1,566.38
                                                                      18,796.59

b) Brake and Clutch Repair
                                       S
                                                                         11,984

                                                                            999

                                                                            999

                                                                          36.99

                                                                          36.99
                                                                         443.85

3) Notify Other Employees/Tenants
                                       S
                                                                        507,508

                                                                         42,292

                                                                         42,292

                                                                       1,566.38

                                                                       1,566.38
                                                                      18,796.59
Subtotal, Hazard Communication

                                                                         88,964

                                                                       3,294.94
                                                                      38,203.96
E) Training

1) Provide Training

a) Class II
                                       E
                                                                          2,140

                                                                         68,480

                                                                         68,480

                                                                       2,536.30

                                                                       2,536.30
                                                                          79.26

b) Class III (including new projects)
                                       E
                                                                          1,000

                                                                         16,000

                                                                         16,000

                                                                         592.59

                                                                         592.59
                                                                          37.04

c) Class IV
                                       E
                                                                         51,905

                                                                        103,810

                                                                        103,810

                                                                       3,844.81

                                                                       3,844.81
                                                                       1,922.41

2) Maintain Training Records
                                       C
                                                                         55,045

                                                                          4,587

                                                                          4,587
                                                                         169.89

                                                                         169.89
                                                                       2,038.70
Subtotal, Training

                                                                        192,877

                                                                       7,143.59
                                                                       4,077.41
F) Medical Surveillance

 (includes +5% for turnover)

1) Medical Exams
                                     E, S
                                                                          1,916
                                                                          1,268

                                                                          1,437
                                                                            951

                                                                          2,388

                                                                          53.22
                                                                          35.22

                                                                          88.44
                                                                         117.93

2) Initial Questionnaire d
                                     E, S
                                                                             96
                                                                             63

                                                                             50
                                                                             33

                                                                             83

                                                                           1.87
                                                                           1.23

                                                                           3.10
                                                                           5.89

3) Periodic Questionnaire [d]
                                     E, S
                                                                          1,820
                                                                          1,205

                                                                            319
                                                                            211

                                                                            529

                                                                          11.80
                                                                           7.81

                                                                          19.61
                                                                         112.04

4) Information to Physicians
                                       C
                                                                          3,184

                                                                            279

                                                                            279
                                                                          10.32

                                                                          10.32
                                                                         117.93

5) Physician's Written Opinion
                                       C
                                                                          3,184

                                                                            265

                                                                            265
                                                                           9.83

                                                                           9.83
                                                                         117.93

6) Maintain Exam Records
                                       C
                                                                          3,184

                                                                            265

                                                                            265
                                                                           9.83

                                                                           9.83
                                                                         117.93
Subtotal, Medical Surveillance

                                                                          3,810

                                                                         141.13
                                                                         589.65
G) Access to Records

1) Employee Access
                                       C
                                                                          6,089

                                                                            507

                                                                            507
                                                                          18.79

                                                                          18.79
                                                                         225.52

2) EPA Access

a) Construction
                                       C
                                                                          5,097
                                                                          5,097
                                                                            425

                                                                            425

                                                                            850
                                                                          15.73

                                                                          15.73

                                                                          31.46
                                                                         377.56

b) Brake and Clutch Repair
                                       C
                                                                             30
                                                                             30
                                                                              3

                                                                              3

                                                                              5
                                                                           0.09

                                                                           0.09

                                                                           0.18
                                                                           2.22
Subtotal, Access to Records

                                                                          1,362

                                                                          50.43
                                                                         605.30

H) Competent Person

1) Training

a) Class II [b]
                                       S
                                                                            704

                                                                          9,856

                                                                          9,856

                                                                         365.04

                                                                         365.04
                                                                          26.07

b) Class III and IV [b]
                                       S
                                                                         29,343

                                                                         88,029

                                                                         88,029

                                                                       3,260.33

                                                                       3,260.33
                                                                       1,086.78

2) Maintain Training Records
                                       C
                                                                         30,047

                                                                          2,504

                                                                          2,504
                                                                          92.74

                                                                          92.74
                                                                       1,112.85
Subtotal, Competent Person

                                                                        100,389

                                                                       3,718.11
                                                                       2,225.70
Total

                                                                        402,806

                                                                         14,919
                                                                         46,820
General Notes

1.
Source for unit burdens is "Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act - Reporting and Recordkeeping for Asbestos Abatement Worker Protection."  October 11, 2007. (EPA 2007). See Section 6(g) of this document for detailed derivation of per-state unit burdens and associated response counts.
2.
Except for brake and clutch repair workers, the estimated numbers of employees reflect the numbers of full-time equivalents (FTEs).The estimated numbers of brake and clutch repair employees reflect the actual numbers of workers.
3.
Labor Categories are as follows: IH-Industrial Hygienist; S-Supervisor; E-Employee; C-Clerical Staff

4.
Response counts may differ slightly from those reported in 2007 ICR due to rounding.
Footnotes

                                                                            [a]
Applies to large entities, identified as those not in the small entity category based on the RFA definition that a small government is any specified government entity, excluding States, with jurisdiction over a population of less than 50,000. Per 2007 ICR (see General Note 1 for citation) large governments constitute 3.23 % of the affected entities.
                                                                            [b]
The percentage of crews working in large government jurisdictions is determined based on population data at 42.43% of the total number of crews. It is a disproportionately high proportion, as large governments constitute only 3.23% of affected entities (per the 2007 ICR -- see General Note 1 for citation).
                                                                            [c]
The percentage of affected brake and clutch shops in large governments jurisdictions is assumed to occur at 42.43% of the total number of shops (per the 2007 ICR -- see General Note 1 for citation).
                                                                            [d]
Medical exam counts for questionnaires were corrected in order to consistently account for the +5% turnover.

Table 5: Explanation of Response Units and Scope of the Response (2007 ICR)
Collection Activity
                                   By whom?
                             How long / how often?
                        Responses per ? (response unit)
                        Unit burden backed from total?
                          Final Aggregation Strategy
                             Responses Base Number
                        Estimate Total Response Counts
                               Units of Measure
A) Read And Interpret Regulation                  (5% turnover component only)
Construction supervisor, per entity
3 hrs / 3 yrs
State or local entity with turnover
                                      no
Divide the total number of responses by three to account for frequency and multiply by 0.05 to account for counts of turnover responses.
                                    25,312
                                      422
                             State or local entity
B) Respirator Program

1) Develop Program [a]
Industrial hygienist, per large entity
                                 4 hrs / 5 yrs
Large state or local entity
Yes, for % of entities in large government
Use RFA definition and population counts to determine that 3.23% of entities are large. Multiply totals (crews or shops) by 0.0323 for affected totals.
                                    25,312
                                      818
                          Large state or local entity

2) Fit Testing

a) Full-Face Respirators
Workers and their supervisors
                                   15 min/yr
                                   fit test
Yes, as 40 FTE is the total fit test scope
Apply total FTE to each work and supervisor pair.
                                      40
                                      40
                                   Fit tests

b) Half-Mask-Face Respirators
Workers and their supervisors
                                   10 min/yr
                                   fit test
Yes, as 2,651 FTE is the total fit test scope
Apply total FTE to each work and supervisor pair.
                                     2,651
                                     2,651
                                   Fit tests

3) Maintain Records for Fit Tests
Clerical staff
                                   5 min/yr
                                   fit test
See above
Apply sum of full-face and half-mask fit tests.
                                     2,691
                                     2,691
                                   Fit tests
C) Exposure Monitoring

1) Initial Exposure Assessment

a) Construction [a,b]
Industrial hygienist, per construction crew in large entity
                                 2 hrs / 3 yrs
                              Exposure assessment
Yes, for total count of crews, and % in large entities
Divide the total number of response by three to account for frequency, and multiply by 0.4243 for number of projects located in entities.
                                    30,047
                                     4,241
                            Crews in large entities

b) Brake and Clutch Repair [a,c]
Industrial hygienist, per brake and clutch shop in large entity
                                   2 hrs/yr
                              Exposure assessment
Yes, for total count of shops, and % in large entities
Multiply total number of shops by 0.4243 for number of shops located in large entities.
                                     2,996
                                     1,269
                            Shops in large entities

2) Maintain Exposure Records
Clerical staff, per record
                               5 min/ assessment
                              Exposure assessment
See above
Sum above for all entities: 10,016 crews annually plus 2,996 shops.
                                    13,012
                                    13,012
                         All affected crews and shops

3) Post Monitoring Results, Brake/Clutch
Clerical staff, per record
                                  5 min/shop
                              Exposure assessment
Yes, for total count of shops
All shops in all entities
                                     2,996
                                     2,996
                              All affected shops
D) Hazard Communication

1) Evaluate Risk (Class I, II projects)
Supervisor, per project
                                   45 min/yr
                                Risk evaluation
Yes, for total number of projects

                                     4,507
                                     4,507
                    Risk evaluations for affected projects

2) Notify Employees

a) Construction
Supervisor, per project
                                   5 min/yr
                                 Notification
Yes, for total number of projects

                                    507,508
                                                                        507,508
                      Notifications for affected projects

b) Brake and Clutch Repair
Supervisor, per project
                            5 min/4 times per year
                                 Notification
Yes, for total number of projects
Multiply total number of responses by 4 to account for quarterly frequency.
                                     2,996
                                    11,984
                      Notifications for affected projects

3) Notify Other Employees/ Tenants
Clerical staff, per notification
                         5 min / construction project
                                 Notification
Yes, for total number of projects

                                    507,508
                                    507,508
                      Notifications for affected projects
E) Training

1) Provide Training

a) Class II
Workers
                                   32 hrs/yr
                                Training Hours
Yes, for total number of workers

                                                                          2,140
                                                                          2,140
                                Workers trained

b) Class III (including new projects)
Workers
                                   16 hrs/yr
                                Training Hours
Yes, for total number of workers

                                                                          1,000
                                                                          1,000
                                Workers trained

c) Class IV
Workers
                                   2 hrs/yr
                                Training Hours
Yes, for total number of workers

                                                                         51,905
                                                                         51,905
                                Workers trained

2) Maintain Training Records
Clerical staff, per worker
                                5 min / worker
                                Training Record
See above
Sum of above for all training records
                                                                         55,045
                                                                         55,045
                             All training records

F) Medical Surveillance

 (includes +5% for turnover)

1) Medical Exams
Workers and supervisors
                                   45 min/yr
                                 Medical Exam
Yes, for total numbers of workers and supervisors
Multiply totals by 1.05 to account for turnover (yields 1,268 supervisors and 1,916 employees).
                                     3,032
                                     3,184
                                Medical exams

2) Initial Questionnaire [d]

Workers and supervisors
                                   30 min/yr
                                 Medical Exam
Yes, for proportion getting an intial exam (see also above)
Multiply total counts above by  0.05 to account for those undergoing an initial exam (yields 63 supervisors and 96 employees).

                                      159
                            Medical exams, initial

3) Periodic Questionnaire d
Workers and supervisors
                                   10 min/yr
                                 Medical Exam
Yes, for proportion getting a periodic exam (see also above)
Use counts above for all medical exams.

                                     3,025
                            Medical exams, periodic

4) Information to Physicians
Clerical staff, per exam
                                  5 min/exam
                                 Medical Exam
Yes, for total numbers of workers and supervisors
Use counts above for all medical exams.

                                     3,184
                                 Medical exams

5) Physician's Written Opinion
Clerical staff, per exam
                                  5 min/exam
                                 Medical Exam
Yes, for total numbers of workers and supervisors
Use counts above for all medical exams.

                                     3,184
                                 Medical exams

6) Maintain Exam Records
Clerical staff, per exam
                                   5min/exam
                                 Medical Exam
Yes, for total numbers of workers and supervisors
Use counts above for all medical exams.

                                     3,184
                                 Medical exams
G) Access to Records

1) Employee Access
Clerical staff, per record
                                 5 min/record
                                Employee Record
Yes, for total number of workers and % who access records
Multiply total by 0.10 to obtain estimate for those accessing records.
                                    60,890
                                     6,089
                               Records accessed

2) EPA Access

a) Construction
Clerical staff, per record
                                 5 min/record
                           Construction Site Records
Yes, for total number of construction sites
Take 5% of Class I projects plus 1% of new plus Class II, III, IV projects.

                                     5,097
                               Records accessed

b) Brake and Clutch Repair
Clerical staff, per record
                                 5 min/record
                                 Shop Records
Yes, for total number of shops
Assumed total of 30 shops.

                                      30
                               Records accessed
H) Competent Person

1) Training

a) Class II [b]
Supervisor, per site
                                   14 hrs/yr
                                Training hours
Yes for total counts of sites

                                      704
                              Supervisors trained

b) Class III and IV [b]
Supervisor, per site
                                   3 hrs/yr
                                Training hours
Yes for total counts of sites

                                    29,343
                              Supervisors trained

2) Maintain Training Records
Clerical staff, per record
                                 5 min/record
                               Training records
See above
Sum of above for all training records

                                    30,047
                               Training records
See General Notes and Footnotes in Table 4.

REFERENCES

1987 WPR.  Asbestos Abatement Projects; Worker Protection; Final Rule (52 FR 5618, February 25, 1987).

2000 WPR.  Asbestos Worker Protection Rule. Final Rule (65 FR 69210, November 15, 2000. Available at:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2000/11/15/00-29232/asbestos-worker-protection (accessed 08-16-16).

OSHA 2000a.  Supporting Statement for the Information Collection Requirements of the Asbestos Standard (Construction), OMB Approval Number 1218-0134.

OSHA 2000b.  Supporting Statement for the Information Collection Requirements of the Asbestos Standard (General Industry), OMB Approval Number 1218-0133.

U.S. BLS 2016. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. National Occupational Employment Statistics data. March 31, 2016 (U S Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2015). Available via http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm (accessed 07_14_16).

U.S. EPA 1992, Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs).

U.S.  EPA 2000. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.  Final Asbestos Worker
Protection Rule Economic Analysis. Economic and	Policy Analysis Branch, Economics, Exposure and Technology Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, September 25, 2000.

U.S. EPA 2007. Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act - Reporting and Recordkeeping for Asbestos Abatement Worker Protection. October 11, 2007.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A 		Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2605)

Attachment B 		Section 8(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C.
			2607(a))

Attachment C 		Asbestos Worker Protection Rule (40 CFR part 763, subpart G)

Attachment D 		OSHA's Construction Standard (29 CFR 1926.1101)
Attachment E		General Industry Standard for Asbestos (29 CFR 1910.1001)


[Federal Register: June 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 115)]
[Notices]
[Page 34186-34189]
[DOCID:fr16jn10-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62252; File Nos. SR-BATS-2010-014; SR-EDGA-2010-01; SR-
EDGX-2010-01; SR-BX-2010-037; SR-ISE-2010-48; SR-NYSE-2010-39; SR-
NYSEAmex-2010-46; SR-NYSEArca-2010-41; SR-NASDAQ-2010-061; SR-CHX-2010-
10; SR-NSX-2010-05; SR-CBOE-2010-047]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; EDGA
Exchange, Inc.; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; International
Securities Exchange LLC; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE Amex LLC;
NYSE Arca, Inc.; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Chicago Stock Exchange,
Inc.; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Proposed Rule
Changes Relating to Trading Pauses Due to Extraordinary Market
Volatility

June 10, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On May 18, 2010, each of BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS''), EDGX
Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX''), NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX''), International
Securities Exchange LLC (``ISE''),\1\ New York Stock Exchange LLC
(``NYSE''), NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSEAmex''), NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSEArca''), The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ''), National
Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX'') and Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \2\ of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\3\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\4\ proposed rule changes to amend certain of their
respective rules, or adopt new rules, to provide for trading pauses in
individual stocks when the price moves ten percent or more in the
preceding five minute period. On May 19, 2010, EDGA Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGA'') and Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'') filed proposed
rule changes to provide for similar trading pauses.\5\ The proposed
rule changes were published for comment in the Federal Register on May
24, 2010.\6\ The Commission received 26 comments on the proposals and
on the broader concept of circuit breakers on individual securities.\7\
The

NYSE responded to the comments in a letter dated June 8, 2010.\8\ This
order grants accelerated approval to the proposed rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ISE filed a technical amendment to the proposed rule change
on June 4, 2010.
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \5\ The term ``Exchanges'' shall refer collectively to all of
the exchanges in this order. The term ``Listing Markets'' refers
collectively to NYSE, NYSEAmex and NASDAQ. The term ``Nonlisting
Markets'' refers collectively to the remaining nine national
securities exchanges. The term SROs refers collectively to the
Exchanges and the Financial Industry Regulatory Aythority
(``FINRA'').
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62121 (May 19,
2010), 75 FR 28834 (May 24, 2010); 62123 (May 19, 2010), 75 FR 28844
(May 24, 2010); 62124 (May 19, 2010), 75 FR 28828 (May 24, 2010);
62125 (May 19, 2010), 75 FR 28836 (May 24, 2010); 62126 (May 19,
2010), 75 FR 28831 (May 24, 2010); 62127 (May 19, 2010), 75 FR 28837
(May 24, 2010); 62128 (May 19, 2010), 75 FR 28830 (May 24, 2010);
62129 (May 19, 2010), 75 FR 28839 (May 24, 2010); 62131 (May 19,
2010), 75 FR 28845 (May 24, 2010); 62132 (May 19, 2010), 75 FR 28847
(May 24, 2010); 62122 (May 19, 2010), 75 FR 28833 (May 24, 2010);
and 62130 (May 19, 2010), 75 FR 28842 (May 24, 2010).
    On May 18, 2010, FINRA filed a proposed rule change, which was
approved today. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62133 (May
19, 2010), 75 FR 28841 (May 24, 2010); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 62251 (June 10, 2010)(SR-FINRA-2010-025).
    \7\ The Commission considered letters received prior to May 18
discussing the concept of individual stock circuit breakers as well
as formal letters citing the rule filings. See Letter from Senator
Charles E. Schumer to Chairman Schapiro, Commission, et. al., dated
May 10, 2010; Letter from Congressman Edward J. Markey to Chairman
Schapiro, Commission, dated May 11, 2010; Letter from Cliff Pereira
to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated May 13, 2010;
Letter from Thomas Hofler to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated May 13, 2010 (``Hofler Letter''); Letter from
James K. Rutledge to Rule-Comments, Commission, dated May 13, 2010;
Letter from John Meredith to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, dated
May 19, 2010; Letter from Peter Skopp, Molinete Trading Inc. to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated May 20, 2010
(``Molinete Letter''); letter from Paul Rogers to Rule-Comments,
Commission, dated May 20, 2010; Letter from Congressman Eric Cantor
to Chairman Schapiro, Commission, dated May 21, 2010; Letter from
T.P. Tursick to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated
May 25, 2010; Letter from James J. Angel to the Commission, dated
May 25, 2010 (``Angel Letter''); Letter from Larry Harris, USC
Marshall School of Business, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated May 26, 2010 (``Harris Letter''); Letter from
Judith Kittinger to WebMaster, Commission, dated May 27, 2010;
Letter from Congresswoman Melissa L. Bean to Chairman Schapiro,
Commission, dated May 28, 2010 (``Bean Letter''); Letter from
Patrick J. Healy, Issuer Advisory Group, LLC, to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated May 31, 2010 (``IAG Letter'');
Letter from Hal McIntyre, The Summit Group, to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Commission, undated ``Summit Group Letter''); Letter from Ira
Shapiro, BlackRock Inc. to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated June 2, 2010 (``BlackRock Letter''); Letter from
Christopher Nagy, TD Ameritrade to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated June 3, 2010 (``TD Ameritrade Letter''); Letter
from Alexander M. Cutler, Business Roundtable to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated June 3, 2010 (``Business
Roundtable Letter''); Letter from George U. Sauter, The Vanguard
Group, Inc. to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated
June 3, 2010 (``Vanguard Letter''); Letter from Julie Sweet,
Accenture plc to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated
June 3, 2010 (``Accenture Letter''); Letter from Tom Quaadman,
Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Commission, dated June 3, 2010 (CCMC Letter''); Letter
from Jeffrey W. Rubin, American Bar Association Business Law Section
to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated June 3, 2010
(``ABA Letter''); Letter from Karrie McMillan, Investment Company
Institute to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated June
3, 2010 (``ICI Letter''); Letter from Daniel Mathisson, Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated June 3, 2010 (``Credit Suisse Letter''); Letter
from Leonard J. Amoruso, Knight Capital Group, Inc. to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated June 4, 2010 (``Knight
Letter'').
    \8\ See Letter from Janet Kissane, Senior Vice President--Legal
& Corporate Secretary, NYSE Euronext to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Commission, dated June 8, 2010 (``Response Letter''),
including data and analysis. See also Memo from the Division of
Risk, Strategy and Financial Innovation to File, dated June 4, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposals

    On May 6, 2010, the U.S. equity markets experienced a severe
disruption.\9\ Among other things, the prices of a large number of
individual securities suddenly declined by significant amounts in a
very short time period, before suddenly reversing to prices consistent
with their pre-decline levels. This severe price volatility led to a
large number of trades being executed at temporarily depressed prices,
including many that were more than 60% away from pre-decline prices and
were broken by the Exchanges. The Commission is concerned that events
such as those that occurred on May 6 can seriously undermine the
integrity of the U.S. securities markets. Accordingly, it is working on
a variety of fronts to assess the causes and contributing factors of
the May 6 market disruption and to fashion policy responses that will
help prevent a recurrence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The events of May 6 are described more fully in the report
of the staffs of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'')
and the Commission, titled Report of the CFTC and SEC to the Joint
Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory Issues, ``Preliminary
Findings Regarding the Market Events of May 6, 2010,'' dated May 18,
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also recognizes the importance of moving quickly to
implement appropriate steps that could help limit potential harm from
extreme price volatility. In this regard, it is pleased that the SROs
began consulting soon after May 6 in an effort to develop consistent
circuit breaker rules that could be implemented on an expedited basis.
The SROs were able to reach agreement on a consistent approach, and, on
May 18 and 19, 2010, all of the SROs filed proposed rule changes with
the Commission.
    These rules would require the Listing Markets to issue five-minute
trading pauses for individual securities for which they are the primary
Listing Market if the transaction price of the security moves ten
percent or more from a price in the preceding five-minute period. The
Listing Markets would notify the other Exchanges and market
participants of the imposition of a trading pause by immediately
disseminating a special indicator over the consolidated tape.\10\ Under
the rules, once a Listing Market issues a trading pause, the other
Exchanges would be required to pause trading in that security on their
markets.\11\ In order to avoid interfering with existing procedures
designed to facilitate orderly openings and closings, the trading pause
requirements would apply only from 9:45 a.m. until 3:35 p.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ When a trading pause is issued, the Listing Market will
immediately notify the single plan processor responsible for
consolidation of information for the security pursuant to Rule 603
of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act. The single plan processor
for all listed securities other than Nasdaq-listed securities is the
Securities Industry Automation Corporation (``SIAC''). The single
plan processor for Nasdaq-listed securities is Nasdaq.
    \11\ FINRA's rule provides that it will similarly pause trading
in the over-the-counter market by FINRA members, including
alternative trading systems and market makers, when a Listing Market
has issued a trading pause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the end of the five-minute pause, the primary Listing Market
would reopen trading in the security in accordance with its procedures
for doing so. Trading would resume on the other Exchanges and in the
over-the-counter market once trading has resumed on the primary Listing
Market. In the event of a significant imbalance on the primary Listing
Market at the end of a trading pause, the primary Listing Market may
delay reopening. If the primary Listing Market has not reopened within
ten minutes from the initiation of the trading pause, however, the
other Exchanges may resume trading.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Some of the Nonlisting Markets, such as ISE, may not begin
trading under their proposed rules until the Listing Market begins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges have proposed that these rule changes be implemented
as a pilot that would end on December 10, 2010. The pilot period would
enable the Exchanges and the Commission to assess the effect of the new
rules on the marketplace. To initiate this pilot promptly, the proposed
rules would be in effect only with respect to securities included in
the S&P 500 Index. The Commission understands that the Exchanges expect
to file additional rule proposals in the near future to expand the
scope of the pilot (for example, to include ETFs) within the pilot
period.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Any such rule proposals would be published for public
comment in accordance with Section 19(b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges have requested that the Commission approve the
proposed rule changes on an accelerated basis, so that they may become
operative as soon as practicable.

III. Discussion of Comments and Commission Findings

    As of June 7, the Commission received 26 comment letters regarding
the proposed rule changes, a substantial number of which were generally
supportive. For example, an institutional investor stated that ``on
very rare occasions like May 6 a pause in trading is necessary to give
market participants a chance to `reset' and react appropriately to
periods of dislocation. A reasonable trading halt will provide
investors time to rationally assess the market events and commit
liquidity at appropriate price levels.'' \14\ Another institutional
investor strongly supported single stock circuit breakers, noting that
``trading pauses may reduce market volatility resulting from temporary
supply-demand imbalances without unduly interrupting price discovery.''
\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Vanguard Letter, supra note 7.
    \15\ See, e.g., BlackRock Letter, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenters also raised a variety of significant issues
regarding the scope and operation of the circuit breakers. These
include: (1) Whether the circuit breakers should be expanded beyond S&P
500 stocks, particularly to exchange traded funds (``ETFs'') and the
securities of other companies that were most severely affected on May
6; \16\ (2) the

need for revised market-wide circuit breakers; \17\ and (3) operational
issues regarding the circuit breakers, including the times when they
should apply,\18\ the threshold events that should trigger them and the
length of the pause,\19\ the procedures for resuming trading after a
pause,\20\ and alternatives to the circuit breaker mechanism.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., ABA Letter, Accenture Letter, Angel Letter, Bean
Letter, CCMP Letter, Credit Suisse Letter, IAG Letter, ICI Letter
(expressing particular concern that if circuit breakers exist for
individual securities contained in ETFs' baskets, but not for the
ETFs themselves, ETFs could again suffer disproportionately during a
market event such as that of May 6), Summit Group Letter, TD
Ameritrade Letter, and Vanguard Letter, supra note 7. One commenter
also raised concerns about the potential consequences of circuit
breakers being triggered simultaneously in many securities. See
Angel Letter.
    \17\ See, e.g., Angel Letter, supra note 7.
    \18\ Suggestions included applying the circuit breakers for the
entire trading day (i.e., including during the opening and closing
periods). See, e.g., Angel Letter (noting the considerable trading
activity and volatility that occurs during the first and last
minutes of the trading day), Credit Suisse Letter (noting that in
S&P 500 stocks 6% of the daily volume typically occurs from 9:30
a.m. to 9:45 a.m., and 18% occurs from 3:35 p.m. to 4 p.m., and that
intra-day volatility tends to be highest during these time periods),
IAG Letter, and TD Ameritrade Letter (arguing that the many retail
investor orders executed at market open should not be deprived the
protections of the circuit breaker rules), supra note 7.
    \19\ Suggestions included using a trigger threshold other than
10% or a pause period other than five minutes. See, e.g., Angel
Letter (suggesting securities outside the S&P 500 may need a trigger
threshold greater than 10%, and that the pause period may need to be
longer than five or ten minutes), BlackRock Letter (arguing that the
10% circuit breaker level is too narrow, with their data showing it
would have halted trading on only 58 of S&P 500 stocks on May 6,
2010, as opposed to 309 S&P 500 stocks on that day with a 5% circuit
breaker), Credit Suisse Letter (suggesting a ten-minute halt
period), Hofler Letter (suggesting that trigger thresholds vary
commensurate with the stock's volatility, perhaps 5% for low beta
stocks, 10% for medium beta stocks, and 30% for high beta stocks),
Knight Letter (recommending a minimum trigger threshold of 15%, and
the use of more sophisticated variables such as dollar price,
average daily volume, and market capitalization), and Summit Group
Letter (suggesting a longer pause period may be required to allow
small investors to respond), supra note 7. Other commenters
suggested using a trigger based on the national best bid or offer
rather than a trade price. See, e.g., Molinete Letter, supra note 7.
    \20\ Suggestions included precluding resumption of trading until
the primary listing market has resolved any imbalances. See, e.g.,
BlackRock Letter, Credit Suisse Letter, Knight Letter and TD
Ameritrade Letter, supra note 7. But see Harris Letter, supra note 7
(arguing that trade halt rules are anti-competitive because they
encourage traders to submit their orders to the dominant exchanges
so that they can participate in the call auctions that restart
trading).
    \21\ Suggestions included using a futures-style ``limit down''
mechanism rather than a full trading pause. See, e.g., Accenture
Letter, Credit Suisse Letter, and Harris Letter (arguing that
trading at prices that reverse the triggering price change should be
permitted), supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that most if not all of these suggestions
regarding potential ways to improve or perfect the scope and operation
of the circuit breaker, or variations on them, were generally
considered by the Exchanges in developing a uniform proposal that could
be implemented in a reasonably short period of time and yet provide
important benefits to the markets.\22\ The Commission recognizes that
all of these issues warrant continued close consideration in the coming
days and months, and it expects that the SROs will continue to consult
with each other, the Commission and market participants on both the
scope and operation of the circuit breakers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See, e.g., Response Letter, supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the specific proposals under consideration here,
however, the Commission has evaluated them based on whether they are
consistent with the Act and whether they represent a useful first step
that should improve the existing procedures for protecting investors
and maintaining fair and orderly markets. It finds that the proposals
meet these standards and therefore is approving them on an expedited
basis.
    The Commission agrees that consideration should be given by the
Exchanges to whether the circuit breakers should be expanded to
additional securities, but does not believe that there is a reason to
delay the implementation of circuit breakers for S&P 500 stocks as a
reasonable first step.\23\ Similarly, it agrees that the existing
market-wide circuit breakers should be re-examined in light of current
market conditions, but again does not believe that the initial stage of
the circuit breaker pilot for individual stocks should be delayed
pending that re-examination. With respect to operational issues
regarding the circuit breakers, the Commission anticipates that the
Exchanges will continue to evaluate these issues during the pilot
period, and will propose any modifications to the circuit breakers that
may be necessary or appropriate before that period has ended, but does
not believe that the first stage of the circuit breaker pilot should be
delayed pending such consideration.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In particular, the Commission acknowledges the concerns
raised by the ICI, Blackrock, and others regarding the potential
adverse consequences for ETFs if the circuit breakers cover
individual securities that are held by an ETF but not the ETF
itself. Those comment letters do not explicitly recommend delaying
the launch of the pilot program with respect to the S&P 500, but
they do urge that ETFs be added to the pilot as soon as possible. As
noted below, the Commission anticipates that the Exchanges will be
proposing amendments to the pilot to include ETFs.
    \24\ Commenters also raised a number of issues not directly
related to the scope or operation of the trading pauses. One, for
example, was the operation of the Exchanges' erroneous trade rules.
See TD Ameritrade Letter, supra note 7. The Commission expects that
the Exchanges will continue to consult on these rules and
anticipates they will submit proposals to clarify their operation in
the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A few commenters expressed concern that the proposed circuit
breakers could cause more harm than good. One, for example, suggested
that the Exchanges' timeframe for implementation of the proposed rule
changes could be overly aggressive and lead to systems problems.\25\
The Commission understands that the Exchanges have been working closely
with market participants to address implementation issues and
facilitate a prompt yet workable roll-out of the circuit breaker
pilot.\26\ No other comments were received indicating that exchanges,
other trading venues or broker-dealers would not be able to fully
implement the proposed circuit breakers within the timeframes
established in the Exchange filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Molinete Letter, supra note 7.
    \26\ See Response Letter, supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters questioned whether trading halts may exacerbate
price volatility, and one stated that a trading halt on May 6 might
have increased the order imbalance preventing an intraday recovery.\27\
Many other commenters, however, believed that the events of May 6
demonstrate the need for trading pauses in individual stocks as a means
to reduce excessive market volatility.\28\ The Commission agrees that
the proposed trading pauses are prudent measures that are appropriately
being introduced on a pilot basis to address extraordinarily severe and
harmful price volatility of the kind that occurred on May 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Harris Letter, supra note 7 (arguing that trading halts
will attenuate volatility if liquidity or rationality arrives before
markets return to normal operation, and positing that on May 6 many
traders would have thought the price drop was due to fundamental
valuation issues, in which case the order imbalance could have grown
larger during the halt as traders drew incorrect inferences from the
event). See also Molinete Letter, supra note 7 (suggesting the
proposed rules may exacerbate market volatility rather than reduce
it due to the interplay of stock circuit breaker rules, erroneous
trade rules, and market participants' reactions to securities
nearing the threshold). Another commenter urged the Commission to
proceed cautiously in this area, expressing the view that
``unencumbered market forces are preferable to the implementation of
artificial trade frictions wherever possible.'' See Knight Letter,
supra note 7. The Commission will continue to consider these
comments in evaluating the impact of the pilot.
    \28\ See, e.g., Accenture Letter, BlackRock Letter, Business
Roundtable Letter, CCMP Letter, Credit Suisse Letter, ICI Letter, TD
Ameritrade Letter, Vanguard Letter, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes are
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder

applicable to national securities exchanges. In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposals are consistent with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\29\ which among other things requires that the rules of
national securities exchanges be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, 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.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \30\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rules' impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes the proposed rule changes, among other
things, will establish consistent, market-wide trading pauses as a
means to prevent potentially destabilizing price volatility and will
thereby help promote the goals of investor protection and fair and
orderly markets.
    The Commission also finds good cause for approving the proposals
before the 30th day after the publication of notice thereof in the
Federal Register. The Exchanges have worked quickly and cooperatively
to devise a response to the events of May 6, 2010. The Commission
received a number of comments on the proposals, the great majority of
which were supportive of the proposed trading pause. The proposed
changes are being implemented on a pilot basis so that the Commission
and the Exchanges can monitor the effects of the pilot on the
marketplace and consider adjustments, as necessary. The Commission
believes that accelerating approval of these proposals is appropriate
as it will enable the Exchanges nearly immediately to begin
coordinating trading pauses across markets in the event of sudden
changes in the value of the S&P 500 Index stocks. In particular, the
Commission believes that these proposed rule changes should further the
goals of investor protection and fair and orderly markets.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\31\ that the proposed rule changes (SR-BATS-2010-014; SR-EDGA-
2010-01; SR-EDGX-2010-01; SR-BX-2010-037; SR-ISE-2010-48; SR-NYSE-2010-
39; SR-NYSEAmex-2010-46; SR-NYSEArca-2010-41; SR-NASDAQ-2010-061; SR-
CHX-2010-10; SR-NSX-2010-05; SR-CBOE-2010-047) be, and hereby are,
approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-14435 Filed 6-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


 1 EPA Response to Recommendations from the SAP Meeting Minutes on Termite Baits from October 16, 2002.

Docket ID number OPP 2004 0158 Preface: The following are responses to the recommendations listed on page 38 of the SAP Report and their comments made in pages 1 37. The final guideline is divided into three sections: laboratory testing, field tests without existing structures, and field testing at existing structures. All three of these tests should be conducted to evaluate the efficacy of a termite bait product. They are not exclusive from one another in terms of data for product registration.

Response to the recommendations listed on page 38 of the SAP report.

1. The guideline lacked clarity and was too verbose.

EPA Response: The guideline is much shorter in length with improved clarity.

2. The guideline need not specify protocols; only the data required to support claims. Several panel members recommended that the guideline allow flexibility with the choice and development of study protocols.

EPA Response: The guideline references a list of published studies. Most of the references include detailed protocols that can be used by registrants as additional examples of how to do a study. The guideline provides flexibility and allows registrants to develop protocols. The guideline does not address all the possibilities for data generation in support of label claims and is designed to insure that the product can provide performance as a termiticide.

3. Some members suggested that a three tier system ( laboratory, small scale field tests, large scale field tests) might not be necessary. Some believed that the laboratory and large scale field test ( EUPs) were the most critical for registration. It was suggested that the laboratory studies were more in the domain of discovery by the manufacturer and specific laboratory protocols should not be in the guideline.

EPA Response: Data from all of these tests are important to the understanding of product performance and the activity of a pesticide against termites. The small scale field tests are necessary in order to evaluate the ability of the bait to kill termites and suppress termite populations. Field testing at residential and commercial structures provide data on the applicability of label directions and effects of construction types and applicators on bait success. Laboratory testing is usually part of the termiticide discovery process but EPA desires information on product toxicity, secondary kill, feeding acceptance, and the basis selecting the respective active ingredient concentration in the end use bait. The laboratory assays are conducted under controlled conditions and clearly enable a researcher to make direct observations on termites and populations. As a result, all three tests have been retained in this guideline. These types of data  2 are usually collected by registrants in the course of product development and should be made available to EPA for review.

4. The requirements for 100% product performance for 5 years were excessive.

EPA Response: The EPA agrees and the revised guideline recommends three years of data. Further, it is important to point out that this is a recommendation for testing and not a bright line performance standard. The FIFRA risk benefit standard requires the consideration of product benefits along with environmental and social costs in determining the acceptability of a pesticide and its labeling. Evaluation of bait success is based on the database generated from the three tests with suggestions on evaluation criteria.

General Recommendations from the SAP 5. Amend the guideline and allow for another period of public comment.

EPA Response: The guideline has been amended but will not be published again for public comment. However, the Agency did consult with other experts, regulators, and stakeholders to receive their input before publishing a final guideline. Another comment period will delay the publication of a final guideline and the Agency needs an acceptable test method in place for pending registrations.

6. Eliminate block/ slab protocols from the guideline.

EPA Response: The EPA agrees and has removed this testing regime from the guideline.

7. Clarify and specify about the intent and purpose of each testing level in the guideline. Allow flexibility in choosing appropriate treatment protocols. Certain techniques should be described, but methodologies should not be limited to those contained in the guideline.

EPA Response: We have clarified our intent and purpose for this guideline in the revised document. The guideline includes a disclaimer that clearly allows for the consideration of other test methods or new technologies.

8. Be specific about the nature of the data required to support claims intended for the label. If for example, " colony elimination" is claimed, the registrant should be required to demonstrate with a statistically valid sample size complete cessation of termite activity for at least two consecutive active periods in a pre described foraging territory.

EPA Response: Specific data sets to support label claims cannot be included in this guideline because the EPA does not know what all future label claims will be. A PR Notice would be the  3 more appropriate vehicle for general labeling guidance for termite baits and the Agency is preparing a draft notice for public comment.

The EPA agrees that registrants should conduct testing and submit data to the Agency in order to support efficacy claims for termiticides including termite baits.

Response to other general SAP comments made in Pages 1 37 of the report.

I. Lab Tests: The panel criticized the proposed laboratory bioassays but failed to provide specific bioassays as a substitute. They did not cite any public literature where more acceptable methods could be found. They recommended that whatever test design is used, termites should be able to forage in arenas instead of jars and that the three field colonies collected for each species should provide regional variability. The test should be flexible enough to apply to testing of any appropriate life stage.

EPA Response: the EPA made the requested changes but we believe the testing method of Su is still a good screening tool. We added statements making reference to arena testing and changed the " matrix" to that of the subject bait product. The more complicated the testing the regime, the more laboratory space and time are required. This results in increased development expenses. Following visits to USDA ARS laboratories, we note that the USDA ARS members of the SAP use containers instead of arenas to evaluate bait activity. On the other hand, Su uses jars to screen bait active ingredient activity but conducts studies of foraging behavior in plexiglass arenas set up in garages. The EPA acknowledges that we must be flexible in our consideration of laboratory data and we will consider alternative testing protocols.

The EPA agrees that the laboratory testing data for the active ingredient must provide the lethal dose and the lethal time when fed upon by termites. In addition, lab data should test whether or not termites are repelled by the active ingredient. Usually this is done by exposing termites to food containing a range of active ingredients  high to low. The concentration of active ingredient to be used in the registered product should be readily fed upon by termites. The lab data should demonstrate secondary kill, that is, if one termite feeds on the bait, it should " transfer" the toxicant to other termites in the colony. This must occur for a bait product to work at the population level because most termites in the colony will not feed on the bait itself.

II. Small scale field tests.

The panel recommended:  4 1) using the population management field test ( Method 3) only.

EPA Response: The EPA agreed and included only Method 3 test in this revision. We retained the 80% as a suggested performance level to demonstrate bait success because it is the only level of success that appeared acceptable to the panel and the termite research community. It is important to note that while the guideline calls for testing to assess whether the pesticide demonstrates this level of success, EPA is not in this guideline establishing performance standards and all products will be evaluated on a case by case basis pursuant to the FIFRA risk benefit standard.

2) The panel recommended that well defined termite colonies be established using the split and quartered log method used by the Forest Service. Note that this method has also been used extensively by Dow AgroSciences and others.

EPA Response: The EPA agrees and has visited field sites where this test has been implemented. The method is included in the revised guideline.

3) Using the small scale field test for evaluating the activity of the bait against termites from the genus Reticulitermes only.

EPA Response: This is acceptable because the method has been field tested with genus Reticulitermes. The principal structural pests in the U. S. belong to this genus of termites. This approach is also consisted with EPA approved the EUP performance testing for DowAgrosciences and Syngenta termite bait products.

III. Large Scale Field Tests The panel recommended:

1) 100 homes instead of 500.

EPA Response: This change was made and is consistent with the EUPs we have issued recently for termite bait products.

2) The panel raised a concern about sample size and statistical analyses.

EPA Response: The issue of sample size is a scientific one in the purest sense but with regard to termite bait registration, the EPA must also consider the practicality and economic concerns in order to maintain a regulatory environment based on " sound science" yet promoting r" reducedrisk termiticide product development . The panel did not provide a specific recommendation on how to calculate the necessary sample size nor did they provide references from the published literature for this information. Field development of these products is difficult due the lack of termite research biologists with expertise in the design and performance of large field studies.  5 Secondly, the cost of a study of this type is high, and if the experiment is too large, then EPA may create a regulatory environment that discourages development of these reduced risk product applications for termite control.

3) the panel recommended a three year field study instead of a five year field study.

EPA Response: The EPA agreed and made the change. Recently, the EPA issued two termite bait EUPs that are three years and two years in duration, respectively.

4) The panel recommended remedial testing of all baits at termite infested homes only. Once termites are eliminated from the structure, the same structures is to be monitored as a preventive treatments.

EPA Response: The EPA accepted this recommendation and included it in the guideline. This is consistent with bait application practices and EPA issued EUPs. However, we recognize that some regulators do have concerns with the use of baits as preventive applications in existing structures or as a means to satisfy pre construction termiticide treatment requirements. The Agency intends to address these topics in a draft PR Notice on termite bait product labeling for public comment. Likewise, a state regulatory agency can be more restrictive than EPA with regard to the regulation of termiticides.

5) the panel recommended at 80% level of product performance at homes.

EPA Response: The EPA believes this to be a realistic level of performance given the complexity of baiting termite populations, however, an extensive database on the actual success of baits at homes is not available. Therefore, the guideline seeks to ensure that testing under this protocol is done to establish whether the pesticide can achieve an 80% level of performance as suggested . However, any decision on the acceptability of submitted product performance data will be made after thorough review of data generated with all three testing methods. Further discussion of performance standards and data supporting label claims will be considered for public comment in a future PR Notice.

IV. Use DNA markers instead of mark recapture studies for colony identification.

EPA Response: A recommended method was not included in the SAP comments. This begs the question regarding selection of the most applicable mitochondrial DNA markers. A variety of methods exist, but all require further validation in the study of field populations. Few researchers and labs do this work. The EPA is asking registrants to retain samples for future analysis when methods improve and the cost of DNA testing is much less.

The Agency also believes that testing and evaluation should place a greater emphasis on the presence or absence of termites in a structure together with the connectivity of a termite infested bait station to termites infesting a structure to document the direct benefit from a bait application.  6 V. Return to the SAP with a revised guideline and make it available for public comment.

EPA Response: Some members of the panel advocated this approach. The EPA disagrees and will not conduct another formal SAP. We believe that the Panels's recommendations are reasonably clear. EPA work on recent termite bait EUPs documents agreement between EPA, the states, and industry on acceptable approaches to testing that are scientifically sound while satisfying most regulator's concerns.

VI. Guideline format was difficult to follow.

The SAP recommended that the guideline be organized using an outline system of numbers that are easier to understand.

EPA Response: The format remains the same because it is consistent with the EPA published testing guidelines and the format for rules ( should this guideline ever become part of a rule). However, the final guideline is succinct and about one half as long as the original draft.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 32372]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13901]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 6757-008]

Stuwe and Davenport Partnership, Stuwe and Davenport Partnership,
LLC; Notice of Transfer of Exemption

    1. By letter filed April 30, 2015, Stuwe and Davenport Partnership
informed the Commission that the exemption from licensing for the Dog
River Project,\1\ FERC No. 6757 \2\ has been transferred to Stuwe
Davenport Partnership, LLC. The project is located on the Dog River in
Washington County, Vermont. The transfer of an exemption does not
require Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The project has been referred to as the ``Northfield
Hydroelectric Project'' and the ``Nantanna Mill Dam Project.'' The
correct name for FERC No. 6757 is the ``Dog River Project.''
    \2\ 29 FERC ] 62,209, Order Granting Exemption From Licensing of
a Small Hydroelectric Project 5 Megawatts or Less (1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Stuwe and Davenport Partnership, LLC is now the exemptee of the
Dog River Project, FERC No. 6757. All correspondence should be
forwarded to: Mark Boumansour, President, Stuwe and Davenport
Partnership, LLC, 1401 Walnut Street, Suite 220, Boulder, CO 80302.

    Dated: June 2, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-13901 Filed 6-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P