and a higher rebate in all other tiers as
compared to a Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker or Broker-Dealer because of
the obligations \26\ borne by NOM Market Makers as compared to other
market participants. Encouraging NOM Market Makers to add greater
liquidity benefits all Participants in the quality of order
interaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See note 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to amend the Tier 2, 3 and 4 rebate criteria to qualify
for those rebates as well as the Tier 4 rebate rate for certain symbols
because those amendments will apply uniformly to all participants. The
Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory to adopt specific pricing for BAC, GLD, IWM, QQQ, VXX
and SPY because pricing by symbol is a common practice on many U.S.
options exchanges as a means to incentivize order flow to be sent to an
exchange for execution in the most actively traded options classes, in
this case actively traded Penny Pilot Options.\27\ The Exchange notes
that BAC, GLD, IWM, QQQ, VXX and SPY are some of the most actively
traded options in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Phlx's Pricing Schedule. See also the International
Securities Exchange LLC's Fee Schedule. Both of these markets
segment pricing by symbol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to add language throughout Section 2(1) of
Chapter XV to clarify the rule text with respect to adding liquidity is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
amendments provide clarity to the rule text. The Exchange's proposal to
eliminate text related to qualifying for both Tier 3 and Tier 4 NOM
Market Maker rebates is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the text is no longer necessary because a
Participant could no longer achieve both rebates in a given month.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule changes will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
    Customers have traditionally been paid the highest rebates offered
by options exchanges. While the Exchange's proposal results in a
Professional receiving the same or a higher rebate as compared to a NOM
Market Maker, in certain circumstances, the Exchange does not believe
the proposed rebate tiers would result in any burden on competition as
between market participants. The Exchange believes that offering
Customers and Professionals the proposed tiered rebates creates
competition among options exchanges because the Exchange believes that
the rebates may cause market participants to select NOM as a venue to
send Customer and Professional order flow. The Exchange believes that
incentivizing NOM Market Makers to post liquidity on NOM benefits
market participants through increased order interaction. Also, NOM
Market Makers have obligations \28\ to the market which are not borne
by other market participants and therefore the Exchange believes that
NOM Market Makers are entitled to a lower fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See note 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments does not misalign the current rebate
structure because NOM Market Makers will continue to earn higher
rebates as compared to Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and Broker-Dealers
and will earn the same or lower rebates as compared to Customers and
Professionals.
    The Exchange believes the differing outcomes, rebates and fees
created by the Exchange's proposed pricing incentives contribute to the
overall health of the market place for the benefit of all Participants
that willing choose to transact options on NOM. For the reasons
specified herein, the Exchange does not believe this proposal creates
an undue burden on competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market comprised of eleven U.S. options exchanges in which
many sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can readily
and do send order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels
or rebate incentives at a particular exchange to be excessive or
inadequate. These market forces support the Exchange belief that the
proposed rebate structure and tiers proposed herein are competitive
with

rebates and tiers in place on other exchanges. The Exchange believes
that this competitive marketplace continues to impact the rebates
present on the Exchange today and substantially influences the
proposals set forth above.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\29\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NASDAQ-2013-091 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-NASDAQ-2013-091. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-091, and should
be submitted on or before July 31, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-16530 Filed 7-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 131 (Thursday, July 9, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39382-39383]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16809]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0578]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Saugus River, Saugus,
Massachusetts

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Saugus RR Bridge, across the Saugus
River, mile 2.1, at Saugus, Massachusetts. This deviation is necessary
to facilitate essential maintenance repairs. This deviation allows the
bridge to remain in the closed position during the maintenance repairs.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m. on September 12 to
11:59 p.m. on September 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0578] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the

``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the
line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140, on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, contact Ms. Judy K. Leung-Yee, Project Officer,
First Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
(202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Saugus RR Bridge, mile 2.1, across
Saugus River has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 7 feet
at mean high water and 17 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge
operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.5.
    Saugus River is transited by commercial lobstermen and recreational
vessel traffic.
    Keolis Commuter Railroad requested this temporary deviation from
the normal operating schedule to facilitate essential maintenance
repairs.
    Under this temporary deviation, the Saugus RR Bridge may remain in
the closed position from 12:01 a.m. on September 12, 2015 to 11:59 p.m.
on September 13, 2015.
    There is no alternate route for vessel traffic; however, vessels
that can pass under the closed draws during this closure may do so at
any time. The bridge will be able to open in the event of an emergency.
    The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway through our
Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 25, 2015.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-16809 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19039-19042]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07109]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

48 CFR Part 1516 and 1552

[EPA-HQ-OARM-2013-0149; FRL-9908-87-OARM]

EPAAR Clause for Ordering by Designated Ordering Officers

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) amends the EPA
Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR) to update policy, procedures, and
contract clauses. The proposed rule updates the Ordering--By Designated
Ordering Officers clause and corresponding prescription.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 7, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OARM-2013-0149, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: EPA-HQ-OARM-2013-0149, OEI Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460. Please include a total of three (3) copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center-Attention OEI Docket, EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-
2013-0149. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket, and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment, and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties, and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the Office of Environmental
Information (OEI) Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202)
566-1752. This Docket Facility is open from

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Valentino, Policy, Training,
and Oversight Division, Office of Acquisition Management (3802R),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI, and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    The subject clause is currently codified in the EPAAR as the April
1984 basic clause without any alternates. The basic clause only
contemplates order issuance prior to receiving formal input from the
contractor. On December 21, 1989, a class deviation was issued to
prescribe an alternate to the clause that provides for negotiating the
terms and conditions of a task/delivery order prior to order issuance.
There are several benefits to negotiation prior to order issuance: The
Government is not charged directly for the time involved in
negotiations and the associated costs are part of bid and proposal
costs which are indirect charges spread across all Government
contracts; it allows for more accurate pricing for the order, and it
enables the Government to hold the Contractor to negotiated
requirements as soon as the order is issued. As a result, the subject
clause and corresponding prescription are being updated to add the 1989
class deviation. Because the class deviation provides several benefits
that the basic clause does not, it will be designated as the basic form
of the Ordering clause, and the previous basic form is being re-
designated as Alternate I. In addition, the EPAAR 1516.505(a) subject
clause prescription is being updated accordingly.

III. Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule updates the EPAAR 1516.505(a) clause
prescription, and amends EPAAR 1552.216-72 to add an alternate version
to the Ordering--By Designated Ordering Officers clause.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
therefore, not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
No information is collected under this action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute; unless the agency certifies that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impact of today's final rule on small
entities, ``small entity'' is defined as: (1) A small business that
meets the definition of a small business found in the Small Business
Act and codified at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action
revises a current EPAAR provision and does not impose requirements
involving capital investment, implementing procedures, or record
keeping. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on small
entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, Local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector.
    This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of the Title II of the UMRA) for State, Local, and Tribal
governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable duty
on any State, Local or Tribal governments or the private sector. Thus,
the rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and Local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.''
    This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government as
specified in Executive Order 13132.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This rule does not have
tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically
significant as defined under Executive Order 12886, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that may have a proportionate
effect on children. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by
Executive Order 12866, and because it does not involve decisions on
environmental health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution of Use'' (66 FR 28335 (May 22, 2001), because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C 272 note) of NTTA, Public Law 104-113,
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This proposed rulemaking does not involve human health or
environmental affects.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1516 and 1552

    Government procurement.

    Dated: June 21, 2013.
John R. Bashista,
Director, Office of Acquisition Management.

    Therefore, 48 CFR Chapter 15 is proposed to be amended as set forth
below:

PART 1516--TYPES OF CONTRACTS

0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 1516 is revised to read as
follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended,
40 U.S.C. 486(c); and 41 U.S.C. 418b.

0
2. Revise 1516.505(a) as follows:

1516.505   Contract clauses.

    (a) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause in 1552.216-72,
Ordering--By Designated Ordering Officers, or a clause substantially
similar to the subject clause, in indefinite delivery/indefinite
quantity type solicitations and contracts. The Contracting Officer
shall insert Alternate I when formal input from the Contractor will not
be obtained prior to order issuance.
* * * * *

PART 1552--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

0
3. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 1552 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended,
40 U.S.C. 486(c); and 41 U.S.C. 418b.

0
4. Revise 1552.216-72 to read as follows:

1552.216-72   Ordering--by designated ordering officers.

    As prescribed in 1516.505(a), insert the subject clause, or a
clause substantially similar to the subject clause, in indefinite
delivery/indefinite quantity type solicitations and contracts.

ORDERING--BY DESIGNATED ORDERING OFFICERS (------ 2013)

    (a) The Government will order any supplies and services to be
furnished under this contract by issuing task/delivery orders on
Optional Form 347, or an agency prescribed form, from ------ through
------. In addition to the Contracting Officer, the following
individuals are authorized ordering officers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) A Standard Form 30 will be the method of amending task/
delivery orders.
    (c) The Contractor shall acknowledge receipt of each order by
having an authorized company officer sign either a copy of a
transmittal letter or signature block on page 3 of the task/delivery
order, depending upon which is provided, within ---- calendar days
of receipt.
    (d) Prior to the placement of any task/delivery order, the
Contractor will be provided with a proposed Performance Work
Statement/Statement of Work and will be asked to respond with
detailed technical and cost proposals within ---- calendar days or
less. The technical proposal will delineate the Contractor's
interpretation for the execution of the PWS/SOW, and the pricing
proposal will be the Contractor's best estimate for the hours, labor
categories and all costs associated with the execution. The
proposals are subject to negotiation. The Ordering Officer and the
Contractor shall reach agreement on all the material terms of each
order prior to the order being issued.
    (e) Each task/delivery order issued will incorporate the
Contractor's technical and cost proposals as negotiated with the
Government, and will have a ceiling price which the contractor shall
not exceed. When

the Contractor has reason to believe that the labor payment and
support costs for the order which will accrue in the next thirty
(30) days will bring total cost to over 85 percent of the ceiling
price specified in the order, the Contractor shall notify the
Ordering Officer.
    (f) Under no circumstances will the Contractor start work prior
to the issue date of the task/delivery order unless specifically
authorized to do so by the Ordering Officer. Any verbal
authorization will be confirmed in writing by the Ordering Officer
or Contracting Officer within ---- calendar days.

(End of clause)
    Alternate I. As prescribed in 1516.505(a), insert the subject
clause, or a clause substantially similar to the subject clause, in
indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts when formal input
from the Contractor will not be obtained prior to order issuance.

    (a) The Government will order any supplies and services to be
furnished under this contract by issuing task/delivery orders on
Optional Form 347, or any agency prescribed form, from ------
through ------. In addition to the Contracting Officer, the
following individuals are authorized ordering officers:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) A Standard Form 30 will be the method of amending task/
delivery orders.
    (c) The Contractor shall acknowledge receipt of each order and
shall prepare and forward to the Ordering Officer within ----
calendar days the proposed staffing plan for accomplishing the
assigned task within the period specified.
    (d) If the Contractor considers the estimated labor hours or
specified work completion date to be unreasonable, the Contractor
shall promptly notify the Ordering Officer and Contracting Officer
in writing within ---- calendar days, stating why the estimated
labor hours or specified completion date is considered unreasonable.
    (e) Each task/delivery order will have a ceiling price, which
the Contractor may not exceed. When the Contractor has reason to
believe that the labor payment and support costs for the order,
which will accrue in the next thirty (30) days, will bring total
cost to over 85 percent of the ceiling price specified in the order,
the Contractor shall notify the Ordering Officer.
    (f) Paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this clause apply only when
services are being ordered.

(End of clause)

    Editorial Note: This document was received by the Office of the
Federal Register on March 26, 2014.

[FR Doc. 2014-07109 Filed 4-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 183 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58365-58366]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23221]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC12-20-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-912); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the
currently approved information collection, FERC-912, Cogeneration and
Small Power Production, PURPA Section 210(m) Regulations for
Termination or Reinstatement of Obligation to Purchase or Sell.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due November 19,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC12-20-
000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web Site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-912, Cogeneration and Small Power Production, PURPA
Section 210(m) Regulations for Termination or Reinstatement of
Obligation to Purchase or Sell
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0237
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-912 information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: On 8/8/2005, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005)
\1\ was signed into law. Section 1253(a) of EPAct 2005 amends Section
210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) by
adding subsection ``(m)'' that provides for the termination and
reinstatement of an electric utility's obligation to purchase and sell
energy and capacity. 18 CFR 292.309-292.313 are the implementing
regulations that provide procedures for:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An electric utility to file an application for the
termination of its obligation to purchase energy from a Qualifying
Facility (QF) \2\;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Contained within 18 CFR 292.310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An affected entity or person to apply to the Commission
for an order reinstating the electric utility's obligation to purchase
energy from a QF \3\;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Contained within 18 CFR 292.311.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An electric utility to file an application for the
termination of its obligation to sell energy and capacity to QFs \4\;
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Contained within 18 CFR 292.312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An affected entity or person to apply to the Commission
for an order reinstating the electric utility's obligation to sell
energy and capacity to QFs \5\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Contained within 18 CFR 292.313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Respondents: FERC-jurisdictional electric utilities.
    Estimate of Annual Burden \6\: The Commission estimates the total
Public Reporting Burden for this information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal
agency. For further explanation of what is included in the
information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal
Regulations 1320.3.

      FERC-912 (IC12-20-000): Cogeneration and Small Power Production, PURPA Section 210(m) Regulations for
                         Termination or Reinstatement of Obligation to Purchase or Sell
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average        Estimated
                                     Number of     responses per   Total number    burden hours    total annual
                                    respondents     respondent     of responses    per response       burden
                                             (A)             (B)     (A) x (B) =             (D)       (C) x (D)
                                                                             (C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Termination of obligation to                   5               1               5              12              60
 purchase \2\...................
Reinstatement of obligation to                 1               1               1              13              13
 purchase \3\...................
Termination of obligation to                   1               1               1              12              12
 sell \4\.......................
Reinstatement of obligation to                 1               1               1              13              13
 sell \5\.......................
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............              98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $6762.94
[98 hours / 2080 \7\ hours per year = 0.047 * 143,540/years \8\ =
$6762.94]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 2080 hours/year = 40 hours/week * 52 weeks/year.
    \8\ Average annual salary per employee in 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: September 14, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23221 Filed 9-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79176-79177]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32651]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-OW-2011-0466; FRL-9609-3]

Notice of Availability of Draft Recreational Water Quality
Criteria and Request for Scientific Views

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the availability of
the draft document Recreational Water Quality Criteria (RWQC). The
document contains the EPA's draft ambient water quality criteria
recommendations for protecting human health in ambient waters that are
designated for primary contact recreation. CWA Section 304(c) water
quality criteria recommendations are intended as guidance to States and
authorized Tribes in developing water quality standards. The draft RWQC
document describes the relevant scientific findings, explains how these
findings were used to derive criteria, and lists the water quality
methods associated with the criteria.
    The draft RWQC differs from the current 1986 RWQC in the following
ways: the EPA introduces a new term, Statistical Threshold Value (STV),
as a clarification and replacement for the term single sample maximum
(SSM); there are no longer recommendations for different criteria
values for beaches used with more or less frequency; the EPA introduces
a rapid analytical technique for the detection of enterococci in
recreational water; the EPA provides information on tools for assessing
and managing recreational waters, such as predictive modeling, and for
developing site-specific criteria.
    The CWA, as amended by the Beaches Environmental Assessment and
Coastal Health (BEACH) Act of 2000, requires the EPA to conduct studies
associated with pathogens and human health under Section 104(v), and to
publish new or revised criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators
based on those studies under Section 304(a)(9). The draft criteria
announced today for scientific views are the draft new or revised
criteria that EPA is required to publish under Section 304(a)(9) of the
CWA, as amended by the BEACH Act.

DATES: Scientific views must be received on or before February 21,
2012. Comments postmarked after this date may not be considered.

ADDRESSES: Submit your scientific views, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0466, and obtain the document (EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0466-0002)
by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC) Water Docket, MC 28221T; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., EPA West, Room 3334, Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-
0466. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your email address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For
additional information about the EPA's public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Water Docket/
EPA/DC, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., EPA West, Room 3334, Washington,
DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m., EST,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Office of Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning the science
supporting this criteria, contact Sharon Nappier, Health and Ecological
Criteria Division (4304T<EMAIL_ADDRESS>U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
questions concerning the use of EPA's criteria recommendations, contact
Tracy Bone, Standards and Health Protection Division (4305T),
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460;<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What are Section 304(a) water quality criteria?

    Section 304(a) water quality criteria are recommendations developed
by EPA under authority of section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act based
on the latest scientific information on the relationship that the
effect of a constituent concentration has on particular aquatic species
and/or human health.

    Section 304(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act requires the EPA to
develop and publish and, from time to time, revise, criteria for water
quality accurately reflecting the latest scientific knowledge. Water
quality criteria developed under section 304(a) are based solely on
data and scientific judgments on the relationship between pollutant
concentrations and environmental and human health effects. Section
304(a) criteria do not reflect consideration of economic impacts or the
technological feasibility of meeting pollutant concentrations in
ambient water.
    Section 304(a) criteria provide guidance to States and authorized
Tribes in adopting water quality standards that ultimately provide a
basis for controlling discharges or releases of pollutants. The
criteria also provide guidance to the EPA when promulgating federal
regulations under section 303(c) when such action is necessary. Under
the CWA and its implementing regulations, States and authorized Tribes
are to adopt water quality criteria to protect designated uses (e.g.,
aquatic life, recreational use). The EPA's water quality criteria
recommendations are not regulations. Thus, the EPA's recommended
criteria do not constitute legally binding requirements. States and
authorized Tribes may adopt other scientifically defensible water
quality criteria that differ from these recommendations. When adopting
new or revised water quality standards, the States and authorized
Tribes must adopt criteria that are scientifically defensible and
protective of the designated uses of the bodies of water. States have
the flexibility to do this by adopting criteria based on (1) EPA's
recommended criteria, (2) EPA's criteria modified to reflect site-
specific conditions, or (3) other scientifically defensible methods.

II. What are the recreational water quality criteria recommendations?

    The EPA is today publishing the draft Recreational Water Quality
Criteria (EPA-OW-2011-0466-0002) recommendations for protecting human
health. The EPA evaluated the available data and determined that the
designated use of primary contact recreation would be protected if the
following criteria were adopted into water quality standards:

(a) Fresh Water Criteria

    Magnitude: Culturable E. coli at a geometric mean (GM) of 126
colony forming units (cfu) per 100 milliliters (mL) and a statistical
threshold value (STV) of 235 cfu per 100 mL measured using EPA Method
1603, or any other equivalent method that measures culturable E. coli;
culturable enterococci at a GM of 33 cfu per 100 mL and an STV of 61
cfu per 100 mL measured using EPA Method 1600, or any other equivalent
method that measures culturable enterococci; or both of the above
criteria.
    Duration: For calculating the GM and associated STV, EPA recommends
a duration between 30 days and 90 days. The duration for calculating
the GM and associated STV should not exceed 90 days. The duration is a
component of a water quality criterion, and as such, would need to be
explicitly included in the State's WQS. The recreational season may
vary by location depending on the length of the beach season. Sampling
of waterbodies should be representative of meteorological conditions
(e.g., wet and dry weather) for the recreational season.
    Frequency: EPA recommends a frequency of zero exceedances of the GM
and <= 25 percent exceedance of the STV, during the recreation duration
specified. The frequency of exceedance is a component of a water
quality criterion, and as such, would need to be explicitly included in
State's water quality standard (WQS).

(b) Marine Criteria

    Magnitude: Culturable enterococci at a GM of 35 cfu per 100 mL and
an STV of 104 cfu per 100 mL measured using EPA Method 1600, or any
other equivalent method that measures culturable enterococci.
    Duration: For calculating the GM and associated STV, EPA recommends
a duration between 30 days and 90 days. The duration for calculating
the GM and associated STV should not exceed 90 days. The duration is a
component of a water quality criterion, and as such, would need to be
explicitly included in the State's WQS. The recreational season may
vary by location depending on the length of the beach season. Sampling
of waterbodies should be representative of meteorological conditions
(e.g., wet and dry weather) for the recreational season.
    Frequency: EPA recommends a frequency of zero exceedances of the GM
and <= 25 percent exceedance of the STV, during the recreation duration
specified. The frequency of exceedance is a component of a water
quality criterion, and as such, would need to be explicitly included in
State's WQS.
    EPA has also developed a quantitative polymerase chain reaction
(qPCR) method to detect and quantify enterococci more rapidly than the
culture method. For the purposes of beach monitoring, alternative site-
specific criteria could be adopted into State standards measured by
EPA's Enterococcus qPCR method A based on a site-specific performance
characterization. For States interested in adopting a value for
enterococci using EPA's Enterococcus qPCR method A into their WQS, EPA
recommends a GM criterion of 475 calibrator cell equivalent (CCE) per
100 mL and an STV criterion of 1,000 CCE per 100 mL in freshwaters and
marine waters based on its epidemiological study data.

    Dated: December 15, 2011.
Nancy K. Stoner,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 2011-32651 Filed 12-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P