Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US

01/23/2008 02:37 PM

To

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Subject

RE: Ron, a couple O3 follow ups: "Bins" and Bene's

Great! Talk to you at 1:00.  We'll call you.

-Janet

_______________________________________

Janet F. Cakir, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Specialist

Air Benefits Cost Group

109 TW Alexander Dr., (C439-02)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS> "King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 01/23/2008 02:27 PM

To

Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

RE: Ron, a couple O3 follow ups: "Bins" and Bene's

Let's shoot for 1-2

I'll add to my calendar

Sorry I missed you; ran to bathroom (sigh) I always forget to add that

to my schedule

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

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:04 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: RE: Ron, a couple O3 follow ups: "Bins" and Bene's

Heidi,

    I just tried to call and missed you.  It looks like tomorrow will

work better for all.  What would be a good time for you?  It looks like

Ron can either do 1:00 - 2:00 or 4:30.  Would either of those times work

for you?  If not, what would work?

-Janet

_______________________________________

Janet F. Cakir, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Specialist

Air Benefits Cost Group

109 TW Alexander Dr., (C439-02)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

             "King, Heidi R."

             <Heidi_R._King@o

             mb.eop.gov>                                             To

                                      Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

             01/23/2008 01:30                                        cc

             PM                       Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

                                                                Subject

                                      RE: Ron, a couple O3 follow ups:

                                      "Bins" and Bene's

Sounds good

Thanks Janet

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

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 1:30 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: RE: Ron, a couple O3 follow ups: "Bins" and Bene's

Heidi,

     Ron's 1:00 meeting is running late.  Why don't we just give you a

call when he gets back into his office?  It shouldn't be any later than

1:45 or so.

-Janet

_______________________________________

Janet F. Cakir, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Specialist

Air Benefits Cost Group

109 TW Alexander Dr., (C439-02)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>              "King, Heidi R."

             <Heidi_R._King@o

             mb.eop.gov>                                             To

                                      Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

             01/23/2008 01:10                                        cc

             PM                       Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy

                                      Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lillian

                                      Bradley/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

                                                                Subject

                                      RE: Ron, a couple O3 follow ups:

                                      "Bins" and Bene's

Perfect Ron; and I can make time btw 1:30 and 2:30 today. (After 2:30 I

turn to Title V)

h

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

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:59 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Re: Ron, a couple O3 follow ups: "Bins" and Bene's

I have a few more questions on the bins and how they might be used, are

you free anytime after 1:30 and before 3:30?   As to the benefits

discussion, we are ready to go.   We don't have numbers yet but updating

people on how we are proceeding etc is ready.  I think this discussion

is largely for Margo since she has been out a good bit.  Do I have that

right?   Just reach out to Janet to work out a time.   I would like to

avoid this Friday since I will be out of the office but other than that

we should be OK.

             "King, Heidi R."

             <Heidi_R._King@o

             mb.eop.gov>                                             To

                                      Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

             01/23/2008 11:26                                        cc

             AM                       Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

                                                                Subject

                                      Ron, a couple O3 follow ups:

                                      "Bins" and Bene's

Hi Ron,

Trying to keep my head straight, just a quick note to keep it on both of

our radar screens that we should touch base asap to make sure

1) I answered your question about the "bins" spreadsheet,

2) EPA assessment of what we can do with the bins

3) We were going to set up a Bene's conversation for interagency

reviewers, right?  What are your thoughts on timing?

Thanks - I hope all is well,

heidi


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 76 (Friday, April 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 18759]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08105]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9032-7]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
Filed 04/10/2017 Through 04/14/2017
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice:

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20170057, Draft, DOT, HI, Saddle Road Extension, South Kohala,
Comment Period Ends: 06/05/2017, Contact: J. Michael Will<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20170058, Final, USFS, MT, Center Horse Landscape Restoration
Project, Review Period Ends: 05/22/2017, Contact: Tami Paulsen 406-329-
3731
EIS No. 20170059, Final, USACE, NY, Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers
Flood Risk Management Project, Review Period Ends: 05/22/2017, Contact:
Matthew Voisine<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20170060, Draft, USACE, CA, Berths 226-236 [Everport] Container
Terminal Improvements Project, Comment Period Ends: 06/05/2017,
Contact: Theresa Stevens<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20170061, Draft, APHIS, NAT, Determination of Non-Regulated
Status for Freeze Tolerant Eucalyptus Lines FTE 427 and FTE 435,
Comment Period Ends: 06/05/2017, Contact: Cindy Eck<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20170062, Draft, USFS, CA, Power Fire Reforestation, Comment
Period Ends: 06/05/2017, Contact: Marc Young<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20170063, Final, USACE, AZ, Lone Star Ore Body Development
Project, Review Period Ends: 05/22/2017, Contact: Michael Langley 602-
230-6953

    Dated: April 18, 2017.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2017-08105 Filed 4-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 219 (Monday, November 14, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70403-70406]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29203]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1227]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the
communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this proposed
rule is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed
regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream
and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs
are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is
required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in
order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once
finalized, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the
contents in those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before February 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community is available for
inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses
are listed in the table below.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1227, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500
C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for
each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR
67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean

that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more
stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community
may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to
policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these
elevations are made final, and for the contents in those buildings.
    Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other
than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging
receipt of any comments will not be sent.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule is
categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not
been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This
proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria
of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This proposed rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule
meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.4  [Amended]

    2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.4 are
proposed to be amended as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  * Elevation in feet
                                                                (NGVD)  + Elevation in
                                                                feet  (NAVD)
                                                                  Depth in feet above
         Flooding source(s)            Location of referenced       ground  [caret]        Communities affected
                                            elevation **         Elevation in  meters
                                                                         (MSL)
                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Isabella County, Michigan (All Jurisdictions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blanchard Mill Pond.................  Entire shoreline.......         None         +912  Township of Rolland.
Camelot Lake........................  Entire shoreline.......         None         +706  Township of Chippewa.
Coldwater Lake......................  Entire shoreline within         None         +866  Township of Nottawa,
                                       community.                                         Township of Sherman.
Halls Lake..........................  Entire shoreline.......         None         +994  Township of Broomfield.
Indian Lake.........................  Entire shoreline.......         None         +886  Township of Vernon.
Lake Manitonka......................  Entire shoreline within         None         +936  Township of Sherman.
                                       community (downstream
                                       of North Brinton Road).
Lake Manitonka......................  Entire shoreline within         None         +941  Township of Coldwater,
                                       community (upstream of                             Township of Sherman.
                                       North Brinton Road).
Lake Windaga........................  Entire shoreline within         None         +924  Township of Coldwater,
                                       community.                                         Township of Sherman.
Lake of the Hills...................  Entire shoreline within         None         +894  Township of Nottawa,
                                       community.                                         Township of Sherman.
Littlefield Lake....................  Entire shoreline.......         None         +911  Township of Gilmore.
Scott Lake Drain....................  Entire shoreline within         None         +892  Saginaw Chippewa Tribe,
                                       community.                                         Township of Nottawa.
Stevenson Lake......................  Entire shoreline.......         None         +850  Township of Vernon.
Weidman Mill Pond...................  Entire shoreline within         None         +887  Saginaw Chippewa Tribe,
                                       community.                                         Township of Nottawa,
                                                                                Township of Sherman.
Woodruff Lake.......................  Entire shoreline within         None         +913  Township of Broomfield,
                                       community.                                         Township of Deerfield.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

\**\ BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

Saginaw Chippewa Tribe
Maps are available for inspection at the Office of the Tribal Clerk, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, 7070 East
 Broadway Street, Mount Pleasant, MI 48858.

Township of Broomfield
Maps are available for inspection at the Broomfield Township Hall, 2889 South Rolland Road, Remus, MI 49340.

Township of Chippewa
Maps are available for inspection at the Chippewa Township Hall, 11084 East Pickard Road, Mount Pleasant, MI
 48858.

Township of Coldwater
Maps are available for inspection at 8328 West Beck Road, Lake, MI 48632.

Township of Deerfield
Maps are available for inspection at the Deerfield Township Hall, 3032 South Winn Road, Mount Pleasant, MI
 48858.

Township of Gilmore
Maps are available for inspection at the Gilmore Township Hall, 1998 West Stevenson Lake Road, Farwell, MI
 48622.

Township of Nottawa
Maps are available for inspection at the Nottawa Township Hall, 3024 West Weidman Road, Weidman, MI 48893.

Township of Rolland
Maps are available for inspection at 524 Cedar Street, Blanchard, MI 49310.

Township of Sherman
Maps are available for inspection at the Sherman Township Hall, 3550 North Rolland Road, Weidman, MI 48893.

Township of Vernon
Maps are available for inspection at the Vernon Township Hall, 10877 North Lincoln Road, Clare, MI 48617.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Washoe County, Nevada, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
211 Creek...........................  Approximately 400 feet          None        +5039  City of Reno,
                                       downstream of U.S.                                 Unincorporated Areas
                                       Route 395.                                         of Washoe County.
                                      Approximately 0.42 mile         None        +5513
                                       upstream of Union
                                       Pacific Railroad.
6015 Creek..........................  At the upstream side of         None        +5166  City of Reno.
                                       the West Copperfield
                                       Creek confluence.
                                      Approximately 1,500             None        +5252
                                       feet upstream of the
                                       West Copperfield Creek
                                       confluence.
6634 Creek..........................  Approximately 1.11              None        +5068  City of Reno.
                                       miles downstream of
                                       Union Pacific Railroad.
                                      Approximately 0.47 mile         None        +5473
                                       upstream of Union
                                       Pacific Railroad.
Copperfield Creek...................  Approximately 1,600             None        +5040  City of Reno,
                                       feet downstream of the                             Unincorporated Areas
                                       West Copperfield Creek                             of Washoe County.
                                       confluence.
                                      Approximately 0.92 mile         None        +5295
                                       upstream of U.S. Route
                                       395 (southbound on-
                                       ramp).
Evans Creek.........................  Approximately 1,700             None        +4682  City of Reno,
                                       feet upstream of                                   Unincorporated Areas
                                       Lakeside Drive.                                    of Washoe County.
                                      Approximately 0.52 mile         None        +5070
                                       upstream of Evans
                                       Creek Drive.
Fat Creek...........................  Approximately 460 feet          None        +5040  City of Reno,
                                       downstream of U.S.                                 Unincorporated Areas
                                       Route 395.                                         of Washoe County.
                                      Approximately 0.62 mile         None        +5086
                                       upstream of Frontage
                                       Road.
Flat Creek..........................  Approximately 975 feet          None        +5043  City of Reno,
                                       downstream of the Flat                             Unincorporated Areas
                                       Creek Split confluence.                            of Washoe County.
                                      Approximately 0.58 mile         None        +5177
                                       upstream of the Flat
                                       Creek Split confluence.
Flat Creek Split....................  Approximately 50 feet           None        +5043  City of Reno,
                                       upstream of Frontage                               Unincorporated Areas
                                       Road.                                              of Washoe County.
                                      Approximately 130 feet          None        +5052
                                       downstream of the Flat
                                       Creek confluence.
North Evans Creek...................  Approximately 160 feet          None        +4900  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       downstream of the                                  Washoe County.
                                       Evans Creek confluence.
                                      Approximately 0.74 mile         None        +5094
                                       upstream of the Evans
                                       Creek confluence.

Short Creek.........................  Approximately 1,500             None        +5039  City of Reno,
                                       feet downstream of                                 Unincorporated Areas
                                       U.S. Route 395.                                    of Washoe County.
                                      Approximately 0.61 mile         None        +5153
                                       upstream of Frontage
                                       Road.
West Copperfield Creek..............  Approximately 1,000             None        +5060  City of Reno,
                                       feet downstream of                                 Unincorporated Areas
                                       Frontage Road.                                     of Washoe County.
                                      Approximately 1.01              None        +5259
                                       miles upstream of
                                       Frontage Road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Reno
Maps are available for inspection at the City Hall Annex, 450 Sinclair Street, Reno, NV 89501.

                                      Unincorporated Areas of Washoe County
Maps are available for inspection at the Washoe County Administration Building, 1001 East 9th Street, Reno, NV
 89512.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: October 28, 2011.
David L. Miller,
Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-29203 Filed 11-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


Subject: Site visit to Cemex, Brooksville, Florida

Date: February 8, 2012

A site visit was made on February 8, 2012, to the Cemex Portland Cement
facility in Brooksville, Florida by S. Nizich of the EPA’s Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards and contractors from RTI
International. A report summarizing the site visit has been prepared but
is currently considered confidential business information pending
further company review.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 245 (Friday, December 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77191-77194]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30265]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71080; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-125]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Relating to the Quarterly Option Series Program

December 16, 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 December 13, 2013, Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this
notice to

solicit comments on the proposed rule from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify the Quarterly Options Series
(``QOS'') Program to eliminate the cap on the number of additional
series that may be listed per expiration month for each QOS in
exchange-traded fund (``ETF'') options. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of
the Secretary, 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 and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    In an attempt to align Exchange Rules with other options
exchanges,\3\ the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 5.5(e) related to
the QOS Program to eliminate the cap on the number of additional series
that may be listed per expiration month for each QOS in ETF options. As
set out in Rule 5.5(e)(1), the Exchange may list QOS for up to five
currently listed options classes that are either index options or
options on ETFs. The Exchange may also list QOS on any option classes
that are selected by other securities exchanges that employ a similar
program under their respective rules. Currently, for each QOS in ETF
options that has been initially listed on the Exchange, the Exchange
may list up to 60 additional series per expiration month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 70854 (November
13, 2013), 78 FR 69465 (November 19, 2103)(notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness of SR-NYSEMKT-2013-90). See also Securities
and Exchange Act Release No. 70855 (November 13, 2013), 78 FR 69493
(November 19, 2013)(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of
SR-NYSEArca-2013-120). (Collectively the ``NYSE Filings'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is now proposing to amend Rule 5.5(e) to make the
treatment of QOS in ETF options consistent with the treatment of QOS in
stock index options \4\ and other options exchanges.\5\ For example,
like the QOS Program in ETF options, the QOS Program in index options
permits QOS in up to five currently listed options classes, requires
the listing of series that expire at the end of the next (as of the
listing date) consecutive four quarters, as well as the fourth quarter
of the next calendar year; requires the strike price of each QOS to be
fixed at a price per share; and establishes parameters for the number
of strike prices above and below the underlying index.\6\ The QOS
Program in index options, however, does not place a cap on the number
of additional series that the Exchange may list per expiration month
for each QOS in index options. Elimination of the cap set out in Rule
5.5(e), therefore, would result in similar regulatory treatment of
similar options products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 24.9(a)(2)(B) which governs the QOS for index
options.
    \5\ See note 3 supra.
    \6\ See note 4 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed revision to the QOS Program
would provide market participants with the ability to better tailor
their trading to meet their investment objective, including hedging
securities positions, by permitting the Exchange to list additional QOS
in ETF options that meet such objectives. In addition, elimination of
the cap would further allow the Exchange to react to moving markets as
it gives the Exchange the ability to add more strike prices closer to
the underlying security. Finally, the proposed changes will align the
Exchange's QOS with other options exchanges.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See note 3 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that it is not subject to the same series
limitations for other programs including options series with weekly or
monthly expirations.\8\ In addition, the Exchange believes the
elimination of the cap would also help market participants meet their
investment objective by providing expanded opportunities to roll ETF
options into later quarters. Because of the current cap, however, the
Exchange may not be able to list the appropriate series to do so.
Elimination of the cap, however, would allow the Exchange to meet the
investment needs of market participants in such situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Rule 5.5(d), for example, governs the Exchange's Short Term
Options Series Program (``Weeklys''). Rule 5.5(d)(4) sets a
limitation to the number of strikes for each option class, but the
Exchange is given authority to surpass this maximum number under
certain circumstances. More specifically, Rule 5.5(d)(4) states that
``in the event that the underlying security has moved such that
there are no series that are at least 10% above or below the current
price of the underlying security and all existing series have open
interest, the Exchange may list additional series, in excess of the
thirty series per class limit set forth in Rule 5.5(d)(1).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the
Exchange has represents that it and the Options Price Reporting
Authority (``OPRA'') have the necessary systems capacity to handle any
potential additional traffic associated with this current amendment to
the QOS Program. The Exchange believes that its Trading Permit Holders
will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposal. The
Exchange also represents that it does not believe this expansion will
cause fragmentation to liquidity.
    To help ensure that only active options series are listed, the
Exchange has in place procedures to delist inactive series. Rule
5.5(e)(7)(A) requires the Exchange to review, on a monthly basis, the
QOS Program that are outside of a range of five (5) strikes above and
five (5) strikes below the current price of the underlying ETF, and
delist series with no open interest in both the put and the call series
having a: (i) Strike higher than the highest strike price with open
interest in the put and/or call series for a given expiration month;
and (ii) strike lower than the lowest strike price with open interest
in the put and/or call series for a given expiration month.\9\ The
Exchange believes this provision helps to maintain capacity to handle
quote traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Exchange Rule 5.5(e)(7)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\10\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \11\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to

and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \12\ requirement that the rules
of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market because it will expand the investment options
available to investors and will allow for more efficient risk
management. The Exchange believes that removing the cap on the number
of QOS in ETF options permitted to be listed on the Exchange will
result in a continuing benefit to investors by giving them more
flexibility to closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions to
their needs, and, therefore, the proposal is designed to protect
investors and the public interest. In addition, the elimination of the
cap will make the treatment of QOS in ETF options consistent with the
treatment of QOS in index options, thus resulting in similar regulatory
treatment for similar option products.
    As the Exchange has already stated, with regard to the impact of
this proposal on system capacity, the Exchange has represents that it
and the Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') have the necessary
systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated
with this current amendment to the QOS Program. The Exchange believes
that its Trading Permit Holders will not have a capacity issue as a
result of this proposal. The Exchange also represents that it does not
believe this expansion will cause fragmentation to liquidity.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In contrary, CBOE believes that
the proposed rule change will relieve any burden on, or otherwise
promote competition. The elimination of the cap on series in the QOS
program will benefit investors by providing more flexibility to more
closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change. The Exchange notes that the original NYSE MKT
filing also did not receive any comments.

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

    Because the 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, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Exchange stated that waiver of this requirement will allow
the Exchange to compete with other options exchanges proposing similar
changes without putting the Exchange at a competitive disadvantage. The
Exchange also stated that the proposal would permit the Exchange to
list additional QOS in ETF options that allow investors to meet their
investment objectives, including hedging securities positions. For
these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change
presents no novel issues, and waiver will allow the Exchange to remain
competitive with other exchanges. Therefore, the Commission designates
the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also 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 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.

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-CBOE-2013-125 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-2013-125. 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-CBOE-

2013-125 and should be submitted on or before January 10, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-30265 Filed 12-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


II. D. 2  Page 1 of 9 II. D Appendices: Drinking Water Exposure 2. Summary of State Monitoring for N Methyl Carbamates The EPA Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP) contacted the lead pesticide agencies in each state during the summer of 2004 to determine whether any of the N methyl carbamates ( NMC) in this cumulative assessment group have been included in ground or surface water monitoring programs over the last decade. When monitoring programs were performed by agencies other than the lead pesticide agency, OPP contacted them as well. If NMC monitoring data were available for a particular state, OPP inquired whether the data could be accessed via the Internet. Many state agencies offered to provide data if information has not yet been made available online.

The majority of State monitoring programs included few, if any, NMCs in their analysis. The majority of States have focused monitoring efforts on ground water monitoring, particularly monitoring of five herbicides under the Pesticide Management Plan. With few exceptions, State monitoring programs have not specifically been targeted to the areas and timing of NMC application. Because of this, and because many NMCs are not required by the Safe Water Act to be included as analytes in drinking water sampling, data from State monitoring programs are used as important supplemental data for the NMC cumulative drinking water risk assessment.

One exception to his is private well monitoring data conducted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ( FL DEP), which proved to be valuable in developing and evaluating the ground water modeling approach the Agency used for this cumulative exposure assessment.

This is a draft appendix which includes only brief summaries of state monitoring programs pertinent to the NMC CRA. It does not include any analyses or discussion of data. Such work will be included in the revised NMC CRA, which is expected to be released by the end of 2005. The status of those State programs which responded to the Agency's queries is summarized below.

Arizona Wang Yu of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Groundwater Monitoring Unit provided a data set based on statewide monitoring efforts routinely undertaken by the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Program and Ambient Groundwater Monitoring Program of ADEQ. There were very few detections of carbamates in the last decade of monitoring data.

Arkansas Charles Armstrong of the Arkansas State Plant Board Pesticides Division said that they monitor for carbamates but they have never had any detections. II. D. 2  Page 2 of 9 Colorado Greg Naugle, the Groundwater Quality Coordinator for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, sent a summary of the carbamate sampling conducted by the Colorado Agricultural Chemicals in Groundwater Program. The carbamate screen that was run included aldicarb, aldicarb sulfone, aldicarb sulfoxide, carbaryl, carbofuran, 3 hydroxycarbofuran, methiocarb, methomyl, 1 napthol, oxamyl ( vydate), and propoxur ( baygon).

Mr. Naugle reported that since 1992, the program has analyzed approximately 570 samples with detection limits varying between about 0.23 and 4 ppb. To date, no samples have been analyzed with concentrations above the detection limit.

Michael Lewis, a Water Quality Specialist with the U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division Colorado District, sent two spreadsheets with separate statewide pulls from the database for GW and SW data. He also said that the data is most likely limited to the South Platte and Upper Colorado NAWQA study units.

The spreadsheets contain all available carbamate data for ground water and surface water sites sampled by the USGS WRD in Colorado from 01/ 1990 through 06/ 2004. The spreadsheets are formatted to highlight the " hits", which he believes are all reported as estimated ( E) concentrations. These typically are for carbaryl and carbofuran. The values are reported as estimated, because of variable method performance with the analytical method.

Mr. Lewis also noted that any data reported for the 2004 water year ( October 1, 2003 present) should be considered provisional and subject to revision pending final review and approval by the USGS.

Florida Andrew Priest of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection provided the agency with two spreadsheets. The carbamates that the Florida DEP monitors for in groundwater are aldicarb, aldicarb sulfone, aldicarb sulfoxide, carbaryl, carbofuran, 3 hydroxycarbofuran, methiocarb, methomyl, oxamyl, and propoxur ( baygon). Mr. Priest stated that they have taken over 6,000 samples and no carbamates have been detected except for aldicarb.

Dr. Chris Wilson, an Environmental Toxicologist at the University of Florida's Indian River Research and Education Center, conducted a study to monitor pesticides in a surface water body located in a citrus rich region of southeast Florida. For the study, Dr. Wilson's team collected one water sample daily at the discharge point for the small agricultural watershed over a one year period. They analyzed the samples for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfone, aldicarb sulfoxide, carbaryl, carbofuran, methiocarb, methomyl, II. D. 2  Page 3 of 9 oxamyl, and propoxur. Dr. Wilson stated that his team has a manuscript that has been accepted by the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology detailing the results for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, and aldicarb sulfone. He said that, based on separate field studies conducted, they have found that aldicarb has a half life of 2 4 days in Florida surface waters. Dr. Wilson's team also detected carbaryl, methomyl and oxamyl in a few samples. In addition to the carbamates, they have also monitored for organophosphates and copper. He supplied the agency with the poster that he presented at a local watershed meeting in early 2004 that gives a better explanation. The team is hoping to publish the other data towards the end of 2004.

Georgia Steve Cole of the Georgia Department of Agriculture Pesticide Division reported that their lab is currently running Method 525.5 for groundwater samples. This method recovers carbamates, but the detection method the lab is using to screen for the five target analytes ( GC/ XSD) does not detect carbamates. Therefore, they have no data on carbamates for the last 18 months or so. In the past, the department did monitor for carbamates and had no detects. Mr. Cole supplied a list of detects from the program in 2001 and 2002. They had no pesticide detects in 2003 and the 2004 samples are still being analyzed.

Illinois Anthony Dulka of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Bureau of Water, Groundwater Section, provided the list of EPA methods that they use to test for groundwater SOCs. Carbamates are not included in these tests.

Ms. Jeri Long from the Drinking Water Compliance Unit of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency supplied 5 spreadsheets with monitoring data from all Illinois community water systems on aldicarb, aldicarb sulfone, aldicarb sulfoxide, carbofuran, and oxamyl.

Indiana Ryan McDuffee from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Water Quality, reported that their extensive surface water monitoring of pesticides was a 5 year program that was conducted from 1997 to 2001. He sent the laboratory data and the parameters that were included in the analysis; no carbamates were included. Currently they are conducting limited surface water monitoring of pesticides associated with their fixed station monitoring. He also provided the list of parameters that are being analyzed, which did not include carbamates.

George Neely from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Drinking Water Branch, provided the agency with information and data from the Drinking Water Compliance database for Indiana. The database contains point of entry II. D. 2  Page 4 of 9 data ( after treatment) for Public Water Systems. The data that Mr. Neely supplied the agency only includes ground water systems and covers the period from1993 to the present.

Mr. Neely reported that Indiana has 656 Community ground water systems and 690 non transient, non community ( NTNC) ground water systems. He also noted that " transient" public water systems are not included in the data because these systems are not required to sample regulated SOCs.

The Indiana drinking water database has data on seven of the carbamates and five of the carbamates are on the " unregulated SOC" list for Indiana. These are aldicarb, aldicarb sulfone, aldicarb sulfoxide, carbaryl, and methomyl . After the initial sampling for unregulated SOCs , systems are not required to submit these again. However, Mr. Neely reported that roughly 50% of the systems submit both regulated and unregulated every time they sample for SOCs and therefore a significant amount of data on these carbamates exists in the database. The other two carbamates, carbofuran and oxamyl ( vydate), are both included on the list of regulated SOCs for Indiana. Therefore, Indiana's database has the most information on these two contaminants.

Mr. Neely stated that the most common SOC sampling frequency for ground water systems in Indiana is once every three years or once during each compliance period. He noted that there are only four entries that show a carbamate detection in the database, and the last detection was in 1997. The following four carbamates were each detected one time over the last 11 years: methomyl, oxamyl ( vydate), carbofuran, and aldicarb. For the group of 5 carbamates ( aldicarb, aldicarb sulfone, aldicarb sulfoxide, carbaryl, and methomyl) on the unregulated SOC list, a total of 2970 samples have been recorded since 1993 with " zero" results, and only two samples have had detections. For the two carbamates on the regulated list ( carbofuran and oxamyl), a total of 6849 samples have been recorded since 1993 with " zero" results, and only two samples have had detections.

Kentucky Tom VanArsdall, the Water Quality Branch Manager of the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, reported that they sample carbamates using Method 531.1 at many of their 70 long term ambient sites and at approximately 20 25 rotating watershed sites every year. Also, Mr. VanArsdall said they try to collect them in sediments at the same sites, but lately they have not always collected the sediments. Water quality data are in STORET for the long term sites and currently being loaded for the rotating watershed sites.

Louisiana Leslie LeMon from the Safe Drinking Water Program of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals will provide a data set to the agency. II. D. 2  Page 5 of 9 Massachusetts Damon Guterman from the Drinking Water Program of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection provided the agency with a spreadsheet of the seven carbamates that are included in their Safe Drinking Water Act monitoring program ( five were part of the previous unregulated SOC list). These include aldicarb, aldicarb sulfone, aldicarb sulfoxide, carbaryl, carbofuran, methomyl, and oxamyl ( vydate). Only 14 total detections were made over the last decade.

Mr. Guterman stated that " the Drinking Water Program makes every attempt to ensure that this data is accurate, complete and current. However, no guarantee is given that this data is error free. In addition, since updates and corrections are occurring at all times this data is time sensitive. Any published use of this data should include this disclaimer and acknowledge the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Drinking Water Program."

Michigan Sainey Drammeh, from the Department of Information Technology of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, provided the agency with monitoring data from 1994 to present. Ms. Drammeh stated that this monitoring was conducted to ensure that the state's water quality is up to EPA standards. The data set includes drinking water, ground water, and surface water.

Dennis Bush from the Water Division of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality stated that they do not routinely monitor for carbamates in their surface water program. In 1997, Mr. Bush co wrote a staff report which summarized the results of some pesticide analysis which was conducted in 1992 for some of the tributaries to the Saginaw Bay. Here is the summary he provided the agency: " In 1992, a total of 103 water samples were collected from the Saginaw Bay watershed. The samples were collected primarily from the mouths of 27 tributaries to the Saginaw Bay. The samples were analyzed for 27 pesticides. Carbofuran, the only carbamate pesticide studied, was detected in 16 out of the 103 samples at concentrations ranging from 0.54 to 4.04 ug/ L ( the detection limit for carbofuran was 0.5 ug/ L)."

Mr. Bush also referred the agency to a paper published by USGS ( Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002. 36: 1202 1211) which looked at pharmaceuticals and pesticides throughout the country. He said they analyzed for carbaryl in the Boardman River in Michigan.

Missouri II. D. 2  Page 6 of 9 Dianne Holtmeyer of the Public Drinking Water Branch of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources provided the agency with a data set that contains the results for monitoring conducted using Method 531 from 1995 until mid May 2004 on surface and ground water. There were no detections of carbamates.

Nevada Jon Carpenter, the Groundwater Program Coordinator for the Nevada Department of Agriculture, said he would look at the data and get back to the agency. He said he was almost certain they haven't detected any carbamates though. ( 6 29 04)

New Hampshire Pat Bickford from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services provided the agency with a data set for public water systems from 1996 to 2004. The department monitors for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfone, aldicarb sulfoxide, carbaryl, carbofuran, methomyl, oxamyl, and 3 hydroxycarbofuran. Based on this data set, there have been no carbamate detections. Ms. Bickford also stated that she had no way to tell if it was surface or ground water for each field. She advised the agency that this data was generated by the Department of Environmental Service's laboratory only and that public water systems can use any accredited commercial labs. Any hits from public water systems using these labs would be in the Water Supply Engineering Bureau's database.

New York Jeff Myers, the Director of the Bureau of Water Assessment and Management for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, stated that they have conducted very little sampling for carbamates and have never had any " hits."

North Carolina Dr. Henry Wade, who is the Environmental Programs Manager of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Pesticide Section, reported that from 1991 1995 they tested water samples from shallow groundwater monitoring wells across the state. Dr. Wade stated they had 13 wells on different farms where aldicarb was used within 300 feet of the wells up to 5 years before the water samples were collected. There were no detections of aldicarb or its degradates. Some new shallow monitoring wells were installed on one farm where the department had previously tested for pesticides. In January 1996, they had detections in 3 wells: G73: aldicarb sulfoxide 7.4 ppb; aldicarb sulfone 3.2 ppb G212: aldicarb sulfoxide 1.0 ppb; aldicarb sulfone 1.0 ppb G215: aldicarb sulfoxide 3.0 ppb; aldicarb sulfone 1.5 ppb II. D. 2  Page 7 of 9 These wells were sampled again in March and July of 1996 and twice in 1998. The two aldicarb degradates were not detected.

Also from 1991 1995, Mr. Wade reported they had 20 wells on farms where carbaryl was used, 6 wells on farms where carbofuran was used, and 13 wells on farms where methomyl was used. These pesticides were not detected in any of the sampling.

Jim Blose from the Division of Water Quality of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources provided findings from limited pesticide analyses that were carried out for a series of watershed investigations. Mr. Blose reported that the only two carbamates analyzed were carbaryl and carbofuran. Both baseflow and storm samples were collected. Mr. Blose reported that carbaryl was detected in one of the ten watershed studies ( detection at two sites during a single storm event) and carbofuran was not detected. The highest concentration of carbaryl observed was 3.62 ug/ L. Mr. Blose provided a file that contains site information only for the two locations where carbaryl was detected.

South Carolina Kathy Stecker, from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Bureau of Water, confirmed that South Carolina does not monitor for carbamates in their ambient surface water monitoring program. The website with the list of parameters sampled by the program, including pesticides, is http:// www. scdhec. net/ eqc/ water/ pubs/ appd. pdf.

Peter Stone from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Bureau of Water, will supply the agency with drinking water information.

Jerry Moore from the South Carolina Department of Pesticide Regulation reported that they only test for aldicarb, carbaryl, and carbofuran. He said the department has been monitoring groundwater for these compounds since 1991 ( approximately 2500 samples from private wells), and they have had no detections thus far. Their detection limits are not very low for the carbamates, and he was not sure about the lower detection limits for their lab.

South Dakota Trish Kindt from the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources reported that their ambient surface water quality monitoring program does not include pesticide sampling.

Matthew Noonan, a Hydrologist from the South Dakota Geological Survey, reported that carbofuran is the only carbamate that they test for in South Dakota. He supplied the agency with a link to a publication with the results of ground water testing from 1989 1997, on page 34 there is a list of the pesticides that were tested for during this time period. ( http:// jurassic2. sdgs. usd. edu/ pubs/ pdf/ UR 89% 20% 20text. pdf) II. D. 2  Page 8 of 9 Mr. Noonan also noted that their web page has a database of the results from ground water testing and it is searchable by location and well name, as well as several other parameters. ( http:// www. sdgs. usd. edu/ database_ selection. html) He also sent a list of the pesticides that the South Dakota Geological Survey is testing for in 2004. Carbofuran is the only carbamate on the list.

Texas Alan Cherepon, who is a Resource Conservation Specialist for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, reported that they keep the Interagency Pesticide Database ( IPD) for Texas within their agency's FIFRA Grant group; however, they hope to make it available in the future, possibly on a website. He searched the database of nearly 20,000 analytes and found that aldicarb ( total) is the only carbamate that has ever been monitored in the past. However, they do not regularly monitor for carbamates because their standard EPA Method 525.5 analysis run on the samples does not include carbamates.

Mr. Cherepon reported that aldicarb ( total) was sampled by Rone Poulenc in 1979, 1987, and 1988. He also found 3 other carbamates sampled for and analyzed by the USGS in 1993 1994, which include methiocarb, oxamyl, and propoxur.

Mr. Cherepon stated that the USGS samples are from around the Fort Worth area, while the Rone Poulenc has no specific locations indicated. There are no detects indicated; however, these were taken long enough ago that detection levels may have been much higher than they are now, as is the case with many of the pesticides that they typically monitor for. Mr. Cherepon stated that around 1998 1999, they started using Method 525.2 Mr. Cherepon also reported that the Public Drinking Water Program does not monitor for any carbamates because they use the same method of analysis, EPA Method 525.2.

Gary Regner from the Public Drinking Water Section of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality provided the agency with drinking water monitoring data. Mr. Regner reported that Texas no longer monitors drinking water for carbamates, but they have in the past with EPA method 531. When the carbamates were monitored in the past, they were part of the SOC4 chemical analysis group. This group included aldicarb sulfoxide, aldicarb sulfone, oxamyl, aldicarb, carbofuran, methomyl, 3 hydroxycarbofuran, baygon, carbaryl, and methiocarb. Mr. Regner reported that of the 6183 samples collected over the time period of roughly 1992 to 2002, there were no carbamate detections. Samples were collected at public water systems from entry points. Mr. Regner reported that this is treated drinking water before it enters the distribution system.

Washington II. D. 2  Page 9 of 9 Ginny Stern and Jack Eden of the Washington Department of Health supplied a data set of carbamate monitoring data from January 1996 to December of 2003. This monitoring data mainly consists of groundwater, but includes several surface water samples, and focuses on pre determined at risk water bodies used for drinking water.

West Virginia Doug Hudson, from the West Virginia Department of Agriculture, reported that they have conducted carbamate groundwater monitoring in the past and have never had any detections.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5583-5584]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2141]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. P-13403-001, P-13404-001, P-13405-001, P-13406-001, P-
13407-001, P-13408-001, P-13410-001, P-13411-001, and P-13412-001]

Clear River Power, et al.; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of
the Traditional Licensing Process

January 25, 2011.
    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project Nos.: 13403-001, 13404-001, 13405-001, 13406-001, 13407-
001, 13408-001, 13410-001, 13411-001, and 13412-001
    c. Dated Filed: December 1, 2010
    d. Submitted By: Clear River Power, et al. (Clear River Power),
subsidiaries of Free Flow Power Corporation
    e. Name of Projects: Luke Chute Lock and Dam Project, P-13403-001;
Beverly Lock and Dam Project, P-13404-001; Devola Lock and Dam Project,
P-13405-001; Malta/McConnelsville Lock and Dam Project, P-13406-001;
Lowell Lock and Dam Project, P-13407-001; Philo Lock and Dam Project,
P-13408-001; Ellis Lock and Dam Project, P-13410-001; Rokeby Lock and
Dam Project, P-13411-001; and Zanesville Lock and Dam Project, P-13412-
001
    f. Location: At existing locks and dams formally owned and operated
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers but now owned and operated by the
state of Ohio on the Muskingum River in Washington, Morgan, and
Muskingum counties, Ohio. (See table below for specific project
locations)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Project No.                    Projects                     County(s)                  City/town
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P-13403...................  Luke Chute Lock and Dam.......  Washington...............  between the cities of
                                                            Morgan...................   Stockport and Beckett.
P-13404...................  Beverly Lock and Dam..........  Washington...............  upstream of the city of
                                                                                Beverly.
P-13405...................  Devola Lock and Dam...........  Washington...............  near the city of Devola.
P-13406...................  Malta/McConnelsville Lock and   Morgan...................  southern shore of the
                             Dam.                                                       town of McConnelsville.
P-13407...................  Lowell Lock and Dam...........  Washington...............  west of the city of
                                                                                Lowell.
P-13408...................  Philo Lock and Dam............  Muskingum................  north of the city of
                                                                                Philo.
P-13410...................  Ellis Lock and Dam............  Muskingum................  east of town of Ellis.
P-13411...................  Rokeby Lock and Dam...........  Morgan...................  near the city of Rokeby.
P-13412...................  Zanesville Lock and Dam.......  Muskingum................  near the center of the
                                                                                city of Zanesville.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 808(b)(1) and 18
CFR 5.5 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Chief Operating
Officer, Free Flow Power, 33 Commercial Street, Gloucester, MA 01930;
or at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Joseph Adamson at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. On December 1, 2010, the Clear River Power, filed its request to
use the Traditional Licensing Process and provided public notice of its
request. In a letter dated January 21, 2011, the Director, Division of
Hydropower Licensing, approved the Clear River Power's request to use
the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section
7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations
thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; (b) NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920; and (c) the Ohio State
Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating the Clear River Power as
the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Clear River Power filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD),
including a proposed process plan and schedule with the Commission,
pursuant to 18 CFR 5.5 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website
(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 Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    o. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-

mail of new filing and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2141 Filed 1-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 17 (Friday, January 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5525-5527]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01487]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68693; File No. SR-ISE-2013-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Amend the Exchange's Obvious and Catastrophic Error Rule

January 18, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 8, 2013, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 720, Obvious and
Catastrophic Errors, to address obvious and catastrophic errors
involving complex orders. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site www.ise.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend ISE Rule 720
regarding Obvious and Catastrophic Errors to mitigate the risk to
parties using complex orders, where part or all of a complex order
traded at an erroneous price. Specifically, this proposed rule change
addresses situations where one component (or leg) of a complex order is
deemed an obvious (or catastrophic) error but the other component(s) is
(are) not.
    Complex orders are orders involving the simultaneous purchase and/
or sale of two or more different options series in the same underlying
security, for the same account, in a ratio that is equal to or greater
than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00)
and for the purpose of executing a particular investment strategy.\3\
With this proposed rule change, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule
720 to

address complex orders that have at least one leg that trades at an
erroneous price. Rule 720 is the Exchange's rule that governs obvious
and catastrophic errors in options. Most options exchanges have similar
but not identical rules; this proposal would adopt a new process of
determining how to deal with obvious/catastrophic errors when a complex
order trades with another complex order on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ISE Rule 722(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 720 provides a framework for reviewing the price of a
transaction to determine whether that price was an ``obvious error''
\4\ pursuant to objective standards. When a Member believes it received
one or more executions at an erroneous price, that Member may notify
designated members of the Exchange's market control center (``Market
Control'') within the prescribed timeframe so Market Control can
determine whether the Member participated in a transaction that was the
result of an obvious or catastrophic error.\5\ Such an error will be
deemed to have occurred when the execution price of a transaction is
higher or lower than the theoretical price for a series by a certain
amount depending on the type of option. Market Control use one of two
criteria when determining the theoretical price of an options
execution, which is enumerated in ISE Rule 720(a)(3). The theoretical
price is then compared to an obvious/catastrophic error chart within
Rule 720(a). If the transaction price meets this threshold, the
transaction may be adjusted or nullified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This proposed rule change also covers catastrophic errors.
    \5\ See, ISE Rules 720(b)(1) and 720(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule change would permit all legs of a complex order
execution to be nullified when one leg can be nullified under Rule 720,
only if the execution was a complex order versus a complex order.\6\
This occurs when a complex order executes against another complex
order. For example, assume a customer trades a call spread at a net
price of $0.50 by buying the January 50 calls at $3.00 and selling the
January 55 calls at $2.50. If the January 50 calls should have been
trading at $7.00 and thus meet the obvious error threshold in Rule 720,
then the entire complex trade will be nullified only if the January 50
and 55 calls traded as a complex order against another complex order,
rather than as two separate trades. Currently, once the trade involving
the January 50 calls is nullified, both parties are stuck with a
transaction in the January 55 calls, which was not intended by either.
This proposed rule change, therefore, provides an important benefit to
both parties of a complex order, i.e., nullification of all the
components of a complex order that traded with another complex order,
because neither party intended to end up with just one component of a
complex order. With this proposed rule change, a complex order
execution where part or all of a complex order traded at an erroneous
price would be nullified, not adjusted. The Exchange believes that if
any one leg of a complex order is adjusted to a price other than its
stated price, the trade no longer serves its purpose because complex
orders are intended to serve a particular trading strategy but only if
the order is executed at its stated price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, proposed ISE Rule 720, Supplementary Material .06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal does not address complex orders that do not trade
against other complex orders. This proposal is intended to mitigate
risk for parties of a complex order where a complex order traded with
another complex order at an erroneous price. By creating uniformity for
all trades that are ``complex to complex,'' parties will have less
trading risk because all of the components will be nullified under this
proposed rule change.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable
and objective, and would serve to enhance the application of the
Exchange's Obvious and Catastrophic Error rule by extending it to
erroneous executions in complex orders. The purpose of this proposed
rule change is to align the Exchange's rule with rules currently in
place at other exchanges that address erroneous executions in complex
orders.\7\ The proposed rule change will provide members with similar
opportunities for trade nullification that are available on PHLX which
also has a rule in place to address obvious and catastrophic errors
involving executions in complex orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, for example, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') Rule
1092(c)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Basis
    The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act'') \8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5)
of the Exchange Act \9\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and
a national market system, and in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange understands that, in approving proposals related to
adjusting and nullifying option trades involving obvious and
catastrophic errors, the Commission has focused on the need for
specificity and objectivity with respect to exchange determinations and
processes for reviewing such determinations.\10\ In this regard, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change provides specific and
objective procedures for determining whether a trade should be
nullified. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will improve
the obvious error process for complex orders that trade with another
complex order. Recognition that a trade is part of a complex order
should help add more certainty to the obvious/catastrophic error
process and reduce the risk to parties trading complex orders on the
Exchange because neither party to a complex order expects or intends to
end up with just a piece of a complex order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54228 (July 27,
2006), 71 FR 44066 (August 3, 2006) (SR-ISE-2006-14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change would
benefit investors and market participants that are members of multiple
exchanges by more closely aligning the Exchange's rules with respect to
obvious and catastrophic errors involving executions in complex orders
with those of other exchanges. In this respect, the proposed rule
change helps foster certainty for market participants trading on
multiple exchanges. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the
increased specificity resulting from the proposed rule change, combined
with the continued objective nature of the Exchange's process for
rendering and reviewing trade nullification determinations, is
consistent with prior guidance from the Commission, is consistent with
the Exchange Act and is consistent with the maintenance of a fair and
orderly market and the protection of investors and the public interest.

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

    The Exchange 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, but rather this proposal will
promote competition as it is designed to improve the treatment of
complex orders where part or all of a complex order is traded at an
erroneous price.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not 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) \11\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \12\ thereunder. The Exchange provided the Commission with
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because this rule will offer Exchange members the same potential for
relief that is available at other options exchanges for certain obvious
and catastrophic errors involving complex orders. Therefore, the
Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission 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 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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2013-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2013-04. 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 offices of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2013-04, and should be
submitted on or before February 15, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01487 Filed 1-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 17, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55657]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22045]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9916-67-Region 8]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan:
Partial Deletion of the California Gulch Superfund Site National
Priorities List; Withdrawal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On August 12, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published a direct final notice of partial deletion and a proposed
notice of intent for partial deletion for Operable Unit 4, Upper
California Gulch; Operable Unit 5, ASARCO Smelters/Slag/Mill Sites; and
Operable Unit 7, Apache Tailing Impoundment, of the California Gulch
Superfund Site from the National Priorities List. The EPA is
withdrawing the final notice of partial deletion due to adverse
comments that were received during the public comment period. After
consideration of the comments received, if appropriate, EPA will
publish a notice of partial deletion in the Federal Register based on
the parallel notice of intent for partial deletion and place a copy of
the final partial deletion package, including a Responsiveness Summary,
if prepared, in the Site repositories.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 79 FR 47007 on August 12,
2014, is withdrawn effective September 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Information Repositories: Comprehensive information on the
Site, as well as the comments that we received during the comment
period, are available in docket EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002, accessed
through the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
docket index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in
hard copy:

    By calling EPA Region 8 at<PHONE_NUMBER> and leaving a message,
or at the Lake County Public Library, 1115 Harrison Avenue,
Leadville, CO 80461,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Monday and Wednesday from 10:00
a.m.-8:00 p.m., Tuesday and Thursday from 10:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., and
Friday and Saturday 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Kiefer, Remedial Project
Manager, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code 8EPR-SR,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 12, 2014, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) published a direct final notice of partial
deletion (79 FR 47007) and a proposed notice of intent for partial
deletion (79 FR 47043) for Operable Unit 4, Upper California Gulch;
Operable Unit 5, ASARCO Smelters/Slag/Mill Sites; and Operable Unit 7,
Apache Tailing Impoundment, of the California Gulch Superfund Site from
the National Priorities List.
    Due to adverse comments that were received during the public
comment period, the direct final rule published at 79 FR 47007 on
August 12, 2014, is withdrawn.

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p.306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR
54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987
Comp., p.193.

    Dated: September 5, 2014.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2014-22045 Filed 9-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P