[Federal Register: September 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 57306-57307]
[DOCID:fr20se10-85]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 17a-1; SEC File No. 270-244; OMB Control No. 3235-0208.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget a request for approval of extension of the previously
approved collection of information provided for in Rule 17a-1 (17 CFR
240.17a-1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
``Act'') (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 17a-1 requires that every national securities exchange,
national securities association, registered clearing agency, and the
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board keep on file for a period of not
less than five years, the first two years in an easily accessible
place, at least one copy of all documents, including all
correspondence, memoranda, papers, books, notices, accounts, and other
such records made or received by it in the course of its business as
such and in the conduct of its self-regulatory activity, and that such
documents be available for examination by the Commission.
    There are 22 entities required to comply with the rule: 14 national
securities exchanges, 1 national securities association, 6 registered
clearing agencies, and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. The
Commission staff estimates that the average number of hours necessary
for compliance with the requirements of Rule 17a-1 is 50 hours per
year. In addition, 4 national securities exchanges notice-registered
pursuant to Section 6(g) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78f(g)) are required to
preserve records of determinations made under Rule 3a55-1 under the Act
(17 CFR 240.3a55-1), which the Commission staff estimates will take 1
hour per exchange, for a total of 4 hours. Accordingly, the Commission
staff estimates that the total number of hours necessary to comply with
the requirements of Rule 17a-1 is 1,104 hours. The average cost per
hour is $59. Therefore, the total cost of compliance for the
respondents is $65,136.
    Compliance with Rule 17a-1 is mandatory. Rule 17a-1 does not assure
confidentiality for the records maintained pursuant to the rule. The
records required by Rule 17a-1 are available only for examination by
the Commission staff, state securities authorities and the self-
regulatory organizations. Subject to the provisions of the Freedom of
Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 522, and the Commission's rules thereunder
(17 CFR 200.80(b)(4)(iii)), the Commission does not generally publish
or make available information contained in any reports, summaries,
analyses, letters, or memoranda arising out of, in anticipation of, or
in connection with an examination or inspection of the books and
records of any person or any other investigation.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid control number.
    Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an e-mail to: Shagufta_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Boucher, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted within 30 days of this
notice.

     September 14, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-23410 Filed 9-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 14, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77742-77747]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32063]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 136

[EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0192; FRL-9504-2]

Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of
Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act; Analysis and Sampling Procedures;
Notice of Data Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability.

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

SUMMARY: On September 23, 2010, EPA proposed to approve a number of new
and revised test procedures (i.e., analytical methods) for measuring
pollutants under the Clean Water Act. Today's notice announces the
availability of new data on an analytical method for the measurement of
oil and grease that EPA described in the earlier notice but did not
propose to approve it for use. This notice discusses how EPA is
considering revising its proposed regulatory requirements for this
method. EPA is soliciting comment only on EPA's consideration of this
method.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
2010-0192, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No.
OW-2010-0192.
     Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Water Center, EPA West Building, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID
No. OW-2010-0192. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-
0192. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online 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 http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria Gomez-Taylor, Office of Science
and Technology, Office of Water (4303-T), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW; Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    EPA Regions, as well as States, Territories and Tribes authorized
to implement the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program, issue permits with conditions designed to ensure
compliance with the technology-based and water quality-based
requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA). These permits may include
restrictions on the quantity of pollutants that may be discharged as
well as pollutant measurement and reporting requirements. If EPA has
approved a test procedure for analysis of a specific pollutant, the
NPDES permittee must use an approved test procedure (or an approved
alternate test procedure) for the specific pollutant when measuring the
required waste constituent. Similarly, if EPA has established sampling
requirements, measurements taken under an NPDES permit must comply with
these requirements. Therefore, entities with NPDES permits will
potentially be affected by the actions in this rulemaking. Categories
and entities that may potentially be affected by the requirements of
today's rule include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category            Examples of potentially affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Territorial, and        States, Territories, and Tribes
 Indian Tribal Governments.     authorized to administer the NPDES
                                permitting program; States, Territories,
                                and Tribes providing certification under
                                Clean Water Act section 401;
                               State, Territorial, and Indian Tribal
                                owned facilities that must conduct
                                monitoring to comply with NPDES permits.
Industry.....................  Facilities that must conduct monitoring
                                to comply with NPDES permits.
Municipalities...............  POTWs or other municipality owned
                                facilities that must conduct monitoring
                                to comply with NPDES permits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. This table lists types of entities that EPA is now aware of
that could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine
whether your facility is affected by this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability language at 40 CFR 122.1 (NPDES purpose and
scope), 40 CFR 136.1 (NPDES permits and CWA) and 40 CFR 403.1
(Pretreatment standards purpose and applicability). If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

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

     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Summary of New Information and Request for Comment

A. Background on Proposed Rule

    On September 23, 2010, EPA proposed to add new and revised EPA
methods to its Part 136 test procedures (75 FR 58024). The regulated
community and laboratories use these approved methods for determining
compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits or other monitoring requirements under the Clean Water Act
(CWA). EPA periodically updates the list of approved methods to reflect
advances in technology and provide entities more choices of approved
compliance monitoring methods. Among other methods, in the September
2010 proposal, EPA proposed to add two oil and grease methods published
by the Standard Methods Committee that use the same solvent as the
existing Part 136 oil and grease methods. In the Notice, EPA also
described three oil and grease methods published by ASTM International
or the Standard Methods Committee that require a different extractant
and/or a different measurement (i.e., determinative) technique than the
existing Part 136 oil and grease methods. As explained in the Notice,
oil and grease is a method-defined parameter. That is, the measurements
obtained by the method are a specific artifact of the method and
defined solely by the elements (solvent, determinative technique) used
to measure the analyte. Because these three methods use a different
extractant and/or a different determinative technique, how to translate
measurements using these methods to those obtained under existing
methods for purposes of comparison was not clear. Consequently,
consistent with past practices, EPA did not propose to include these
methods in Part 136.

B. Method-Defined Analytes

    A method-defined analyte includes certain parameters where the
measurement results obtained are solely dependent on the method used.
As a consequence, the results obtained are not directly comparable to
results obtained by another method (i.e., the data derived from method-
defined protocols cannot be reliably verified outside the method
itself). EPA has defined a method-defined analyte in 40 CFR 136.6(a)(5)
as ``.* * * an analyte defined solely by the method used to determine
the analyte. Such an analyte may be a physical parameter, a parameter
that is not a specific chemical, or a parameter that may be comprised
of a number of substances. Examples of such analytes include
temperature, oil and grease, total suspended solids, total phenolics,
turbidity, chemical oxygen demand, and biochemical oxygen demand.''

C. Oil and Grease

    Unlike many parameters, oil and grease is not a unique chemical
entity, but is a mixture of chemical species that varies from source to
source. Common substances that may contribute to oil and grease include
petroleum based compounds such as fuels, motor oil, lubricating oil,
soaps, waxes, and hydraulic oil and vegetable based compounds such as
cooking oil and other fats. Oil and grease is defined by the method
used to measure it (i.e., a method-defined analyte). The CWA defines
oil and grease as a conventional parameter and hundreds of thousands of
NPDES permits and indirect discharging permits contain oil and grease
numerical limits. Currently, Part 136 lists three references to
analytical methods for the measurement of oil in grease in such
discharge permits. Overwhelmingly, the vast majority of discharges use
EPA Method 1664A to measure compliance with such discharge limits.
Method 1664A is a liquid/liquid extraction (LLE), gravimetric procedure
that employs normal hexane (n-hexane) as the extraction solvent. This
method also allows the use of solid-phase extraction (SPE) provided
that the results obtained by SPE are equivalent to the results obtained
by LLE.

D. Public Comments Related to Oil and Grease

    In response to the September 2010 proposal, EPA received several
comments recommending that EPA approve recent methods that include new
technologies, including alternative methods for oil and grease. One
commenter stated that EPA's reasoning for not approving alternative
test methods for oil and grease is contradictory to the Agency's
``Summary'' statement that these regulations will ``provide increased
flexibility to the regulated community and laboratories in their
selection of analytical methods (test procedures) for use in Clean
Water Act programs.'' This commenter added that approving the new
technologies would be more consistent with EPA's mission and purpose to
``ensure that all Americans are protected from significant risks to
human health and the environment where they live, learn and work.''
    Another commenter indicated that EPA should approve new
technologies for oil and grease because n-hexane is a dangerous
solvent. This commenter cited literature that describes n-hexane's
toxicity to humans and to the environment. Still another commenter
stated that fats, oils and greases are not exclusively ``hexane
extractable'' compounds and claimed that other technologies and methods
may be better at measuring these compounds, and may be used to better
quantify how much fat, oil or grease is toxic to aquatic life or
interferes with wastewater treatment. This commenter also stated that
EPA should not specifically and uniquely endorse a solvent-specific
method for ``oil and grease'' and requested that EPA reverse its
decision that only n-hexane extractable oil and grease methods are
acceptable.

III. ASTM Method D7575-10 for Oil and Grease

    Some of the comments focused exclusively on one particular oil and
grease method EPA discussed in its proposal, ASTM D7575-10. Unlike EPA
Method 1664A which uses n-hexane as the extractant and gravimetry for
the measurement of the extracted materials, ASTM D7575-10 uses an
extracting membrane followed by infrared measurement of the sample
materials that can be retained on the membrane. This method was
originally developed by Orono Spectral Solutions (OSS), and approved by
ASTM on January 1, 2010 (Standard Test Method for Solvent-Free Membrane
Recoverable Oil and Grease by Infrared Determination, ASTM D7575-10).
Certain commenters to EPA's September 2010 proposal, including ASTM and
OSS, requested that EPA re-consider ASTM D7575-10 for the measurement
of oil and grease under Clean Water Act programs. In particular, they
cited that ASTM D7575-10 is solvent free and provides reliable and
comparable results to EPA Method 1664A. As part of this re-
consideration, these commenters submitted additional information on the
health hazards associated with hexane as well as additional single
laboratory comparability data between Method 1664A and ASTM D7575-10
and on additional matrices tested after the initial comparability study
and associated statistical analysis. These data, EPA's analyses of
these data, and

communications related to the alternative ASTM method between EPA, OSS
and ASTM are included as part of the record for today's notice.
    EPA's consideration of ASTM D7575-10 is entirely novel. Because oil
and grease is a method-defined parameter, with one exception, EPA has
not considered promulgating multiple methods to measure oil and grease
that are based on different extractants. Moreover, EPA has not
considered multiple oil and grease methods that are based on different
determinative techniques. The only exception to this was EPA's
promulgation of EPA Method 1664A in 1999 to replace Method 413.1, a
similar procedure that used Freon[supreg] (1,1, 2-trichloro-1,2,2-
trifluoroethane (CFC-113; Freon-113)) as the extraction solvent. EPA
made this exception because Freon[supreg] was banned by an
international treaty, and until the ban went into effect, EPA allowed
either of these oil and grease methods for CWA compliance. In both
methods, the determinative technique is gravimetry and the only change
was the extraction solvent (n-hexane instead of Freon[supreg]).
    EPA is persuaded by commenters to its September 23, 2010 Notice
that it should re-consider its position on ASTM D7575-10. Such a
consideration represents a new path for EPA. As is always the case, EPA
is proceeding carefully, with a particular focus on the underlying
data. EPA's consideration is specific to ASTM D7575-10 and should not
be interpreted broadly to other oil and grease methods that use
different extractants and/or determinative techniques, or more
generally to other method-defined analytes. If EPA receives similar
requests for other methods, it will evaluate each one individually.
    Although the September 2010 proposal discussed the current use of
EPA Method 1664A as a required testing method to determine the
eligibility of materials for certain conditional exclusions for RCRA
regulations under 40 CFR260.20 and 260.22 (i.e., delistings), and
additionally proposed to allow the revised version of this testing
method (Method 1664, Rev. B) for future delistings, EPA is not
considering ASTM D7575-10 for use under the RCRA program. Until ASTM
D7575-10 is validated for a full range of matrices covered by the RCRA
program, EPA considers this new testing method to be limited to the
Clean Water Act program.

A. Technical Considerations Related to ASTM Method D7575-10

1. EPA Evaluation of This New Method
    Based on the data and information available in EPA's record, EPA
concludes ASTM D7575-10 is a good stand-alone method for the
measurement of oil and grease in wastewater. The method was single- and
multi-lab tested following ASTM Standard Practice D2777 (Standard
Practice for the Determination of Precision and Bias of Applicable Test
methods of Committee D19 on Water) and produces similar recoveries and
precision to EPA Method 1664A for those matrices tested and in the
range of method applicability (5-200 mg/L).
    In reviewing the method, EPA requested that ASTM revise its new
standard to provide additional details on the underlying procedural
steps--specifically in regard to sample homogenization and calibration
verification--and to clarify the applicability (or lack thereof) of the
method to non-wastewater matrices. ASTM revised the method write-up
accordingly. See DCN xxx for additional information.
2. Comparability of Results Between ASTM D7575-10 and EPA Method 1664A
    As explained above, with the exception of EPA's promulgation of
Method 1664A to replace Method 413.1, EPA has not considered
promulgating multiple methods to measure oil and grease that are based
on different extractants nor has EPA considered promulgating oil and
grease methods with different determinative techniques. As a result,
EPA does not have a defined ``process'' for such considerations. For
non-method-defined parameters where the analyte being measured is a
single compound (e.g., copper, benzene), EPA often promulgates multiple
methods that may be based on different determinative techniques for
nationwide use. In such cases, EPA has a well-defined process for
ensuring that the performance of a proposed method is acceptable (i.e.,
the proposed test procedure must demonstrate an improvement over
current EPA-approved methods such as fewer matrix interferences, and
better sensitivity, precision and recovery). For a new candidate test
method employing a determinative technique that is different from those
techniques used in existing approved methods, the applicant must
develop quality control (QC) acceptance criteria based on the
validation protocol for nationwide use applications (9 laboratories,
each analyzing a different matrix). The QC acceptance criteria for the
candidate method must then be compared to the QC acceptance criteria
specifications for methods in Part 136 and the performance of the
candidate method must be as good or better than that of an approved
method. This process is described in the ``Protocol for EPA Approval of
New Methods for Organic and Inorganic Analytes in Wastewater and
Drinking Water,'' March 1999.
    In contrast, there is no well-defined process for the evaluation of
a proposed test method for method-defined parameters. In addition to
ensuring that the performance of the proposed method is acceptable as
described above for non-method-defined parameters, EPA wants to ensure
that results produced by the proposed method are comparable to results
produced with the approved method. When EPA promulgated EPA Method
1664A to replace EPA Method 413.1, a similar procedure that used
Freon[supreg] (1,1, 2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113; Freon-
113)) as the extraction solvent, EPA evaluated a variety of possible
replacement extracting solvents in addition to n-hexane. EPA selected
n-hexane and promulgated Method 1664A after conducting extensive side-
by-side studies of several extracting solvents on a variety of samples
representing a wide range of matrices (see ``Preliminary Report of EPA
Efforts to Replace Freon for the Determination of Oil and Grease,''
EPA-821-R-93-011, September 1993, and Report of EPA Efforts to Replace
Freon for the Determination of Oil and Grease and Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons, EPA-820-R-95003, April 1995). In considering which
solvent produced results most comparable to results obtained with
Freon[supreg], EPA conducted a Root Mean Squared Deviation (RMSD)
evaluation of the data collected in the side-by-side studies. None of
the alternative solvents produced results statistically comparable to
results produced by Freon[supreg]. However, EPA concluded at the time
that n-hexane was appropriate as an alternative solvent, based on
overall extraction results (96% versus 100% for Freon) and analytical
practical considerations (e.g., boiling point).
    In considering ASTM D7575-10, EPA reviewed the available single
laboratory comparability data between ASTM D7575-10 and EPA Method
1664A. Initially, these data included triplicate analyses of samples
from seven different wastewater matrices (eight POTWs, dairy, machine
shop, gunsmith, auto garage, auto salvage yard, and fish processor).
Later, OSS submitted

additional data for three matrices (bilge water, peanut processor, and
lunchmeat processor) that were collected after the single laboratory
study.\1\ EPA conducted a Root Mean Squared Deviation (RMSD)
comparability assessment with these data, following the methodology set
forth in ``Analytical Method Guidance for EPA Method 1664A
Implementation and Use (40 CFR part 136), EPA/821-R-00-003, February
2000.'' For this assessment, EPA first used the original data set and
subsequently included the additional data for three matrices and
determined the results were not statistically comparable, with or
without the data for the additional matrices. This outcome was not
unexpected because of the intrinsic differences in the two methods and
the nature of method-defined parameters. Similarly, when EPA performed
an RMSD comparability assessment before promulgating EPA Method 1664A
in place of EPA Method 413.1, EPA did not find the results to be
statistically comparable.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ OSS also submitted data for several other matrices that EPA
did not include in the analysis because these data were based on
only one sample result per matrix and thus lacked the required
replicates for a statistical analysis. Additionally, ASTM recently
submitted triplicate data for three other matrices. Because EPA
received this data after conducting its statistical analysis, this
data is not included in the RMSD assessment described in this
paragraph, but is included in the record for today's notice.
    \2\ Note that in absence of statistical comparability, EPA
ultimately determined that EPA Method 1664A could be used as a
direct replacement for EPA Method 413.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in Section II.B, the comparability of results is a
significant issue with method-defined analytes such as oil and grease
because the results depend on the method used. For oil and grease, the
amount of oil and grease material extracted depends on the solvent or
membrane used for the extraction of oil and grease. As such, it may not
be possible for results from methods that use different extraction
techniques to be compared statistically. For example, EPA Method 1664A
employs distillation at 85[deg]C, and as such, petroleum materials from
gasoline through 2 fuel oil and non-petroleum materials
including carboxylic and other organic acids may be partially lost
during this solvent removal operation. Similarly, some crude oils and
heavy fuel oils contain a significant percentage of materials that are
not soluble in the n-hexane solvent of EPA Method 1664A resulting in
low recoveries for these materials. ASTM D7575-10 has no such solvent
removal step which could increase or decrease the amount of petroleum
and non-petroleum materials measured by ASTM D7575-10 relative to
Method 1664A.
    For the reason identified above, in the case of ASTM D7575-10, EPA
concludes it is not appropriate to apply the same statistical
assessment as is done for non-method-defined parameters. As a result,
EPA applied similar comparison techniques as those performed in
replacing EPA Method 413.1 with EPA Method 1664A. As mentioned above,
during that replacement analysis, n-hexane was found to extract 96% of
the oil and grease that could be extracted by Freon. This 4% difference
was deemed insignificant based on the variability of oil and grease
measurements (around the order of 10% relative standard deviation) and
the confidence intervals about the 96% extraction (plus or minus 20%
extracted). When comparing the results of ASTM D7575-10 to EPA Method
1664A, the non-solvent method removes an average of 99.6% of the oil
and grease that was removed by n-hexane under the same conditions. The
variability of the situational comparisons along with the 10% relative
standard deviation for oil and grease measurements once again allow us
to conclude that the 0.4% difference is not significant. Using this
approach, for the range of the ASTM D7575-10 applicability (5-200 mg/
L), ASTM D7575-10 could serve as a substitute for Method 1664A in the
same fashion as n-hexane served as a replacement for Freon.

B. Summary of EPA's Reconsideration of ASTM D7575-10

    Based on the information presented in today's Notice, EPA is re-
considering its decision not to include ASTM D7575-10 in 40 CFR Part
136 as an alternative to EPA Method 1664A for measuring oil and grease.
EPA has three main reasons for this reconsideration. First, EPA's
analysis demonstrates ASTM D7575-10 is an acceptable stand-alone method
for the measurement of oil in grease in wastewater for the applicable
reporting range (5-200 mg/L) and it produces results that are generally
very close to those obtained using EPA Method 1664A for the matrices
tested. Second, this method has certain advantages over the currently
approved method. EPA supports pollution prevention, and is particularly
persuaded by the substantial advantages associated with the green
aspects of this membrane technology (e.g., it uses a solventless
extraction, there is no solvent waste, and no analyst exposure to
solvent). Finally, ASTM D7575-10 may offer other advantages such as
ease of analysis, reduced analysis time, and lower analytical costs.

C. Implementation Considerations Related to Multiple Oil and Grease
Methods

    EPA recognizes that if it promulgates ASTM D7575-10 in 40 CFR Part
136 as an alternative to EPA method 1664A, permittees and control
authorities may still have concerns related to the results obtained
from ASTM D7575-10 relative to EPA Method 1664A, particularly for
matrices not evaluated to date. While EPA has determined that the
results of the two methods are comparable over the applicable range
where the two methods overlap (5-200 mg/L), because of the wide variety
and type of individual compounds that may be measured by oil and grease
and because oil and grease are extensively incorporated in permits
covering a wide variety of wastewater matrices, permittees or control
authorities may continue to have compliance concerns (i.e., a permittee
could be in or out of compliance) simply due to a change in the test
method used to evaluate samples.
    When EPA promulgated EPA Method 1664A to replace EPA Method 413.1,
EPA and other stakeholders had similar concerns. These concerns were
magnified because Method 1664A was a replacement, rather than an
alternative, to the existing method at that time. To accommodate
concerns about differences in results, EPA allowed permitting
authorities to establish a conversion factor by having the discharger
perform a side-by-side comparison of Method 1664 and the Freon[supreg]
extraction method and then adjusting the discharge limits, if
necessary, to account for differences in the permit. EPA further
recommended a specific process to follow for the side-by-side
comparison in the guidance document mentioned earlier [Analytical
Method Guidance for EPA Method 1664A Implementation and Use (40 CFR
part 136), EPA/821-R-00-003, February 2000].
    In contrast to EPA's replacement of Freon with n-hexane, if EPA
were to promulgate ASTM D7575-10, it would not lead to any requirement
on permit holders. In this case, unless ASTM D7575-10 is specified in
the permit, promulgating ASTM D7575-10 would simply provide additional
flexibility to permit holders in analyzing for oil and grease. Because
this would be optional and because of the burden that would be placed
on the permitting authorities in reviewing side-by-side data, EPA is
not currently persuaded that it should include a provision providing
the same

ability to adjust discharge limits based on side-by side-comparison of
EPA Method 1664A to ASTM D7575-10 as it did when it replaced Freon with
n-hexane. However, to the extent that permittees would elect to use
ASTM D7575-10 and permitting authorities would accept the use of ASTM
D-7575-10 rather than EPA Method 1664A, nothing would prevent them from
conducting a side-by-side comparison of the two methods. EPA would
recommend such a side-by-side comparison if permittees and/or
permitting authorities have concerns about a specific matrix,
particularly when the measured oil and grease values when switching to
ASTM D7575-10 are more than 20% lower from values routinely measured by
EPA Method 1664A (the 20% variability around oil and grease
measurements is discussed in section III.A.2 of today's Notice).

IV. Request for Comments

    Based on the new information and EPA's analysis of this information
as described in this Notice, EPA is reconsidering whether to promulgate
ASTM D7575-10 in 40 CFR Part 136 as an alternative method for oil and
grease where the applicable ranges overlap (5-200 mg/L) and requests
public comments on this reconsideration, the supporting data, and the
resulting analysis. While ASTM D7575-10 has significant pollution
prevention advantages over the currently approved method, EPA
recognizes the potential impact that this new method could have on the
hundreds of thousands of oil and grease determinations in regulatory
Clean Water Act programs and desires to obtain additional input from
stakeholders. Specifically, EPA requests comments on the following:
    1. Whether EPA should reconsider promulgating this additional
method for oil and grease based on different extractants and
determinative techniques than EPA Method 1664A.
    2. EPA's current view, based on the data it has reviewed to date,
that ASTM D7575-10 is an acceptable choice for the determination of oil
and grease for the range (5 to 200 mg/L) evaluated.
    3. EPA's current conclusion that permit limit adjustment based on
side-by-side comparisons of EPA Method 1664A and ASTM D7575-10 is not
appropriate. EPA is particularly interested in obtaining comments from
permitting authorities on this issue and estimates of the burden
associated with reviewing such requests.
    4. If EPA were to allow a side-by-side comparison with limit
adjustment as necessary, should EPA look to the approach used for n-
hexane in place of Freon (see section III.C above) or should EPA
consider a different approach?

V. Referenced New Docket Materials

1. January 16, 2009 Memorandum from Richard Reding on Modifications
to Method 1664A.
2. May 14, 1999 Federal Register (64 FR 26315).
3. Preliminary Report of EPA Efforts to Replace Freon for the
Determination of Oil and Grease, EPA-821-R-93-011, September 1993.
4. Report of EPA Efforts to Replace Freon for the Determination of
Oil and Grease and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons: Phase II, EPA-820-
R-95-003, April 1995.
5. October 15, 2010 email from Tyler Martin containing the following
data files:
    a. Multi-Lab Validation Raw Data
    b. Expanded ASTM D7575 Validation Report
    c. Single-Lab Validation Raw Data
    d. Comparability Analysis from Single-Lab Validation Results
6. October 19, 2010 email from Tyler Martin containing additional
comparability data between Method 1664 and ASTM D7575.
7. October 21, 2010 email from Tyler Martin with clarification on
data submitted.
8. June 28, 2011 letter from James A. Thomas, ASTM President to Mary
Smith, EPA, with ASTM International D19 Water Response to US EPA
Questions Concerning ASTM Standard D7575.
9. Analytical Method Guidance for EPA Method 1664A Implementation
and Use (40 CFR part 136), EPA/821-R-00-003, February 2000.
10. Protocol for EPA Approval of New Methods for Organic and
Inorganic Analytes in Wastewater and Drinking Water, March 1999.
11. Study Report from the Testing of Additional Industrial
Wastewater Matrices in Support of ASTM D7575 for USEPA's
Reconsideration of this Method in the Forthcoming Method Update
Rule, November 2011.

    Dated: December 2, 2011.
Nancy K. Stoner,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 2011-32063 Filed 12-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 147 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45392-45394]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18655]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67505; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2012-24]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Deleting Existing Rule
Text Found in Rule 923NY(d)(1) to (4) Concerning the Number of ATP's
Required by an NYSE Amex Options Market Maker To Quote on the Exchange
and Move It to the Fee Schedule

July 26, 2012.
    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 12, 2012, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule 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 delete existing rule text found in Rule
923NY(d)(1) to (4) concerning the number of ATP's required by an NYSE
Amex Options Market Maker to quote on the Exchange and move it to the
Fee Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 delete Rule 923NY(d)(1) to (4) and insert
language referencing the Exchange's Fee Schedule. The Exchange further
proposes to move the content of Rule 923NY(d)(1) to (4) to the Fee
Schedule, without any substantive changes.
    With one exception, the Fee Schedule sets forth the fees and
charges that participants on the Exchange can be expected to pay.
However, even though it implicates a fee issue, ATP Holders acting as
NYSE Amex Options Market Makers need to refer to Rule 923NY(d)(1) to
(4) to ascertain the number of ATP's they are required to have based on
the number of option products that they have in their assignment. The
Exchange believes that this information more appropriately belongs in
the Fee Schedule so that all participants can have the same source to
understand the basis for fees.\4\ In

particular, because the Exchange charges a fee for each ATP assigned to
an ATP Holder, the rule text identifies the fee structure by setting
forth the number of trading permits that are required according to the
number of options issues including [sic] in their appointment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NASDAQ OMX PHLX fees charged to Streaming Quote Traders
and Remote Streaming Quote traders in Section VI ``Membership Fees''
in their fee schedule found here: http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXPHLXTools/PlatformViewer.asp?selectednode=chp%5F1%5F4%5F1&manual=%2Fnasdaqomxphlx%2Fphlx%2Fphlx%2Drulesbrd%2F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 923NY(d)(1) to (4) sets forth the trading appointments of
participants acting as Market Makers on the Exchange. They are as
follows:
    (1) Market Makers with 1 ATP may have up to 100 option issues
included in their appointment.
    (2) Market Makers with 2 ATPs may have up to 250 option issues
included in their electronic appointment.
    (3) Market Makers with 3 ATPs may have up to 750 option issues
included in their appointment.
    (4) Market Makers with 4 ATPs may have all option issues traded on
the Exchange included in their appointment.
    The Exchange proposes to delete the text found in bullets 1 to 4
above, replace the rule text in 1 and re-number 5 to number 2. The
proposed language for 1 is, ``Market Makers shall have the number of
ATP's required under the Fee Schedule in order to have a trading
appointment on the Exchange.''
    Concurrent with this change, the Exchange proposes to add a section
to the Fee Schedule under the section entitled, ``NYSE AMEX OPTIONS
GENERAL OPTIONS and TRADING PERMIT (ATP) FEES'', that will replicate
the rule text deleted in Rules 923NY(d)(1) to (4). No change in the
number of ATPs required by Market Makers is being made at this time.
    The Exchange proposes to make a non-substantive change when moving
the rule text to the Fee Schedule by clarifying in the introduction
text that all appointments are electronic appointments, and delete the
term ``electronic'' in connection with the entry for Market Makers with
2 ATPs.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b) \5\ of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and Section 6(b)(5) \6\ of the Act,
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, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. The Exchange believes that [sic]
relocating the number of permits required of ATP Holders acting as
Market Makers on the Exchange from within the rule text of Rules
923NY(d)(1) through (4) to the Fee Schedule, the Exchange is making it
easier and more transparent for participants to understand the basis
for fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of the filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \9\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\10\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing because the proposal is
administrative in nature and simply moves fee-related text from the
rules to the Fee Schedule, and because it will make it easier and more
transparent for participants to understand the basis for these fees.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest.\11\ Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule
change to be operative upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2012-24 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-NYSEMKT-2012-24. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written

communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Copies of
the filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the
Exchange's principal office and on its Internet Web site at
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-
NYSEMKT-2012-24 and should be submitted on or before August 21, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-18655 Filed 7-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 105)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 26640-26646]
[DOCID:fr03jn09-23]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2008-0020; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1050]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before September 1, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses
are listed in the table below.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1050, to
William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch,
Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-mail)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief,
Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646-3151, or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for
each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR
67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established
by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed
elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of
the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance
premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made
final, and for the contents in these buildings.
    Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other
than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging
receipt of any comments will not be sent.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule is
categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not
been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This
proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria
of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This proposed rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule
meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

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

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

PART 67--[AMENDED]

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

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

Sec.  67.4  [Amended]

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                * Elevation in feet
                                                                                (NGVD)  + Elevation in
                                                                                feet  (NAVD)
                                                                                Depth in feet  above
                State                      City/town/county                  Source of flooding                                     Location **                         ground [caret] Elevation
                                                                                in  meters (MSL)
                                                                                -------------------------
                                                                                Existing     Modified
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                City of Greenwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin............................  City of Greenwood.......  Black River..............................  Approximately 4,460 feet downstream of County Highway G...         None       + 1113
                                                                                Approximately 4,960 feet upstream of County Highway G.....         None       + 1126
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood
 Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.
Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.
                                                                                ADDRESSES
City of Greenwood
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 102 North Main Street, Greenwood, WI 54437.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  * Elevation in feet
                                                                (NGVD)  + Elevation in
                                                                feet  (NAVD)
                                       Location of referenced     Depth in feet above
         Flooding source(s)                 elevation **       ground [caret] Elevation    Communities affected
                                                                    in meters (MSL)
                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Arapahoe County, Colorado, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bear Gulch..........................  Approximately 1 mile            None       + 5355  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       upstream of East 72nd                              Arapahoe County.
                                       Avenue.
                                      Approximately 2.1 miles         None       + 5482
                                       upstream 56th Avenue
                                       alignment.
Bear Gulch Tributary................  At the confluence with          None       + 5402  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Bear Gulch.                                        Arapahoe County.
                                      Approximately 900 feet          None       + 5408
                                       upstream of the
                                       confluence with Bear
                                       Gulch.
Blackmer Gulch......................  Approximately 200 feet        + 5417       + 5418  City of Cherry Hills
                                       upstream of South                                  Village.
                                       Monroe Lane.
                                      Just upstream of the          + 5492       + 5491
                                       High Line Canal.
Box Elder Creek.....................  Approximately 1,400             None       + 5367  City of Aurora,
                                       feet upstream of 72nd                              Unincorporated Areas
                                       Avenue.                                            of Arapahoe County.
                                      Approximately 0.5 miles         None       + 5691
                                       downstream of Yale
                                       Avenue.

Cherry Creek........................  Approximately 0.92            + 5623       + 5624  City of Aurora, City of
                                       miles downstream of                                Centennial,
                                       Arapahoe Road.                                     Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Arapahoe County.
                                      Approximately 1.70            + 5713       + 5713
                                       miles upstream of East
                                       Broncos Parkway.
Coyote Run..........................  At the confluence with          None       + 5393  City of Aurora,
                                       Box Elder Creek.                                   Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Arapahoe County.
                                      Approximately 3.80              None       + 5814
                                       miles upstream of East
                                       Alameda Avenue.
Goldsmith Gulch.....................  Just upstream of East         + 5591       + 5590  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Belleview Avenue.                                  Arapahoe County, City
                                                                                of Centennial, City of
                                                                                Greenwood Village.
                                      Approximately 100 feet          None       + 5773
                                       downstream of East
                                       Arapahoe Road.
Goldsmith Gulch West Tributary......  Approximately 400 feet        + 5640       + 5641  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       upstream of the                                    Arapahoe County, City
                                       confluence with                                    of Greenwood Village.
                                       Goldsmith Gulch.
                                      Approximately 100 feet        + 5735       + 5738
                                       downstream of East
                                       Peakview Avenue.
Greenwood Gulch.....................  Just upstream of              + 5344       + 5344  City of Centennial,
                                       Clarkson Street.                                   City of Cherry Hills
                                                                                Village, City of
                                                                                Greenwood Village.
                                      Just upstream of Holly        + 5525       + 5525
                                       Street.
Little Dry Creek....................  Just upstream of              + 5344       + 5339  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Clarkson Street.                                   Arapahoe County, City
                                                                                of Centennial, City of
                                                                                Cherry Hills Village,
                                                                                City of Greenwood
                                                                                Village.
                                      Just downstream of            + 5619       + 5618
                                       South Quebec Street.
Murphy Creek........................  Just downstream of East       + 5523       + 5523  City of Aurora,
                                       Alameda Avenue.                                    Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Arapahoe County.
                                      Approximately 1,700             None       + 6011
                                       feet downstream of
                                       East Wheatlands
                                       Parkway.
Prentice Gulch......................  At the confluence with        + 5407       + 5405  City of Greenwood
                                       Greenwood Gulch.                                   Village.
                                      Just upstream of Holly        + 5525       + 5525
                                       Street.
Quincy Gulch........................  At the confluence with        + 5414       + 5414  City of Cherry Hills
                                       Blackmer Gulch.                                    Village.
                                      Approximately 300 feet        + 5494       + 5494
                                       upstream of the High
                                       Line Canal.
SJCD 6200...........................  At the confluence with          None       + 5360  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       South Platte River.                                Arapahoe County, City
                                                                                of Littleton.
                                      Approximately 400 feet          None       + 5404
                                       downstream of South
                                       Platte Canyon Road.
Willow Creek........................  At the confluence with        + 5537       + 5536  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Little Dry Creek.                                  Arapahoe County.
                                      Just downstream of            + 5558       + 5559
                                       Englewood Dam outlet
                                       structure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

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

Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
 Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472..

                                                    ADDRESSES
City of Aurora
Maps are available for inspection at 15151 East Alameda Parkway, 3rd Floor, Aurora, CO 80012.

City of Centennial

Maps are available for inspection at the Arapahoe County Department of Public Works and Development, 10730 West
 Briarwood Avenue, Centennial, CO 80112.

City of Cherry Hills Village
Maps are available for inspection at 2450 East Quincy Avenue, Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113.

City of Greenwood Village
Maps are available for inspection at 6060 South Quebec Street, Greenwood Village, CO 80111.

City of Littleton
Maps are available for inspection at 2255 West Berry Avenue, Littleton, CO 80165.

                                     Unincorporated Areas of Arapahoe County
Maps are available for inspection at the Arapahoe County Department of Public Works and Development, 10730 East
 Briarwood Avenue, Centennial, CO 80112.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Fergus County, Montana, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flood Channel.......................  Approximately 70 feet         + 3609       + 3610  Town of Denton.
                                       upstream of Main
                                       Street Bridge.
                                      Approximately 50 feet         + 3610       + 3614
                                       upstream of Railroad
                                       Bridge.
Shallow Flooding....................  Intersection of Bain            None   1  Town of Denton.
                                       Street and Main Street.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

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

Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
 Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.
                                                    ADDRESSES
Town of Denton
Maps are available for inspection at 305 West Watson Street, Lewistown, MT 59457.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Tuscarawas County, Ohio, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beggar Run (Backwater from            At the confluence of            None        + 909  Unincorporated Areas of
 Tuscarawas River).                    Beggar Run with                                    Tuscarawas County.
                                       Conotton Creek.
                                      Approximately 0.78 mile         None        + 909
                                       upstream of the
                                       confluence of Beggar
                                       Run with Conotton
                                       Creek.
Browns Run (Backwater from            At the confluence of            None        + 909  Unincorporated Areas of
 Tuscarawas River).                    Browns Run with                                    Tuscarawas County.
                                       Conotton Creek.
                                      Just downstream of              None        + 909
                                       Henderson School Road.
Conotton Creek (Backwater from        At the confluence of            None        + 909  Unincorporated Areas of
 Tuscarawas River).                    Conotton Creek and                                 Tuscarawas County.
                                       Tuscarawas River.
                                      Approximately 0.76 mile         None        + 909
                                       upstream of Miller
                                       Hill Road (Tuscarawas/
                                       Carroll County
                                       boundary).
Dog Run (Backwater from Tuscarawas    At the confluence of            None        + 909  Unincorporated Areas of
 River).                               Dog Run and Conotton                               Tuscarawas County.
                                       Creek.
                                      Approximately 0.42 mile         None        + 909
                                       upstream of Norfolk
                                       and Western Railway.
Huff Run (Backwater from Tuscarawas   At the confluence of            None        + 909  Unincorporated Areas of
 River).                               Huff Run with Conotton                             Tuscarawas County,
                                       Creek.                                             Village of Mineral
                                                                                City.
                                      Approximately 1.38              None        + 909
                                       miles upstream of New
                                       Cumberland Road.
Indian Fork (Backwater from           At the confluence of            None        + 909  Unincorporated Areas of
 Tuscarawas River).                    Indian Fork with                                   Tuscarawas County.
                                       Conotton Creek.
                                      Just downstream of              None        + 909
                                       State Route 212.
Middle Run (Backwater from            At the confluence of            None        + 909  Unincorporated Areas of
 Tuscarawas River).                    Middle Run with                                    Tuscarawas County.
                                       Tuscarawas River.
                                      Approximately 0.72 mile         None        + 909
                                       upstream of Dover Zoar
                                       Road.
Small Middle Run (Backwater from      At the confluence of            None        + 909  Unincorporated Areas of
 Tuscarawas River).                    Small Middle Run with                              Tuscarawas County.
                                       Tuscarawas River.
                                      Approximately 500 feet          None        + 909
                                       downstream of Dover
                                       Zoar Road.
Stillwater Creek....................  Just downstream of the          None        + 844  City of Midvale.
                                       Baltimore and Ohio
                                       Railroad.

                                      Approximately 0.45 mile         None        + 845
                                       upstream of US Route
                                       250.
Tuscarawas River....................  Just upstream of the            None        + 909  Village of Bolivar,
                                       Dover Dam.                                         Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Tuscarawas County,
                                                                                Village of Zoar.
                                      Approximately 2.18              None        + 909
                                       miles upstream of
                                       State Route 212
                                       (Tuscarawas/Stark
                                       County boundary).
Tuscarawas River....................  Approximately 0.66 mile         None        + 838  Village of Tuscarawas.
                                       downstream of
                                       Tuscarawas Road.
Tuscarawas River....................  Approximately 1,000             None        + 831  Village of
                                       feet upstream of the                               Gnadenhutten.
                                       confluence of
                                       Tuscarawas River with
                                       Clewell Run.
Wolf Run (Backwater from Tuscarawas   At the confluence of            None        + 909  Unincorporated Areas of
 River).                               Wolf Run and                                       Tuscarawas County.
                                       Tuscarawas River.
                                      Approximately 0.89 mile         None        + 909
                                       upstream of Norfolk
                                       and Western Railway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

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

Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
 Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES
City of Midvale
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 311 Barnhill Road, Midvale, OH 44653.

                                    Unincorporated Areas of Tuscarawas County
Maps are available for inspection at the Tuscarawas County Administrative Offices, 125 East High Avenue, New
 Philadelphia, OH 44663.

Village of Bolivar
Maps are available for inspection at the Bolivar Village Hall, 109 Canal Street Northwest, Bolivar, OH 44612.

Village of Gnadenhutten
Maps are available for inspection at the Gnadenhutten Village Hall, 131 South Walnut Street, Gnadenhutten, OH
 44629.

Village of Mineral City
Maps are available for inspection at the Mineral City Village Hall, 8728 North High Street, Mineral City, OH
 44656.

Village of Tuscarawas
Maps are available for inspection at the Tuscarawas Village Hall, 522 East Cherry Street, Tuscarawas, OH 44682.

Village of Zoar
Maps are available for inspection at the County Administrative Offices, 125 East High Avenue, New Philadelphia,
 OH 44663.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Yankton County, South Dakota, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James River.........................  Just upstream of the            None       + 1167  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       confluence with the                                Yankton County.
                                       Missouri River.
                                      Approximately 600 feet          None       + 1188
                                       upstream of County
                                       Highway 213 (431st
                                       Avenue).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

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

Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
 Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES
                                     Unincorporated Areas of Yankton County
Maps are available for inspection at 321 West 3rd Street, Yankton, SD 57078.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Angelina County, Texas, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biloxi Creek North Tributary........  Approximately 0.6 miles         None        + 306  City of Lufkin.
                                       downstream of Loop 287.
                                      Just upstream of Loop           None        + 329
                                       287.
Cedar Creek.........................  Just downstream of              None        + 278  City of Lufkin.
                                       Lotus Lane.
                                      Just upstream of State          None        + 299
                                       Loop 339.
Cedar Creek North Tributary.........  Just upstream of Lotus          None        + 280  City of Lufkin.
                                       Lane.
                                      Approximately 1,070             None        + 286
                                       feet upstream of Texas
                                       Southeastern Rail Road.
Cedar Creek South Tributary.........  Confluence of Cedar            + 254        + 253  City of Lufkin.
                                       Creek and Cedar Creek
                                       South Tributary.
                                      Approximately 1,300             None        + 287
                                       feet upstream of Berry
                                       Road.
Cedar Creek Tributary 3.............  Confluence of Cedar             None        + 239  City of Lufkin.
                                       Creek Tributary 3 and
                                       Cedar Creek.
                                      Just upstream of Live           None        + 266
                                       Oak Lane.
East Fork of West Branch Mill Creek.  Confluence of; East            + 283        + 279  City of Lufkin.
                                       Fork of West Branch
                                       Mill Creek and
                                       Tributary to Mill
                                       Creek Tributary.
                                      Just downstream of US           None        + 300
                                       Highway 69.
Hurricane Creek.....................  Approximately 0.7 miles         None        + 232  City of Lufkin.
                                       downstream of College
                                       Drive.
                                      Just downstream of the         + 279        + 280
                                       intersection of Conn
                                       Avenue and Chestnut
                                       Street.
Hurricane Creek East Tributary (E)..  Approximately 0.6 miles         None        + 269  City of Lufkin.
                                       upstream of Brentwood
                                       Drive.
                                      Confluence of Hurricane         None        + 273
                                       Creek and Hurricane
                                       Creek East Tributary
                                       (E).
Hurricane Creek East Tributary (E)    Confluence of Hurricane        + 246        + 250  City of Lufkin.
 Tributary                             Creek East Tributary
                                       (E) Tributary and
                                       Hurricane Creek East
                                       Tributary (E).
                                      Approximately 0.5 miles         None        + 267
                                       upstream of Brentwood
                                       Drive.
Hurricane Creek East Tributary        Just downstream of              None        + 289  City of Lufkin.
 (North).                              Jones Street.
                                      Just upstream of                None        + 305
                                       Whipporwill Street.
Hurricane Creek East Tributary        Confluence of Hurricane         None        + 237  City of Lufkin.
 (South).                              Creek East Tributary
                                       (South) and Unnamed
                                       Tributary 4 to
                                       Hurricane Creek.
                                      Just upstream of Pine           None        + 265
                                       Valley Drive.
Hurricane Creek West Branch.........  Confluence of Hurricane        + 251        + 250  City of Lufkin.
                                       Creek and Hurricane
                                       Creek West Branch.
                                      Just upstream of Park           None        + 276
                                       Lane.
Mill Creek Tributary................  Approximately 1,486             None        + 290  City of Lufkin.
                                       feet downstream of
                                       Bonita Street.
                                      Approximately 230 feet          None        + 304
                                       upstream of Martin
                                       Luther King Drive.
One Eyed Creek......................  Just downstream of              None        + 289  City of Lufkin.
                                       Westwood Place.
                                      Just downstream of              None        + 309
                                       Fuller Springs Drive.
Shirley Creek.......................  Just upstream of Loop          + 259        + 262  City of Lufkin.
                                       287.
                                      Just upstream of                None        + 297
                                       Trenton Road.
Shirley Creek Tributary 2...........  Just downstream of Loop         None        + 294  City of Lufkin.
                                       287.
                                      Just downstream of              None        + 310
                                       Shady Pine Road.
Shirley Creek Tributary 2 East        Confluence of Shirley           None        + 277  City of Lufkin.
 Branch.                               Creek Tributary 2 and
                                       Shirley Creek
                                       Tributary 2 East
                                       Branch.
                                      Approximately 600 feet          None        + 296
                                       upstream of Freeman
                                       Street.
Tributary to Mill Creek Tributary...  Just downstream of the         + 271        + 272  City of Lufkin.
                                       City Lake Dam.
                                      Just downstream of US           None        + 305
                                       Highway 69.
Tributary to Paper Mill Creek         Just downstream of              None        + 272  City of Lufkin.
 Tributary.                            State Highway 103.
                                      Approximately 675 feet          None        + 290
                                       upstream of Freeman
                                       Street.
Unnamed Tributary 1 to Hurricane      Confluence of Hurricane        + 255        + 259  City of Lufkin.
 Creek.                                Creek and Unnamed
                                       Tributary 1 to
                                       Hurricane Creek.
                                      Just upstream of Farm-          None        + 293
                                       to-Market Road 58.
Unnamed Tributary 2 to Hurricane      Confluence of Hurricane         None        + 247  City of Lufkin.
 Creek.                                Creek and Unnamed
                                       Tributary 2 to
                                       Hurricane Creek.
                                      Approximately .4 miles          None        + 273
                                       upstream from Tulane
                                       Road.
Unnamed Tributary 3 to Hurricane      Confluence of Hurricane         None        + 236  City of Lufkin.
 Creek.                                Creek and Unnamed
                                       Tributary 3 to
                                       Hurricane Creek.
                                      Just upstream of Loop           None        + 264
                                       287.
Unnamed Tributary 4 to Hurricane      Confluence of Unnamed           None        + 237  City of Lufkin.
 Creek.                                Tributary 4 to
                                       Hurricane Creek and
                                       Hurricane Creek East
                                       Tributary (South).

                                      Approximately 773 feet          None        + 272
                                       upstream of Crown
                                       Colony Drive.
Unnamed Tributary to Papermill Creek  Limit of detailed study         None        + 244  City of Lufkin.
                                       nearest to Kit
                                       McConnico Park.
                                      Lower limit of detailed         None        + 252
                                       study (no physical
                                       reference available).
                                      Approximately 0.6 miles         None        + 252
                                       downstream of Moffett
                                       Road.
                                      Approximately 0.5 miles         None        + 252
                                       downstream of Moffett
                                       Road.
                                      Approximately 1,800             None        + 254
                                       feet downstream of Old
                                       Moffett Road.
                                      Just upstream of State         + 259        + 261
                                       Loop 287.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

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

Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
 Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES
City of Lufkin
Maps are available for inspection at 300 East Shepard Avenue, Lufkin, TX 75901.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Dated: May 21, 2009.
Deborah S. Ingram,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Mitigation
Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-12847 Filed 6-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-12-P