[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47205-47209]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16866]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0282; FRL-10012-44-OW]

State Formula Allocations for Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse
Grants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for information.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the
proposed allotment formula for the Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse
Municipal Grants Program as required by the Clean Water Act. EPA is
required to establish a formula to allocate proportional shares of the
amount appropriated to state entities to fund actions that will help
manage combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, and
stormwater. EPA was directed to develop a formula based on the relevant
infrastructure needs submitted in the latest Clean Watersheds Needs
Survey along with additional information considered appropriate by the
EPA Administrator. A summary of the formula is included in this
document. This document announces that EPA is seeking feedback from the
public on the formula.

DATES: Comments on these items must be received on or before September
3, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2020-0282, by the following method:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this notification. Comments received may be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public
Participation'' heading of the section of this document.
    Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our
staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to public,
with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19.
Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to
submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov or email, as there may
be a delay in processing mail and faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers
may be received by scheduled appointment only. For further information
on EPA Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us
online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, please
contact Michael Goralczyk, Office of Water (Mail Code 4204M),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(preferred).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Public Participation
II. Background
III. Statutory Language for the Allotment Formula
IV. Proposed Allotment Formula
V. Data Sources for the Proposed Allotment Formula
VI. Request for Public Comment

I. Public Participation

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2020-
0282, at https://www.regulations.gov/. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from the docket. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The
Agency will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Reading Room
for public visitors, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide
remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the
public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov as there may
be a delay in processing mail and faxes. Hand deliveries or couriers
will be

received by scheduled appointment only. For further information and
updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, local area health
departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond rapidly as
conditions change regarding COVID-19.

II. Background

    The America's Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) of 2018 aims to
improve water quality, expand infrastructure investments, enhance
public health, increase jobs, and bolster the economy. Section 4106 of
the AWIA amended Section 221 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to re-
authorize the Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Grants
Program. This amended statute directs EPA to award grants to the
states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories (collectively
referred to as ``states'') for the purpose of providing grants to a
municipality or municipal entity for planning, design, and construction
of:
    1. Treatment works to intercept, transport, control, treat, or
reuse municipal combined sewer overflows (CSOs), sanitary sewer
overflows (SSOs), or stormwater; and
    2. any other measures to manage, reduce, treat, or recapture
stormwater or subsurface drainage water.

III. Statutory Language for the Allotment Formula

    According to the CWA, funds appropriated for this program shall be
allocated to the states according to their total proportional needs for
municipal CSOs, SSOs, and stormwater as identified in the most recent
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) and any other additional
information considered appropriate by the EPA Administrator. This is
described in Section 221(g)(2) of the CWA:

``the Administrator shall use the amounts appropriated to carry out
this section for fiscal year 2020 and each fiscal year thereafter
for making grants to States under subsection (a)(1) in accordance
with a formula to be established by the Administrator, after
providing notice and an opportunity for public comment, that
allocates to each State a proportional share of such amounts based
on the total needs of the State for municipal combined sewer
overflow controls, sanitary sewer overflow controls, and stormwater
identified in the most recent detailed estimate and comprehensive
study submitted pursuant to section 516 of this title and any other
information the Administrator considers appropriate.''

    The CWNS includes documented infrastructure needs. However, the
most recent CWNS in 2012 did not include complete CSO, SSO, and
stormwater infrastructure needs for every state and territory. In order
to equitably allocate appropriated funds based on existing
infrastructure needs, as directed in the amended Section 221 of the
CWA, it is appropriate to include additional factors to fully
characterize needs for CSOs, SSOs, and stormwater management. EPA
consulted with state representatives and EPA regional coordinators
experienced in managing EPA grants at the state level on a series of
supplemental factors. With the feedback of these partners, EPA selected
three additional factors based on the common availability of data
across the states and the ability of these factors to serve as
surrogates for CSO, SSO, and stormwater infrastructure needs. The three
additional proposed factors are annual average precipitation, total
population, and urban population. The rationale for these additional
factors includes the following:
    (1) Annual average precipitation is a proposed factor because
higher amounts of precipitation lead to greater CSO, SSO, and
stormwater infrastructure needs to manage greater flows.
    (2) Total population is a proposed factor because the larger the
population of a state, the more infrastructure is generally required to
serve them.
    (3) Urban population is a proposed factor because there are
relatively higher CSO, SSO, and stormwater infrastructure needs in
urban environments from increased impervious surfaces, which generate
increased wet weather flows during precipitation events.
    When combined with the needs determined in the CWNS, these three
proposed factors improve the representation of the CSO, SSO, and
stormwater infrastructure needs in each state. This collective approach
for assessing CSO, SSO, and stormwater infrastructure needs is the
basis for this proposal on how to derive an allocation formula for
appropriating funds for this program.

IV. Proposed Allotment Formula

    EPA is proposing to use the following methodology to allocate
appropriated funds to the states for the Sewer Overflow and Stormwater
Reuse Municipal Grant Program. A graphical depiction of the methodology
is shown in Figure 1.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04AU20.000

Proposed Methodology

    1. Reserve 1% of the federal appropriation for EPA's administrative
expenses per Section 221(h) of the CWA.
    2. Allocate 0.5% of the remaining amount (federal appropriation
minus EPA administrative set-aside) to each state to represent the
``minimum state allocation.''
    3. Allocate the remaining amount (federal appropriation minus EPA
administrative set-aside and minimum state allocation) based on several
factors to characterize the ``need allocation'' of each state. In
addition to the most recent CWNS and as allowed by Section 221(g)(2) of
the CWA, EPA chose additional objective factors to help characterize
the infrastructure needs of each state. EPA assigned weights to each of
the factors in the allocation formula. The CWNS needs are weighted at
50% and the additional factors are weighted evenly to collectively
account for the remaining 50%. The combination of the following factors
forms the need allocation for each state.
    [ssquf] Clean Watersheds Needs Survey: This factor is included as
the statute directs EPA to use the needs survey submitted pursuant to
Section 516 of the CWA. EPA will use the latest available CWNS
information that provides a comprehensive assessment of CSOs, SSOs, and
stormwater infrastructure needs. This factor represents 50% of the need
allocation as these needs were directly identified in the survey.
    [ssquf] Annual Average Precipitation: This factor is included to
account for the volume of annual precipitation a state receives which
suggests the amount of stormwater runoff that needs to be managed. This
factor represents 16.67% of the need allocation.
    [ssquf] Total Population: This factor is included to represent the
proportional need of each state's population size acknowledging that
higher populations generally have greater infrastructure needs. This
factor represents 16.67% of the need allocation.
    [ssquf] Urban Population: This factor is included to represent the
needs that urban centers have for CSOs, SSOs, and stormwater management
due to high concentrations of impervious surfaces. This factor
represents 16.67% of the need allocation.
    4. For each state, the minimum state allocation and the need
allocation are combined to equal the final state allocation.

V. Data Sources for the Proposed Allotment Formula

    [ssquf] Clean Watersheds Needs Survey: The CWNS includes and
documents identified capital investment needs for Sanitary Sewer
Overflow Correction (Categories I-IV where states have shown a
designated SSO need), Combined Sewer Overflow Correction (Category V),
and Stormwater Management (Category VI). Information for this factor
will be taken from the most recent published CWNS \1\ and will be
updated accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Clean Watersheds Need Survey 2012 Report to Congress,
January 2016. https://www.epa.gov/cwns/clean-watersheds-needs-survey-cwns-2012-report-and-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [ssquf] Annual Average Precipitation: The proposed precipitation
factor for each state is the annual average amount of precipitation
collected from the past 10 years of data from the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) National Centers for
Environmental Information, Climate at a Glance: Statewide Time Series.
These data will be updated annually to form a 10-year rolling
average.\2\ Due to

data limitations, alternative data sources are proposed to be used for
the following states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NOAA National Centers for Environmental information, Climate
at a Glance: Statewide Time Series, accessed April 2020, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/statewide/time-series.

--Hawaii: The past 10 years of data for annual average precipitation
will be collected from the Hilo Area, Honolulu Area, Kahului Area, and
Lihue Area from the Honolulu Forecast Office of NOAA.\3\ These sources
constitute the most complete data set in the relevant timeframe and are
considered the best available representation for Hawaii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NOAA, Honolulu Forecast Office, Hilo Area, Honolulu Area,
Kahului Area, and Lihue Area Data, https://w2.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=hnl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--District of Columbia: The past 10 years of data for annual average
precipitation will be collected from the Washington Area from the
Baltimore/Washington Forecast Office of NOAA. This is the most complete
data set in the relevant timeframe and is considered the best available
representation for the District of Columbia.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NOAA, Baltimore/Washington Forecast Office, Washington Area
Data, https://w2.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=lwx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Puerto Rico: The past 10 years of data for annual average
precipitation will be collected from the San Juan Area and Ensenada and
Morovis weather stations from the San Juan Forecast Office of NOAA.
These sources constitute the most complete data set in the relevant
timeframe and are considered the best available representation for
Puerto Rico.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NOAA, San Juan Forecast Office, San Juan Area and Ensenada,
and Morovis Weather Station Data. https://w2.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=sju.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--American Samoa: The past 10 years of data for annual average
precipitation will be collected from the Pago Pago Area from the Pago
Pago Forecast Office of NOAA. This is the most complete data set in the
relevant timeframe and is considered the best available representation
for American Samoa.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NOAA, Pago Pago Forecast Office, Pago Pago Area Data,
https://w2.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=samoa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Guam: The past 10 years of data for annual average precipitation will
be collected from the Guam Area from the Tiyan Forecast Office of NOAA.
This is the most complete data set in the relevant timeframe and is
considered the best available representation for Guam.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NOAA, Tivan Forecast Office, Guam Area Data, https://w2.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=guam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Northern Mariana Islands: The past 10 years of data for the annual
average precipitation will be collected from the Guam Area from the
Tiyan Forecast Office of NOAA. There are no available weather stations
in the Northern Mariana Islands. However, the Northern Mariana Islands
are covered by the Tiyan Forecast Office and Guam is located
approximately 130 miles away. It has been determined that data from the
Guam Area can be considered an acceptable surrogate for precipitation
amounts in the Northern Mariana Islands.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--U.S. Virgin Islands: The past 10 years of data for the annual average
precipitation will be collected from the Christiansted Airport and St.
Thomas weather stations from the San Juan Forecast Office of NOAA.
These sources constitute the most complete data set in the relevant
timeframe and are considered the best available representation for the
U.S. Virgin Islands.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NOAA, San Juan Forecast Office, Christiansted Airport and
St. Thomas Weather Station Data, https://w2.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=sju.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [ssquf] Total Population: Data for the proposed total population
factor will be from the most recent published U.S. Census Bureau
decennial census. The initial allocation will be based on the 2010 U.S.
Census and will be updated accordingly.

--The states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico population data
will be taken from the U.S. Census Bureau State Population Totals and
Components of Change.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Totals and Components
of Change 2010-2019, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-state-total.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. Virgin
Islands population data will be taken from the U.S. Census Bureau
Island Area Tables.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Island Area Tables, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2010/dec/2010-island-areas.html.

    [ssquf] Urban Population: The proposed urban population factor for
each state will be based on the available data from the most recent
U.S. Census Bureau decennial census.\12\ The initial formula will be
based on the 2010 U.S. Census and data will be updated as future
decennial censuses are published. Urban population estimates for
American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands are not available through the Census. The following alternative
data sources will be used and updated as needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ U.S. Census Bureau, Census Urban and Rural Classification
and Urban Area Criteria, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural/2010-urban-rural.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--American Samoa: Data from the Central Intelligence Agency World
Factbook will be used. The percentage of the total population
considered to be urban (currently 87.2%) will be multiplied by the
total population.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook, American
Samoa, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/aq.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Guam: Data from the Central Intelligence Agency World Factbook will
be used. The percentage of the total population considered to be urban
(currently 94.9%) will be multiplied by the total population.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook, Guam, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gq.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Northern Mariana Islands: Data from the Central Intelligence Agency
World Factbook will be used. The percentage of the total population
considered to be urban (currently 91.8%) will be multiplied by the
total population.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook, Northern
Mariana Islands, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cq.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--U.S. Virgin Islands: Data from the Central Intelligence Agency World
Factbook will be used. The percentage of the total population
considered to be urban (currently 95.9%) will be multiplied by the
total population.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook, U.S. Virgin
Islands, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/vq.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Request for Public Comment

    It is important to EPA that its programs respond to the water
quality needs of communities around the country. EPA seeks to ensure
that the development of its grant programs complies with the applicable
statutory language and legislative intent. EPA developed the proposed
allotment formula for the Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal
Grants Program to best address CSO, SSO, and stormwater needs for each
state as determined by the data from the latest CWNS and additional
relevant factors. EPA is requesting comment on the methodology of this
proposed allotment formula including the factors and data used in
determining CSO, SSO, and stormwater infrastructure needs. Feedback on
ways to more holistically assess CSO, SSO, and stormwater needs will be
appreciated and evaluated for the initial and future formulas. EPA is
also seeking input on the collection method, frequency, and source of
the information used for the proposed allotment formula. EPA seeks to
balance any burden the collection would impose on the public with the
benefit the

information would provide to the Agency in making allocations to the
states under the Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Grants
Program.

David Ross,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.

[FR Doc. 2020-16866 Filed 8-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46863-46865]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19646]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64987; File No. SR-NYSEAMEX-2011-54]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change Amending the Definition of Approved Person To
Exclude Foreign Affiliates, Creating a New Definition of ``Foreign
Securities Affiliate,'' Eliminating the Application Process for
Approved Persons, and Making Related Technical and Conforming Changes

July 29, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on July 15, 2011, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Amex'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
self-regulatory organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 the definition of approved person to
exclude foreign affiliates, create a new definition of ``foreign
securities affiliate,'' eliminate the application process for approved
persons, and make related technical and conforming changes. The text of
the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's
Public Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of approved person to
exclude foreign affiliates, create a new definition of ``foreign
securities affiliate,'' eliminate the application process for approved
persons, and make related technical and conforming changes. Following
approval of the proposed rule change, the Exchange will advise member
organizations of the implementation date of the rule change via
Information Memo.
Background
    The current rules governing the definition of and application
process for an approved person are NYSE Amex Equities Rules 2 and
304.\4\ If the definition requirements under NYSE Amex Equities Rule 2
are met, then the person or entity has to apply to the Exchange for
approval to register as an approved person. This requirement is
intended to bring certain affiliates of Exchange member organizations
within the Exchange's jurisdiction and to subject such affiliates'
activities to Exchange rules to the extent their activities are related
to the activities of the member organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NYSE has filed a companion rule filing to conform its
Equities Rules to the changes proposed in this filing. See SR-NYSE-
2011-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Amex Equities Rule 2(c) defines the term ``approved person''
as ``a person, other than a member, principal executive or employee of
a member organization, who controls a member organization or is engaged
in a securities or kindred business that is controlled by or under
common control with a member or member organization who has been
approved by the Exchange as an approved person.'' NYSE Amex Equities
Rule 2(d) further defines ``person'' to include not only natural
persons, but also corporations, limited liability companies,
partnerships, associations and other organized groups of persons. NYSE
Amex Equities Rule 2(e) defines the term ``control'' to mean the power
to direct or cause the direction of management or policies, whether
through ownership of securities, by contract or otherwise, and creates
a rebuttable presumption of control if the person has a right to vote
25 percent or more of the voting securities, is entitled to receive 25
percent or more of the net profits, or is a director, general partner,
or principal executive of the member organization. NYSE Amex Equities
Rule 2(f) defines ``engage in a securities or kindred business'' to
mean transacting business as a broker or dealer in securities. Thus,
the current definition of approved person includes a foreign affiliate
of a member organization that is engaged in a broker-dealer business,
but does not include, for example, a registered investment company.
NYSE Amex Equities Rules 2A(e) and (f) further provide that the
Exchange has jurisdiction after notice and a hearing to discipline
approved persons in connection with the member organization's business
and has jurisdiction over any and all other functions of approved
persons in connection with the member organization's business in order
for the Exchange to comply with its statutory obligation as a self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'').
    NYSE Amex Equities Rules 304 and 311(a) require, with limited
exceptions, that persons who meet the NYSE Amex Equities Rule 2(c)
definition of an approved person must apply for approval by the
Exchange as an approved person. NYSE Amex Equities Rule 304 further
provides that no person may become or remain an approved

person unless such person meets the standards prescribed in the
Exchange's rules, and it prescribes the process that an applicant must
follow to become an approved person. Among other things, this process
involves submission to the Exchange of a completed Form AP-1 (in the
case of a corporation or other legal entity) or Forms AD-G2 and AD-G3
(in the case of a natural person, collectively referred to as ``AD-
G''), and other pertinent information regarding the candidate for
approval. By executing the Form AP-1 or AD-G, as applicable, the
approved person affirmatively consents to the Exchange's jurisdiction.
Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of approved person to
exclude certain foreign affiliates because the Exchange believes that
the current definition is overbroad and it is unnecessary to assert
jurisdiction over a foreign affiliate of a member organization that
does not control a member organization. The Exchange notes that
excluding such foreign affiliates from its jurisdiction would be
consistent with Rule 19g2-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the ``Act''), which provides that an exchange is not
required to enforce compliance with its rules against certain persons;
\5\ the Exchange has not identified a rule of any other SRO that
asserts jurisdiction over a foreign affiliate under common control with
a member of that SRO. As such, the Exchange proposes to amend the
definition of approved person so that it would include any person,
other than a member, principal executive or employee of a member
organization, who controls a member organization, is engaged in a
securities or kindred business that is controlled by a member or member
organization, or is a U.S. registered broker-dealer under common
control with a member organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 17 CFR 240.19g2-1. Under Rule 19g2-1, a national
securities exchange is not required to enforce compliance, within
the meaning of Section 19(g) of the Act, with the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder, with respect to persons associated with
a member, other than securities persons or persons who control a
member. Under Rule 19g2-1(b)(1), a ``securities person'' is defined
as a ``person who is a general partner or officer (or person
occupying a similar status or performing similar functions) or
employee of a member; provided, however, that a registered broker or
dealer which controls, is controlled by, or is under common control
with, the member and the general partners and officers (and persons
occupying similar status or performing similar functions) and
employees of such a registered broker or dealer shall be securities
persons if they effect, directly or indirectly, transactions in
securities through the member by use of facilities maintained or
supervised by such exchange or association.'' A foreign broker-
dealer not registered in the United States that is under common
control with an NYSE Amex member organization and that is not a
general partner or officer (or person occupying similar status or
performing similar functions) or employee of a member, falls outside
of the definition of ``securities person.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By changing the definition of approved person to exclude certain
foreign affiliates, the Exchange does not intend to eliminate controls
in Exchange rules related to potential conflicts of interest associated
with having a foreign affiliate under common control with a member
organization. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to add a new defined
term to NYSE Amex Equities Rule 2, ``foreign securities affiliate,''
which includes foreign persons not registered as a broker dealer in the
United States that are in a securities or kindred business and that are
under common control with a member organization. The Exchange proposes
to insert the term ``foreign securities affiliate'' in NYSE Amex
Equities Rules 22, 91, 92, 96, 98A, 112, 304, 402, 410A, 422, and 460,
so that the coverage of such rules remains the same following the
proposed rule change. For example, NYSE Amex Equities Rule 22 seeks to
eliminate conflicts of interests relating to personal interests. By
including the proposed new definition of ``foreign securities
affiliates,'' the scope of the rule remains unchanged, notwithstanding
the proposed new definition of ``approved persons'' to exclude foreign
affiliates under common control with a member organization.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend its rules to remove the
requirement that the Exchange affirmatively approve each application to
become an approved person. If a person meets the definition of an
approved person, as proposed, the Exchange will obtain jurisdiction by
consent as described below. The Exchange believes that the current
application process requires the submission of a substantial amount of
information and documents related to member organization affiliates
that is unnecessary to carry out the Exchange's regulatory
responsibilities. In particular, because the Exchange is no longer the
Designated Examining Authority (``DEA'') for Exchange member
organizations,\6\ the Exchange does not believe that it needs to engage
in a detailed financial review of approved persons of its member
organization applicants. The Exchange further notes that other SROs do
not require that such persons undergo such an application and approval
process.\7\ The Exchange, therefore, proposes to remove all references
to an approval process and the submission of an application for such
approval from NYSE Amex Equities Rules 2, 304, 308, and 311. The
Exchange also would eliminate use of the Forms AP-1 and AD-G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Prospective member organization applicants must be either a
member of FINRA or, if the applicant does not transact business with
public customers or conduct business on the Floor of the Exchange, a
member of another registered securities exchange, before being
approved as an Exchange member organization. See NYSE Amex Equities
Rule 2(b)(i). Generally, FINRA or the other exchange already is, or
will be, designated as the DEA under SEC Rule 17d-1 and the Exchange
will not be designated as such. Currently, the Exchange is not the
DEA for any of its member organizations, but if it were designated
as the DEA, the Exchange has retained FINRA to perform services
related to meeting the Exchange's DEA responsibilities for a member
organization.
    \7\ For example, the rules of FINRA and The NASDAQ Stock Market,
Inc. do not impose application and approval requirements on member
affiliates. See also note 9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevertheless, the Exchange's jurisdiction over approved persons in
accordance with the revised definition would remain. Thus, the Exchange
proposes to amend NYSE Amex Equities Rule 304 to provide specifically
that a member organization would be required to identify all of its
foreign securities affiliates and approved persons to the Exchange and
each such approved person would be required to consent to the
Exchange's jurisdiction, which is consistent with the obligations
currently imposed on approved persons. The provisions of the current
NYSE Amex Equities Rule 304(e)(2)-(4) that require an approved person
to agree to (i) Inform the Exchange of any statutory disqualification
of the approved person under Section 3(a)(39) of the Act, (ii) abide by
the Rules of the Exchange relating to approved persons, and (iii)
permit examination by the Exchange, or any person designated by it, of
its books and records to verify the accuracy of the information
required to be supplied under Exchange Rules, would be retained in
proposed Amex Equities Rule 304.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange proposes to eliminate the text in current NYSE
Amex Equities Rule 304(e)(1), which requires an approved person to
supply information concerning its relationship with the member
organization. This provision relates to information required to be
submitted on Form AP-1 or AD-G, and as such it is not necessary to
retain it in proposed NYSE Amex Equities Rule 304.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The focus on identification of affiliates and approved persons by
each member organization and consent to jurisdiction by each approved
person, instead of review and approval of applications by the Exchange,
would make the entire process more efficient while maintaining
appropriate regulatory standards. The proposed rule change would remove
unnecessary paperwork in the process while holding each member
organization accountable

for identifying to the Exchange its affiliates and approved persons.
The remaining jurisdictional requirements for approved persons would
enable the Exchange to continue to pursue matters involving or
affecting its member organizations.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange notes that FINRA is in the process of
harmonizing legacy NASD and NYSE Amex Equities Rules, and has
published a proposal to harmonize membership rules. See FINRA
Regulatory Notice 10-01. While FINRA has proposed that a member firm
be required to provide certain information about affiliates, FINRA
has not proposed to adopt the approved person definition or
application process, or assert jurisdiction over such persons. When
FINRA completes that harmonization process for the membership rules,
the Exchange will consider whether further amendments to its
approved person rules are advisable. Until such time, the Exchange
believes that the narrowing of the approved person definition and
the elimination of the approved person application process will
remove unnecessary complexities and excessive informational
requirements and thereby reduce burdens on membership applicants and
member organizations while still maintaining high regulatory
standards consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to make technical and conforming changes
to other rules that reference the approved person application
process.\10\ The Exchange further proposes to make technical amendments
to correct an error in the spelling of ``principal executive,'' which
is spelled ``principle executive'' in NYSE Amex Rule 476A and NYSE Amex
Equities Rules 308, 410A, 422, and 460; the Exchange replaced the term
``allied member'' with the term ``principal executive'' in an earlier
rule filing at which time some of the NYSE Amex Rules contained the
improper spelling.\11\ In addition, the Exchange proposes to delete
``principle executive'' from NYSE Amex Equities Rules 304 and 304A for
consistency with similar amendments to NYSE Rules 304 and 304A.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes to clarify NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 98A, which provides that no issuer, or partner or
subsidiary thereof, may become an approved person of a Designated
Market Maker unit that is registered in the stock of that issuer.
Because an entity is an approved person by virtue of status, as
described above, the Exchange proposes to clarify the meaning of the
Rule by amending it to provide that a DMM unit may not be registered
in a stock of an issuer, or a partner or subsidiary thereof, if such
entity is an approved person of the DMM unit's member organization.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Amex Rule 476A, which
addresses minor rule violations, to correct a citation to NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 304.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58549 (September
15, 2008), 73 FR 54444 (September 19, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-80).
    \12\ See SR-NYSE-2011-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \13\ of
the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5)
\14\ in particular in that it is 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 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. More specifically, the Exchange believes that the
proposed approved person definition and consent to jurisdiction process
would remove unnecessary complexities and excessive informational
requirements and create a more efficient and less burdensome process
for membership applicants and member organizations while maintaining
appropriate regulatory standards. As such, the proposed rule change
would contribute to removing impediments to and perfecting the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) As the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMEX-2011-54 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-NYSEAMEX-2011-54. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Copies of the filing will also
be available for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office
and on its Internet Web site at http://www.nyse.com. 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-NYSEAMEX-2011-54 and should
be submitted on or before August 24, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-19646 Filed 8-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM Date: June 17, 2004 Subject: Economic Data for Area Source Categories  Title V Permit Program Rulemaking From: Larry Sorrels, US EPA/ OAQPS/ AQSSD/ ISEG To: Ray Vogel, US EPA/ OAQPS/ ITPID/ OPG This memo contains economic data for the five source categories that are the focus of this rulemaking. The source categories are: dry cleaning, ethylene oxide ( EO) sterilizers, degreasers ( halogenated solvent cleaners), chromium electroplaters, and secondary aluminum sources. There are 1 to 2 pages of data for industries in which these source categories are located, and this data is meant to characterize the current state of these industries and, where possible, their future growth. The data shown consists of: number of firms, characterization of number of small firms, profit margins, economic growth, and other economic information as available.

The memo reflects not only work done by Art Rios, Darryl Weatherhead, and me, but also reflects your comments and suggestions made on drafts of this data a few days ago. If you have any questions on this memo, let me know. Thanks.

cc: Ron Evans, OAQPS/ AQSSD/ ISEG Art Rios, OAQPS/ AQSSD/ ISEG Darryl Weatherhead, OAQPS/ AQSSD/ ISEG Dry Cleaning Industry  Summary Economic Profile ( 6/ 04)

Industry Affected: Dry Cleaning ( SIC 7216/ NAICS 812320).

Number of firms in the affected industry: 30,000 ( as of 2003, according to the International Fabricare Insitute). The industry is made up of many small firms. 85 percent of them are small, single family, independent " mom and pop" operations. The average dry cleaning firm employs 5 people ( Integra Information, January 2004).

Average or Median Annual Sales/ Revenues or Earnings for firms in affected industry: $ 200,000 in 2003 ( Integra Information, January 2004).

Economic Growth: Revenues are forecast to increase by 3.5% between 2003 and 2007 ( Ibid.).

Profit Margins: Less than 1% on average ( Ibid).

Elasticities: The dry cleaning industry is highly competitive  it is fragmented, and virtually all dry cleaners are " pricetakers"  each dry cleaners has no influence on the price of their cleaning output. Thus, the price elasticity of demand should be less than  1  meaning a 1% drop in demand can be triggered by a less than 1% increase in price.

Bottom Line Conclusions: Dry cleaners are likely to have difficulty affording the costs of complying with the requirements of a Title V permit program given their small profit margins and highly competitive environment.

Note: The Dry Cleaning industry is likely to be subject to a residual risk standard in the next 2 years. This standard will likely be applied to large industrial cleaners that are a very tiny minority of dry cleaners. Dry cleaners that are colocated at major sources for emissions may be subject to area source standards, but these are likely to involve voluntary measures. 2 Ethlyene Oxide ( EO) Sterilizers  Summary Economic Data ( 6/ 04)

Industry Affected: Hospitals. Sterilizers are used to clean medical equipment.

Of 5,800 hospitals nationwide, roughly 1,800 sterilize with EO. It is estimated that 1,200 hospitals control EO emissions from sterilizers. Most hospitals that sterilize with EO are located in urban areas ( about 95%) ( Information from EO Sterilizers Report to ESD from Ec/ R, December 2003).

Capital control costs for controlling EO emissions from sterilizers can range from $ 23,000 to $ 46,000 per unit. Total annualized costs can run from $ 4,000 to $ 16,000 per unit. Annual control costs per ton of reduction can run from $ 22,000 to $ 800,000 ( Information from EO Sterilizers Report to ESD from Ec/ R, December 2003).

Profit Margins for Hospitals: Range from 3 to 5% based on historical averages ( historical median of 4.6% based on American Hospital Association data from 1990 2000). For profit, publicly traded hospitals have profit margins in the high end of this range while the not for profit hospitals have profit margins closer to the low end. Typically, for profit hospitals are larger than not for profit hospitals, and not for profit hospitals typically generate less revenue per bed than for profit hospitals due to lack of economies of scale and larger overhead costs. For profit publicly traded hospitals are 15% of facilities and about 13% of the beds available to incoming patients, and the remaining 85% of facilities ( 87% of beds) are not for profit ( Health Care Industry Market Update, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, July 14, 2003).

Economic Growth: Expected to climb as the number of patients grow due to the aging of the population and the expansion of hospitals into outpatient care.

Elasticities: While the price elasticity of demand can be quite low for health care services as a whole ( below  0.2), the price elasticity of demand for hospital services can be quite large ( nearly  6, or highly elastic, based on 1999 FTC study  " Competition Among Hospitals," Martin Gaynor and William B. Vogt). Hence, those who go to hospitals do consider the price of services as a parameter for decision making.

Bottom Line Conclusions: For profit, publicly traded hospitals will not likely have much trouble affording the costs associated with a Title V permit program aimed at EO sterilizers. However, the not for profit hospitals, which constitute the great majority of facilities, may have more difficulty in affording Title V permits due to their lower profit margins. In addition, smaller hospitals such as those in inner city areas are likely to have lower profit margins than other urban hospitals ( Issue Brief, National Health Policy Forum, March 1999), and would thus have more difficulty in affording Title V permits.

Note: EO Sterilizers may be subject to a residual risk standard  final decision has not 3 been reached yet. Current concerns are with the annual cost/ ton for available controls to reduce risks of HAP exposure.

Degreasers  Summary Economic Data Industry Affected: Degreasers are in NAICS codes 332999, 337124, 335999, 336999, 332116, 336, 339. A description of each of these NAICS codes is contained below ( 1997 Economic Census).

All below NAICS descriptions obtained from the U. S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census. NAICS 332999: All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing . This U. S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing fabricated metal products ( except forgings and stampings, cutlery and handtools, architectural and structural metals, boilers, tanks, shipping containers, hardware, spring and wire products, machine shop products, turned products, screws, nuts and bolts, metal valves, ball and roller bearings, ammunition, small arms and other ordnances, fabricated pipes and pipe fittings, industrial patterns, and enameled iron and metal sanitary ware).

NAICS 337124: Metal Household Furniture Manufacturing . This U. S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing metal household type furniture and freestanding cabinets. The furniture may be made on a stock or custom basis and may be assembled or unassembled ( i. e., knockdown)..

NAICS 335999: All Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and Component Manufacturing . This U. S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing industrial and commercial electric apparatus and other equipment ( except lighting equipment, household appliances, transformers, motors, generators, switchgear, relays, industrial controls, batteries, communication and energy wire and cable, wiring devices, and carbon and graphite products). This industry includes power converters ( i. e., AC to DC and DC to AC), power supplies, surge suppressors, and similar equipment for industrial type and consumer type equipment.

NAICS 336999: All Other Transportation Equipment Manufacturing . This U. S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing transportation equipment ( except motor vehicles, motor vehicle parts, boats, ships, railroad rolling stock, aerospace products, motorcycles, bicycles, armored vehicles and tanks).

NAICS 332116: Metal Stamping . This U. S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing unfinished metal stampings and spinning unfinished metal products ( except crowns, cans, closures, automotive, and coins). Establishments making metal stampings and metal spun products and further manufacturing ( e. g., machining, assembling) a specific product are classified in the industry of the finished product. Metal stamping and metal spun products establishments may perform surface finishing operations, such as cleaning and 4 deburring, on the products they manufacture.

NAICS 336: Transportation Equipment Manufacturing . Industries in the Transportation Equipment Manufacturing subsector produce equipment for transporting people and goods. Transportation equipment is a type of machinery. An entire subsector is devoted to this activity because of the significance of its economic size in all three North American countries.

NAICS 339: Miscellaneous Manufacturing . Industries in the Miscellaneous Manufacturing subsector make a wide range of products that cannot readily be classified in specific NAICS subsectors in manufacturing. Processes used by these establishments vary significantly, both among and within industries. For example, a variety of manufacturing processes are used in manufacturing sporting and athletic goods that include products, such as tennis racquets and golf balls. The processes for these products differ from each other, and the processes differ significantly from the fabrication processes used in making dolls or toys, the melting and shaping of precious metals to make jewelry, and the bending, forming, and assembly used in making medical products.

Percentage of Firms and Enterprises with Less than 500 Employees by NAICS Code NAICS Code Firms (%) Establishments (%)

332999 97.38% 96.39%

337124 95.87% 90.45% 5 335999 92.14% 90.40%

336999 94.52% 90.98%

332116 95.11% 92.51%

336 94.39% 80.95%

339 98.59% 96.07%

( Information obtained from Statistics of U. S. Businesses, 2001, U. S. Census Bureau.)

Economic Growth:

A projection of the average annual rate of change in output from 2002 to 2012 for 4 digit NAICS codes these industries are found in shows expected output increases ranging from 1.2 to 5.2 % ( Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, February 2004). 6 Chrome Plating  Summary Economic Data Industry Affected: Chrome Plating includes decorative chromium electroplating of metals and plastics, hard chromium electroplating of metals, chromic acid anodizing and trivalent chromium plating. Examples of electroplated parts include appliances, automotive parts, and large cylinders used in construction equipment and printing presses. Anodized parts include miscellaneous aircraft components such as wings and landing gears. Facility Size: According to the Chemical Economic Handbook in 2000 there are an estimated 2,800 decorative plating facilities, 1,540 hard plating facilities, and 680 chromic acid anodizing shops operating in the United States. Firm and Enterprise Size: According to a 2001 report prepared for the National Association of Metal Finishers, the job shop sector consists predominantly of small businesses. The Small Business Administration categories a small business for NAICS code 332813 to employ less than 500 employees. The U. S. Census Bureau  Statistics of U. S. Businesses for 2001 collects data on firm size and enterprise size. For NAICS code 332813 approximately 98.7% of firms and 97.9% of enterprises are classified as small businesses. In addition, the National Association of Metal Finishers ( 2001) report states that small businesses are especially vulnerable to closure if capital investments for pollution control must be made during or soon after difficult periods in the business cycle.

Percentages of Firms for NAICS 332813 by Number of Employees ( 2001) 1 # of Employees % of Firms % of Enterprises 0 4.20% 4.01% 1 to 4 24.50% 23.42% 5 to 9 19.69% 18.82% 10 to 19 20.01% 19.16% 20 to 99 25.44% 25.52% 100 to 499 4.87% 6.97% 500+ 1.29% 2.10% Total 100.00% 100.00%

Profit Margins: " Metal finishing job shops earned pretax profits at an average rate of 4.8% of sales over the 9 year period from 1990 through 1998. " ( National Association of Metal Finishers, 2001)

1Information obtained from Statistics of U. S. Businesses, 2001, U. S. Census Bureau. http:// www. census. gov/ epcd/ susb/ 2001/ us/ US332813. HTM 7 Compliance Costs: " Although it is very difficult to define a representative metal finishing product for which the price can be tracked over time, many job shop owners agree that prices have generally declined over the past decade or so, and they have been able to remain profitable only by aggressively improving productivity and reducing their costs. We believe that any industry with characteristics such as these is unlikely to be able to pass through to its customers a significant share of any new environmental compliance costs. " ( National Association of Metal Finishers, 2001)

Economic Growth: The chromium plating market as a whole is growing no more than 2% per year. This is primarily due to the impact of competitive products such as electrolysis nickel plating. However there does not appear to be a single replacement for hard chromium electroplating. ( CEH, 2000) Plated Chromium remains an attractive option for the highly competitive automotive finishes market. Automotive use is reported to begin growing 10% per year, driven by the plating of aluminum wheels. ( CEH, 2000)

Elasticity: According to a 2001 report prepared for the National Association of Metal Finishers, the estimated elasticity of demand of output price relative to input price is 1.299.

References:

Chemical Economics Hanbook Product Review by Schumacher, John W., Kälin, Thomas and Masahiro Yoneyama. 2000. Inorganic Chromium Compounds.

Environomics. 2001. Review of the Economic Analysis of EPA's Proposed Metal Products and Machinery Rule for the Metal Finishing Job Shop Sector. Prepared for the National Association of Metal Finishers, American Electroplaters and Surface Finishers Society, Inc., Metal Finishing Suppliers Association. 8 Secondary Aluminum Industry   Economic Summary Data Industries Affected: Transportation ( Auto), Containers and Packaging, and Building and Construction.

According to the Aluminum Association, the U. S. total supply of aluminum decreased by 4.1% from 1999 2000, however, during the decade of the 90s, supply had increased by an average rate of 3.4% annually. Primary aluminum accounted for 34.3% of production while secondary aluminum accounted for 32.2% of production. The remaining 33.5% were imported.

The transportation industry accounted for 32.5% of total aluminum manufactured in 2000 including secondary aluminum ( Aluminum Association). Although the market increased only 0.3% from 1999 to 2000, it grew by 100% over the decade of the 90s. Increasing demand for fuel efficient cars is expected result in the construction of lighter vehicles with higher proportions of aluminum. Consequently, this shift in consumer preferences is likely result in an increase in consumption of both primary and secondary aluminum from the automotive industry.

Containers and packaging accounted for 20.4 % of the primary and secondary aluminum market in 2000( Aluminum Association). Aluminum shipments were used in the construction of beverage cans, food containers, and household & institutional foil. A large reason for the use of aluminum in this sector is the change in consumer preference for recycled products.

Building and Construction accounted for 13.1% of total aluminum shipments in 1999 ( Aluminum Association).

Elasticities: Unfortunately, elasticity data was not available. However, Bob Garino, director of commodities at the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries ( ISRI) was quoted in a Reuters News Service article that he feels the industry is price elastic.

Price elasticity refers to the condition where a proportional change in quantity ( supply or demand), in response to a proportional change in price, is greater than the proportional change in price. In numerical terms, elasticity means the proportional change in quantity over the proportional change in price is greater, in absolute value, than 1. 9 Location: According to an industry analysis brief prepared by the Department of Energy's, Energy Information Administration, the majority of secondary aluminum smelters are located near southern California and the Great Lakes areas close to consumer centers and large industrial sites which contain high quantities of scrap. " Foil, sheet, and plate facilities are concentrated in the Ohio River Valley and the mid Atlantic region. Extruded products facilities are also concentrated in these areas, as well as the Great Lakes region, Texas, and Southern California. ( Aluminum Association)"

Industry Profile and Economic Growth Information by NAICS code:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average annual rate of change for output from 2002 2012 for NAICS codes 3313 ( Alumina & Aluminum Production and Processing) and 3315 ( Foundries) were projected at 1.5 % and 4.2%, respectively. However, value of shipments from 1997 2001 ( Table 1), for more industry specific NAICS codes, declined in some case and remained steady in others. More detailed industry information is provided in the Tables below.

Table 1. Industry Information*

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 331315 Output ( Millions $) Value of Shipments ( 1997) 13708 13622 13914 12957 11821 Capital Expenditures 331 318 326 347 576 Value of Exports 2438 2322 2228 2298 2038 Value of Imports 1280 1391 1440 1620 1442 Firm Characteristics Number of Establishments 79 93 103 111 Number of Firms 56 66 73 82 % with 20+ Employees 58.9 53 52.1 48.8 % with 100+ Employees 44.6 37.9 32.9 29.3 % with 500+ Employees 33.9 30.3 21.9 18.3 Number of Paid Employees 22976 23521 23384 22016 % in 20+ Employee Firms 99.2 99.1 % in 100+ Employee Firms 98 97.3 96.5 96.4 % in 500+ Employee Firms 94 93.6 89.8 90.6 331316 Output ( Millions $) Value of Shipments ( 1997) 6178 6305 6065 5870 5338 Capital Expenditures 209 221 195 238 175 10 Value of Exports 385 378 338 428 397 Value of Imports 317 393 422 529 416 Firm Characteristics Number of Establishments 207 201 205 214 Number of Firms 144 139 140 150 % with 20+ Employees 70.1 69.1 64.3 59.3 % with 100+ Employees 48.6 48.2 45.7 42.7 % with 500+ Employees 27.8 25.9 21.4 20 Number of Paid Employees 31145 31717 32966 29336 % in 20+ Employee Firms 99.2 99.2 99.1 98.7 % in 100+ Employee Firms 94 94.3 94.8 94.2 % in 500+ Employee Firms 76.1 75.3 74.6 71.5 331319 Output ( Millions $) Value of Shipments ( 1997) 1625 1682 1626 1579 1349 Capital Expenditures 29.5 18.7 31.3 36.5 18.7 Value of Exports 353 347 357 346 252 Value of Imports 200 194 214 276 210 Firm Characteristics Number of Establishments 81 86 88 107 Number of Firms 63 68 71 90 % with 20+ Employees 46 41.2 40.8 38.9 % with 100+ Employees 33.3 30.9 26.8 20 % with 500+ Employees 17.5 17.6 12.7 10 Number of Paid Employees 5072 4745 4699 4674 % in 20+ Employee Firms % in 100+ Employee Firms 87.1 % in 500+ Employee Firms 70.9 65.4 59.9 331521 Output ( Millions $) Value of Shipments ( 1997) 3844 4088 3993 4096 3926 Capital Expenditures 223 229 216 178 165 Value of Exports Value of Imports Firm Characteristics Number of Establishments 328 312 301 294 Number of Firms 294 278 267 258 % with 20+ Employees 61.2 61.9 63.7 60.1 % with 100+ Employees 30.3 31.3 32.6 32.2 11 % with 500+ Employees 10.9 10.8 11.6 11.2 Number of Paid Employees 29669 28910 30361 28149 % in 20+ Employee Firms 96.8 96.8 97.4 96.8 % in 100+ Employee Firms 82.7 82.8 84.5 84.5 % in 500+ Employee Firms 50.2 48.9 50.8 53 331524 Output ( Millions $) Value of Shipments ( 1997) 3917 4058 4251 4144 3904 Capital Expenditures 241 225 239 189 169 Value of Exports Value of Imports Firm Characteristics Number of Establishments 620 619 597 590 Number of Firms 584 580 558 549 % with 20+ Employees 42.6 43.3 44.1 44.4 % with 100+ Employees 14.2 13.8 14.7 14.6 % with 500+ Employees 6.5 5.5 5.7 5.5 Number of Paid Employees 34270 33790 34968 32426 % in 20+ Employee Firms 92.9 93 93.4 93.4 % in 100+ Employee Firms 71.9 72 73.5 71.6 % in 500+ Employee Firms 50.2 45.8 48.8 42.1 Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census * According to the Small Business Association, Secondary Aluminum firms with less than 750 employees are considered small business.

331315: Aluminum sheet, plate, and foil manufacturing facilities 331316: Aluminum extruded product manufacturing facilities 331319: Other Aluminum rolling and drawing facilities 331521: Aluminum die casting facilities 331524: Aluminum foundry facilities Table 2. Rate of Change (%)

1998 1999 2000 2001 Average 331315 Output ( Millions $) Value of Shipments ( 1997)  0.63 2.14  6.88  8.77  3.53 12 Capital Expenditures  3.93 2.52 6.44 65.99 17.76 Value of Exports  4.76  4.05 3.14  11.31  4.24 Value of Imports 8.67 3.52 12.50  10.99 3.43 Firm Characteristics Number of Establishments 17.72 10.75 7.77 12.08 Number of Firms 17.86 10.61 12.33 13.60 % with 20+ Employees  10.02  1.70  6.33  6.02 % with 100+ Employees  15.02  13.19  10.94  13.05 % with 500+ Employees  10.62  27.72  16.44  18.26 Number of Paid Employees 2.37  0.58  5.85  1.35 % in 20+ Employee Firms  0.10  100.00 % in 100+ Employee Firms  0.71  0.82  0.10  0.55 % in 500+ Employee Firms  0.43  4.06 0.89  1.20 331316 Output ( Millions $) Value of Shipments ( 1997) 2.06  3.81  3.22  9.06  3.51 Capital Expenditures 5.74  11.76 22.05  26.47  2.61 Value of Exports  1.82  10.58 26.63  7.24 1.75 Value of Imports 23.97 7.38 25.36  21.36 8.84 Firm Characteristics Number of Establishments  2.90 1.99 4.39 1.16 Number of Firms  3.47 0.72 7.14 1.46 % with 20+ Employees  1.43  6.95  7.78  5.38 % with 100+ Employees  0.82  5.19  6.56  4.19 % with 500+ Employees  6.83  17.37  6.54  10.25 Number of Paid Employees 1.84 3.94  11.01  1.75 % in 20+ Employee Firms  0.10  0.40 % in 100+ Employee Firms 0.32 0.53  0.63 0.07 % in 500+ Employee Firms  1.05  0.93  4.16  2.05 331319 Output ( Millions $) Value of Shipments ( 1997) 3.51  3.33  2.89  14.57  4.32 Capital Expenditures  36.61 67.38 16.61  48.77  0.35 Value of Exports  1.70 2.88  3.08  27.17  7.27 Value of Imports  3.00 10.31 28.97  23.91 3.09 Firm Characteristics Number of Establishments 6.17 2.33 21.59 10.03 Number of Firms 7.94 4.41 26.76 13.04 % with 20+ Employees  10.43  0.97  4.66  5.35 13 % with 100+ Employees  7.21  13.27  25.37  15.28 % with 500+ Employees 0.57  27.84  21.26  16.18 Number of Paid Employees  6.45  0.97  0.53  2.65 % in 20+ Employee Firms % in 100+ Employee Firms  100.00 % in 500+ Employee Firms  7.76  8.41  8.08 331521 Output ( Millions $) Value of Shipments ( 1997) 6.35  2.32 2.58  4.15 0.61 Capital Expenditures 2.69  5.68  17.59  7.30  6.97 Value of Exports Value of Imports Firm Characteristics Number of Establishments  4.88  3.53  2.33  3.58 Number of Firms  5.44  3.96  3.37  4.26 % with 20+ Employees 1.14 2.91  5.65  0.53 % with 100+ Employees 3.30 4.15  1.23 2.08 % with 500+ Employees  0.92 7.41  3.45 1.01 Number of Paid Employees  2.56 5.02  7.29  1.61 % in 20+ Employee Firms 0.62  0.62 % in 100+ Employee Firms 0.12 2.05 0.00 0.72 % in 500+ Employee Firms  2.59 3.89 4.33 1.88 331524 Output ( Millions $) Value of Shipments ( 1997) 3.60 4.76  2.52  5.79 0.01 Capital Expenditures  6.64 6.22  20.92  10.58  7.98 Value of Exports Value of Imports Firm Characteristics Number of Establishments  0.16  3.55  1.17  1.63 Number of Firms  0.68  3.79  1.61  2.03 % with 20+ Employees 1.64 1.85 0.68 1.39 % with 100+ Employees  2.82 6.52  0.68 1.01 % with 500+ Employees  15.38 3.64  3.51  5.09 Number of Paid Employees  1.40 3.49  7.27  1.73 % in 20+ Employee Firms 0.11 0.43 0.00 0.18 % in 100+ Employee Firms 0.14 2.08  2.59  0.12 % in 500+ Employee Firms  8.76 6.55  13.73  5.31 14


[Federal Register: January 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 15)]
[Notices]
[Page 3130-3132]
[DOCID:fr24ja07-59]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0995; FRL-8109-7]

Notice of Filing of a Pesticide Petition for the Establishment of
Tolerances for Pendimethalin in or on Beans and Peas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide
petition proposing the establishment of tolerances for residues of
pesticide chemical pendimethalin in or on beans and peas.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 23, 2007.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0995 and pesticide petition number 6F7149,
by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal:  http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0995. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703) 305-
5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip V. Errico, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001;<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

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

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing a summary of a pesticide petition received under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or amendment of regulations in
40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various
food commodities. EPA has determined that this pesticide petition
contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA
section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency
of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting
of the pesticide petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA
rules on this pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner along with a description of the
analytical method available for the detection and measurement of the
pesticide chemical residues is available on EPA's Electronic Docket at
http://www.regulations.gov/. To locate this information on the home

page of EPA's Electronic Docket, select ``Quick Search'' and type the
OPP docket ID number. Once the search has located the docket, clicking
on the ``Docket ID'' will bring up a list of all documents in the
docket for the

pesticide including the petition summary.

New Tolerance

      PP 6F7149. BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528, proposes to establish a
tolerance for residues of the herbicide, pendimethalin, N-(1-
ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine and its metabolite, 4-
[(1-ethylpropyl)amino{time} -2-methyl-3,5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol in or
on food commodities beans; beans, forage; beans, hay; and peas (except
field peas) each at 0.01 parts per million (ppm). Aqueous organic
solvent extraction, column clean up, and quantitation by gas
chromatography is used to measure and evaluate the chemical residues.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: January 12, 2007.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-924 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 140 (Tuesday, July 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42517-42518]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16564]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0913]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; 513(g) Request for Information

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the information collection
burden estimate for requests for a written statement from FDA regarding
the classification and regulatory requirements that may be applicable
to a particular device (513(g) requests).

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by September 22, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

513(g) Request for Information--(OMB Control Number 0910-0705)--
Extension

    Section 513(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(g)) provides a means for obtaining the
Agency's views about the classification and regulatory requirements
that may be applicable to a particular device. Section 513(g) provides
that within 60 days of the receipt of a written request of any person
for information respecting the class in which a device has been
classified or the requirements applicable to a device under the FD&C
Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide such
person a written statement of the classification (if any) of such
device and the requirements of the FD&C Act applicable to the device.
    The guidance document entitled ``Guidance for Industry and Food and
Drug Administration Staff FDA and Industry Procedures for Section
513(g) Requests for Information Under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act'' establishes procedures for submitting, reviewing, and
responding to requests for information respecting the class in which a
device has been classified or the requirements applicable to a device
under the FD&C Act that are submitted in accordance with section 513(g)
of the FD&C Act. FDA does not review data related to substantial
equivalence or safety and effectiveness in a 513(g) request for
information. FDA's responses to 513(g) requests for information are not
device classification decisions and do not constitute FDA clearance or
approval for marketing. Classification decisions and clearance or
approval for marketing require submissions under different sections of
the FD&C Act. Additionally, the FD&C Act, as amended by the FDA
Amendments Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-85), requires FDA to collect
user fees for 513(g) requests for information. The guidance document
entitled ``Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff
User Fees for 513(g) Requests for Information'' assists FDA staff and
regulated industry by describing the user fees associated with 513(g)
requests. The Medical Device User Fee Cover Sheet (Form FDA 3601),
which accompanies the supplemental material described in this
information collection, is approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0511 and
expires April 30, 2016.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Number of       Total       Average
                  Activity                     Number of    responses per     annual     burden per  Total hours
                                              respondents    respondent     responses     response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center for Devices and Radiological Health            114               1          114           12        1,368
 513(g) requests............................
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research            4               1            4           12           48
 513(g) requests............................
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................  ...........  ..............  ...........  ...........        1,416
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Respondents to this collection of information are mostly device
manufacturers; however, anyone may submit a 513(g) request for
information. The total number of annual responses is based on the
average number of 513(g) requests received each year by the Agency.

    Dated: July 10, 2014.
Peter Lurie,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. 2014-16564 Filed 7-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


SCE&G................................  South Carolina Electric & Gas
                                        Company.
Southern Indiana.....................  Southern Indiana Gas and Electric
                                        Company.
Smart Grid...........................  Smart Grid Interoperability Panel
                                        Smart Grid Cybersecurity
                                        Committee.
SPP Parties..........................  Kansas City Board of Public
                                        Utilities, Oklahoma Municipal
                                        Power Authority, Rayburn Country
                                        Electric Cooperative, Southwest
                                        Power Pool, Inc., Westar Energy,
                                        Inc., and Western Farmers
                                        Electric Cooperative.
SPP RE...............................  Southwest Power Pool Regional
                                        Entity.
SWP..................................  California Department of Water
                                        Resources State Water Project.
Tacoma...............................  Tacoma Power.
Tampa................................  Tampa Electric Company.
TAPS.................................  Transmission Access Policy Study
                                        Group.
TVA..................................  Tennessee Valley Authority.
UI...................................  United Illuminating Company.
Venafi...............................  Venafi.
Waterfall............................  Waterfall Security Solutions,
                                        Ltd.
Wisconsin............................  Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
Xcel.................................  Xcel Energy Services, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-28628 Filed 12-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P