Table C-1.  F019 sludge specific gravities and solids content

	facility/city	average specific gravity	average solids content	data source

 	(g/cm3)	(percent by weight)

BMW/Greer	1	30	June 2000 delisting petition

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North/Detroit	No data; “1” assumed	No data

	Ford/Wayne	No data; “1” assumed	No data

	Ford/Wixom	No data, “1” assumed	No data

	GM/Flint	1	No data	June 9, 2003 amended delisting petition

GM Hamtramck/Detroit 	1.41	53	June 9, 2003 amended delisting petition; February 1999 delisting petition for GM Lordstown

GM/Lansing	1.22	44	November 1998 delisting petition; February 1999 delisting petition for GM Lordstown; November 2001 verification data; October 2002 verification data

GM/Lansing Grand River	1	No data	June 9, 2003 amended delisting petition

GM/Lordstown	1.19	48	Specific gravity inferred from February 1999 delisting petition; solids content from February 1999 delisting petition

GM Orion Assembly/Lake Orion	0.96	No data	Inferred from January 1996 delisting petition

GM/Pontiac	1	No data	June 9, 2003 delisting petition

Nissan/Smyrna	1.25	37	October 2000 delisting petition

Table C-2 shows the various annual F019 (and corresponding delisted sludge) generation and/or disposal volumes, converted into cubic yardages using the specific gravities and conversion equation described above, for these twelve facilities, where available.  In some instances (usually in delisting petitions), facilities reported the quantities of sludge generated, while in other instances (usually when reporting results of delisting verification sampling) facilities reported the quantities of sludge disposed.  We use either of these reported quantities (generation and/or disposal) for a given facility for a given year, in the sludge volume data presented in tables C-2 through C-4.  We use the sludge volume data as one of the model inputs to the DRASv2 model (quantity disposed in the unlined landfill):

Table C-2.  F019 sludge quantities by individual facility

facility/city	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003 2004	data source

	BMW/Greer

	698	540	563	426	November 7, 2005 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers letter

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North/Detroit

470	November 7, 2005 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers letter

Ford/Wayne

	1057	1031	970	1088	November 7, 2005 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers letter

Ford/Wixom

	893	782	554	658	November 7, 2005 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers letter

GM/Flint

1759	2385	2119	2419	2543/2704	3714	2775	June 9, 2003 amended delisting petition, p. 23; November 7, 2005 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers letter

GM Hamtramck/Detroit

680	912	801	618	344/619	351	284	June 9, 2003 amended delisting petition, p. 23; November 7, 2005 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers letter

GM/Lansing

	1076	805	725

	648	578	358	November 1998 delisting petition, p. 2-2; November 7, 2005 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers letter

GM/Lansing Grand River

	314	171/286	178	221	June 9, 2003 amended delisting petition, p. 24; November 7, 2005 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers letter

GM/Lordstown

682	535	568

497	452	265	February 1999 delisting petition, p. 2-2; November 7, 2005 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers letter

GM Orion Assembly/Lake Orion	445	1111

	778	828	707	700	343	307	January 1996 delisting petition, Table 2-1; December 1999 delisting verification cover letter; March 2001 delisting verification cover letter; December 2001 delisting verification data cover letter; January 2003 delisting verification cover letter; November 7, 2005 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers letter

GM/Pontiac

1045	1286	1383	932	263	1068	814	June 9, 2003 amended delisting petition, p. 24; November 7, 2005 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers letter

Nissan/Smyrna

950

	October 2000 delisting petition p. 3-4

	Note on GM Flint 2002: 2543 cubic yards is from June 2003 amended delisting petition; 2704 cubic yards is from Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers’ letter.

	Note on GM Hamtramck 2002: 619 cubic yards is from June 2003 amended delisting petition; 344 cubic yards is from Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers’ letter.

	Note on GM Lansing Grand River 2001: value of 78 cubic yards for a three-month period in 2001 multiplied by 4 to yield estimated 2001 value of 314 cubic yards.

 For 2002: 171 cubic yards is from Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers’ letter; 286 cubic yards is from June 2003 amended delisting petition.

For two reported values for the same facility in the same year in the table above, we use the average of the two reported values.

Several of the General Motors delisting petitions, and in one case, a delisting verification data cover letter, stated that, if successfully delisted, the waste formerly classified as F019 from one motor vehicle manufacturing facility would be disposed at the same landfill as former F019 waste from another motor vehicle manufacturing facility.  We call this situation “co-disposal.” Co-disposal has an impact on the total amount of F019 waste from motor vehicle manufacturers that is disposed in the landfill, and thus has an impact on the quantity of chemical constituents that would be released from the landfill.

Table C-3 shows the co-disposed volumes, according to these delisting petitions and the delisting verification cover letter described above, along with an assumption that General Motors’ Lake Orion, Hamtramck, and Pontiac facilities all use the same landfill:

Table C-3.  F019 sludge quantities for single facilities and co-disposing facilities

 	 	 	 	single-facility	all	all

generation/	single-facility	contribution to	contributors	contributors

facility/city	year	disposal	co-disposal	co-disposal	co-disposal co-disposal

volume	observation	Volume	observation 	volume

 	 	(cubic yards)	number	(cubic yards)	number	(cubic yards)

BMW/Greer	2001	698

BMW/Greer	2002	540

BMW/Greer	2003	563

BMW/Greer	2004	426

DCJN/Detroit	2004	470

Ford/Wayne	2001	1057

Ford/Wayne	2002	1031

Ford/Wayne	2003	970

Ford/Wayne	2004	1088

Ford/Wixom	2001	893

Ford/Wixom	2002	782

Ford/Wixom	2003	554

Ford/Wixom	2004	658

GM/Flint	1998	1759

GM/Flint	1999	2385

GM/Flint	2000	2119

GM/Flint	2001	2419	1	2419	1	2733

GM/Flint	2002	2624	2	2624	2	2853

GM/Flint	2003	3714	3	3714	3	3892

GM/Flint	2004	2775	4	2775	4	2996

GM/Hamtramck	1998	680	10	680	5	1487

GM/Hamtramck	1999	912	11	912	6	1260

GM/Hamtramck	2000	801	12	801	7	1145

GM/Hamtramck	2001	618	13	618	8	1030

GM/Hamtramck	2002	482	14	482	9	623

GM/Hamtramck	2003	351	15	351	10	1725

GM/Hamtramck	2004	284	16	284	11	2976

GM/Lansing	1995	1076

	12	3012

GM/Lansing	1996	805	5	805	13	2257

GM/Lansing	1997	725	6	725	14	1445

GM/Lansing	2002	648	7	648	15	1762

GM/Lansing	2003	578	8	578	16	1405

GM/Lansing	2004	358	9	358

GM/LGR	2001	314	1	314

GM/LGR	2002	229	2	229

GM/LGR	2003	178	3	178

GM/LGR	2004	221	4	221

GM/Lordstown	1996	682	5	682

GM/Lordstown	1997	535	6	535

GM/Lordstown	1998	568

GM/Lordstown	2002	497	7	497

GM/Lordstown	2003	452	8	452

GM/Lordstown	2004	265	9	265

GM/LakeOrion	1993	445

GM/LakeOrion	1994	1111

GM/LakeOrion	1999	778	11	778

GM/LakeOrion	2000	828	12	828

GM/LakeOrion	2001	707	13	707

GM/LakeOrion	2002	700	14	700

GM/LakeOrion	2003	343	15	343

GM/LakeOrion	2004	307	16	307

GM/Pontiac	1998	1045	10	1045

GM/Pontiac	1999	1286	11	1286

GM/Pontiac	2000	1383	12	1383

GM/Pontiac	2001	932	13	932

GM/Pontiac	2002	263	14	263

GM/Pontiac	2003	1068	15	1068

GM/Pontiac	2004	814	16	814

Nissan/Smyrna	2000	950

Note: DCJN/Detroit is DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North, Detroit

Table C-4 shows the entire distribution of motor vehicle manufacturers’ F019 sludge generation or disposal volumes, composed of single-facility generation/disposal volumes when a single facility disposes at a given landfill, and the combined generation/disposal volumes for those facilities which appear to be co-disposing at the same landfill.  This distribution has 37 data points:

Table C-4.  Distribution of single-facility and co-disposing facility F019

 sludge quantities with calculated average

 	 	rank-ordered	 	percentile

	sequence

generation or

of

number

disposal volume

rank-ordered

 	 	(cubic yards)	 	value

	1

426

2.7

2

445

5.3

3

470

8.0

4

540

10.7

5

554

13.3

6

563

16.0

7

568

18.7

8

623

21.3

9

658

24.0

10

698

26.7

11

782

29.3

12

893

32.0

13

950

34.7

14

970

37.3

15

1030

40.0

16

1031

42.7

17

1057

45.3

18

1076

48.0

19

1088

50.7

20

1111

53.3

21

1145

56.0

22

1260

58.7

23

1405

61.3

24

1445

64.0

25

1487

66.7

26

1725

69.3

27

1759

72.0

28

1762

74.7

29

2119

77.3

30

2257

80.0

31

2385

82.7

32

2733

85.3

33

2853

88.0

34

2976

90.7

35

2996

93.3

36

3012

96.0

37

3892

98.7

	average:	1426

The median waste volume is approximately 1088 cubic yards, the average is approximately 1426 cubic yards, and the 90th percentile of the ranked values is approximately 2900 cubic yards.

 a chemical reaction with oxygen from air

 In some cases the wastewater might be discharged to a body of surface water such as a river or stream, rather than to a municipal wastewater treatment system.

 referred to as “filter cake” in many of the delisting petitions

 Although iron sometimes causes adverse health effects when excessive amounts are consumed, and silicon can present human health concerns if particles containing it are inhaled.

 Depending on the oil and grease content of the waste, the laboratory analyst might perform the Oily Waste Extraction Procedure instead.

 RCRA does not regulate the exposure levels of workers to toxic chemicals, but hazards to workers from waste during handling, transportation, and disposal have been the basis for classifying waste as hazardous.  OSHA Permissible Exposure Levels have in fact been used by EPA in some cases in implementing the hazardous characteristics.  See 40 CFR §§ 261. 21 – 261.23; 45 FR 33108-33110, May 19, 1980; the technical background support documents to the May 19, 1980 FR  for the hazardous characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity, available in the RCRA docket; the July 12, 1985 RCRA guidance memo at   HYPERLINK "http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/0c994248c239947e85256d090071175f/D E154C56809559D28525670F006C2B35/$file/11091.pdf_"  http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/0c994248c239947e85256d090071175f/DE 154C56809559D28525670F006C2B35/$file/11091.pdf   and the April 21, 1998 memo at    HYPERLINK "http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/0c994248c239947e85256d090071175f/1 C580639372378C985257067006D94CE/$file/14177.pdf_"  http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/0c994248c239947e85256d090071175f/1C 580639372378C985257067006D94CE/$file/14177.pdf  .

 Regulations governing delisting are found in 40 CFR 260.22.

 In visits to manufacturing plants receiving delistings, we also found that sludge dewatering equipment and sludge containers were kept inside buildings, which would further reduce any potential for releases. While these management practices may reflect the fact that the delisted sludges were previously hazardous waste, we assume that these practices would not substantively change.  We have no information from any source suggesting that facilities store wastes in piles on the ground.

See Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 263 for the federal regulations for hazardous waste transporters and Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 172, 173, 178 and 179 for US DOT requirements for hazardous materials transport.

See Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 264 and 265 for the federal regulations for hazardous waste disposal in landfills, and Part 268 for requirements for treatment before land disposal.

See Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 258 for the federal regulations for nonhazardous waste disposal in landfills.  State and local, or tribal, requirements would apply as well.

 States can approve use of alternate non-earthen materials that do not present a risk to human health or the environment.

 In these criteria, “Periodic application of cover material” means the application and compaction of soil or other suitable material over disposed solid waste at the end of each operating day or at such frequencies and in such a manner as to reduce the risk of fire and to impede vectors access to the waste.

 A fate and transport model usually does not represent all of the influences that might affect the chemical constituent’s fate and transport, since each influence imposes additional complexity on the model’s structure and operation.  Model developers and users must often sacrifice complexity in the interest of feasibility, due to data limitations, lack of scientific knowledge in particular areas, hardware and software limitations, etc.  Model developers make simplifying assumptions as part of this trade-off between complexity and feasibility.

 EPA posted a “User Alert” description of the known problems with DRASv2 on the Internet at   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/f019/pdf/0038-2.pdf"  http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/f019/pdf/0038-2.pdf  in June 2005.  The correction needed in forward-calculate mode is changes to the default DAFs for certain chemical constituents (shown in the model inputs in Appendix B).  The “User Alert” referred to a possible unit conversion error with the air volatiles emission calculations that may be present in the documentation but not in the actual model code.

 Review of EPA's Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation Products.  EPA-SAB-EEC-95-010.  July, 1995.

 See the discussion of uncertainty in section 9.

 Usually called Reference Doses and Reference Concentrations for human health effects, and toxicity reference values for ecological effects

 Enter a waste volume, risk and hazard quotient values, the number of years disposed, and leachate and totals concentration, adjust the default DAFs if specified in the User Alert, run the model, and review the output screens for hazard quotients.  Ignore the limiting pathways and “maximum allowable” output screens.

 Note that these variable settings are only for the groundwater dermal exposure during bathing, and soil ingestion exposure routes.  For the groundwater ingestion exposure route, see the discussion in section 5.1.1 of the adjustment factor applied to account for children age 0-4.

 equivalent to 3000 cubic yards disposed per year, for 30 years, or 4500 cubic yards disposed per year for 20 years

 Equivalent to 1088 cubic yards disposed per year, for 20 years.  1088 cubic yards is roughly the median value of a distribution of annual waste volumes that were either generated at, or disposed by, twelve U.S. motor vehicle manufacturing facilities.  20 years is the default disposal time period in DRASv2, and is also typically used by EPA Regional Offices in performing delisting analyses.

 Note that the results described as “central tendency” here only reflect changes in these two variables (annual waste volume and disposal time), and drinking water intake.  The remaining variables, such as the dilution/attenuation factor, remain at high end settings.

 Calculated as a time-weighted average of the 90th percentile drinking water intakes presented for <1-year-olds and 1 to 3-year-olds in Table 12 of Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook.

 The slight differences in body weights are due to the DRASv2 model’s built-in assumption that the child who bathes using groundwater and ingests soil weighs 15 kilograms, while our adjustment factor for groundwater ingestion is for a 12.7 kilogram child (the time-weighted average body weight of 6-month-olds to 4 year olds).

 See the letter from the Terry Behrman, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers to James Michael, EPA dated November 7, 2005 in the docket.

 See Method 931.08 in Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 15th ed. Vol. 2, Arlington, VA, Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC 1990).

 See the message and attached information from Dr. William Miller, General Motors Corporation, to James Michael, EPA, dated February 17, 2006 in the docket.

 Also see SW 846 analytical method 8315, which shows that extracting a solid sample with an aqueous extraction effectively partitions the formaldehyde to the water phase for analysis.

 noncancer hazard quotient equal to one.

 A one to 1.5 millimeter thick geomembrane flexible membrane layer made from HDPE (high density polyethylene), overlying a geosynthetic (bentonite) clay layer 6 millimeters thick, with two geotextile outer layers (one above and one below the bentonite).

 noncancer hazard quotient of one

 IWEM models inhalation occurring in the shower enclosure and bathroom only, while DRASv2 models inhalation occurring in the shower enclosure, bathroom and the rest of the house.

 For acetonitrile, acrolein, acrylamide, carbon disulfide, chlorobenzene, m-cresol, o-cresol, p-cresol,  ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, methylene chloride, styrene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and xylenes we used Illinois aquatic life criteria for general use waters (Illinois Pollution Control Board 2006, Illinois EPA 2006); for antimony and naphthalene we used chronic aquatic life use criteria from the Kansas Administrative Regulations (Kansas 2004a and Kansas 2004b).

The ecological risk estimates depend solely on totals concentrations, not on leachate concentrations.

 EPA2002a, page 4-13.

 For barium, there were 105 detections out of 105 totals samples; the calculated median concentration was 390 mg/kg.  For lead, there were 93 detected values out of 105 totals samples; the calculated median concentration of the 93 detected values was 340 mg/kg.

 A “dilution/attenuation factor,” or DAF, is the ratio of the concentration of the constituent in the waste leachate to the concentration of that constituent at the modeled drinking water well.  It is a mathematical representation, for that constituent, of all of the fate and transport processes that the groundwater model simulates.

 The analytical data for fluoride included a total of ten TCLP data points from the GM Lansing, MI site that were calculated rather than measured values.  That is, the totals results for fluoride in these samples were simply divided by 20 to estimate the TCLP values.  While this approach will give an estimate of the maximum TCLP values expected, this appears to have significantly overestimated the levels of leachable fluoride.  The ratio of the totals to measured TCLP values that were determined in other samples from the Lansing plant shows an average ratio of 400 (median value 360).  This ratio for measured values is significantly higher than the factor of 20 used to estimate TCLP results for fluoride.  Therefore, EPA believes that the ten “calculated” TCLP values overestimate the actual fluoride concentrations in the TCLP samples.  Without including these ten TCLP data points, the maximum fluoride TCLP concentration was 1.75 mg/L, compared to the maximum value of 33 mg/L generated from the estimated results.

 As noted earlier, the levels of leachable cyanide were low, and were not of concern for human noncancer health effects via the groundwater pathway.

 see constituents listed in Table 3 as “Detected only in leachate samples (not in “totals” samples).

 For example, EPA 2003c, p. 4-19.

 For the groundwater pathways, the underlying model, EPACMTP, that is used as the basis of the DRASv2 groundwater results, converts a waste volume model input into a mass using either a user-supplied or default assumption of waste density.  The DRASv2 model does not allow the user to supply a waste density; thus apparently DRASv2 applies a default waste density to convert the user-supplied waste volume into a mass quantity.  The DRASv2 documentation does not specify what waste density is built into the DRASv2 model.

except for soil intakes and body surface areas

 Commerce 1998.  U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Economics and Statistics Administration, Current Population Reports: Household Economics Studies: Seasonality of Moves and Duration of Residence.  Table 5.

 Available on the Internet at   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/iris/intro.htm"  http://www.epa.gov/iris/intro.htm

We used toxicity values available as of early 2004.

 This database is not available to the general public.

 Available on the Internet at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls.html

 However, not all mutagens that EPA reviewed when developing the 2005 guidelines show higher cancer risks.

 See EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database, entry for inorganic arsenic, under “Carcinogenicity Assessment: Supporting Data for Carcinogenicity.”

 Each constituent may migrate from the landfill at a different rate, due to differences in soil sorption rates, solubility, and other variables.  The cumulative effect of these differences can mean vastly different rates of subsurface transport.

 A compacted clay liner is composed of natural mineral materials, a bentonite-soil blend, and other materials placed and compacted in layers to (typically at least two feet thick).

 A geosynthetic clay liner is a relatively thin layer of processed clay (typically bentonite) fixed between two layers of geotextile.

 Note that we could use an additional data source, the Biennial Report data required under 40 CFR 262.41 for hazardous waste generators, to corroborate some of the data shown here.  We have elected not to do for several reasons: 1) Biennial Report data are converted in the Biennial Report database to be exclusively in tonnages, and we would introduce additional uncertainty by assuming specific gravities in order to convert them into cubic yards, the units needed for the DRASv2 model input; and 2) querying the Biennial Report database requires some interpretation of query results, further increasing our uncertainty in the volumes disposed.

 Delisting petitions for General Motors’ Lansing Car Assembly and Lordstown plants stated an intention to dispose of delisted F019 waste at a landfill in East Carbon, Utah; delisting petitions for General Motors’ Hamtramck and Pontiac plants stated an intention to dispose of delisted F019 waste at a landfill in Wayne, Michigan; and delisting petitions for General Motors’ Lansing Grand River and Flint plants stated an intention to dispose of delisted F019 waste at a landfill in Lennon, Michigan.

 A verification data cover letter for General Motors’ Orion Assembly plant stated a change in landfill disposal from East Carbon, Utah to a landfill in Northwood Ohio.  The Hamtramck and Pontiac plants’ delisting petitions had stated an intention to d獩潰敳漠敤楬瑳摥䘠㄰‹瑡琠楨⁳慳敭丠牯桴潷摯 桏潩氠湡晤汩ⱬ戠瑵愠浡湥敤数楴楴湯猠扵業瑴 摥氠瑡牥漠瑳瑡摥愠爠癥獩摥椠瑮湥楴湯琠楤灳獯 景搠汥獩整う㤱愠⁴桴慗湹ⱥ䴠捩楨慧慬摮楦 汬മ̍഍ഄ̍഍ഄ

E

Œ

Õ

.

…

Ç

ÿ

h

$

%

?

@

A

C

D

E

k

l

†

‡

ˆ

Š

‹

Œ

´

µ

Ï

Ð

Ñ

Ó

Ô

Õ

h

h

h

h

h

(

)

*

,

-

.

d

e

€

ƒ

„

…

¦

§

Á

Â

Ã

Å

Æ

Ç

Þ

ß

ù

h

h

h

h

h

*ù

ú

û

ý

þ

ÿ

h

h

h

h

h

h

j¸

h

j;

h

h

h

h

h

j¬

h

j/

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

j

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

摧ᰗk

h

h

D

kd

h

h

4

5

²

³

¾

¿

‹

'T

kd¼

T

T

T

T

T

T

hu

&

 h

h

h

h

ñÿ%

'4

ñÿ%

'4

ñÿ%

'4

'†

h

ñÿ%

'4

'†

h

̀

ñÿ%

'4

ñÿ%

'4

'†

ñÿ%

'4

ñÿ%

'4

'†

ñÿ%

'4

'†

h¾

kd

&

hÝ

hÝ

ž

ž

ž

ž

hÝ

Ā

'=

 h

h

hr

h

$

%

9

:

h

@

A

@

A

h

h‹

h

ñÿ 	ò

ñÿ 	ò

ñÿ 	ò

ñÿ 	ò

ñÿ 	ò

ñÿ 	ò

ñÿ 	ò

ñÿ 	ò

ñÿ 	ò

ñÿ 	ò

ñÿ 	ò

ñÿ 	ò

ñÿ 	ò

ñÿ 	ò

ñÿ 	ò

ñÿ 	ò

ñÿ 	ò

ñÿ 	ò

ñÿ 	ò

ñÿ 	ò

kdV

kdÉ

kdo

h

h

&

gdõ@

h

hõ@

hõ@

hõ@

hõ@

 hõ@

hõ@

 hõ@

h

h

h°

'Œ

kd

kd

'

'

'

'

ᔏꥨὛᘀꥨὛ尀脈ᘉꥨὛ尀脈ᘉ艨尀脈ᘉ嵨갳尀脈ᘉ 㙨옎尀脈ᘉ鹨祦尀脈ᘉ塨稒尀脈㈀

 h

h

h

h

hã

h#

h@j

h

h@j

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

ñÿ¬

'»

h@j

h@j

ñÿ.

ñÿº	.

ñÿº	.

ñÿº	.

ñÿº	.

ñÿº	.

ñÿº	.

ñÿº	.

ñÿº	.

kd'

kdú

Õ

Ö

Ø

hÅ

hÅ

h#

h#

hÞ

 hÞ

hÞ

hë

hë

g

h

’

“

Ò

Ó

,

-

‚

»

¼

:

;

Š

‹

Ô

Õ

E

F

p

q

®

¯

h{

h{

§

¨

§

j

.DELIBERATIVE DOCUMENT – DO NOT RELEASE - 6/8/2006

 PAGE

 PAGE  i


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11419-11421]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03920]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88259; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2020-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate the Requirement That the
Intraday Indicative Value Be Disseminated as Set Forth Under Rule
14.11(c) for Certain Series of Index Fund Shares and Under Rule
14.11(i) for All Series of Managed Fund Shares

February 21, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 14, 2020, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BZX'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed
rule change to eliminate the requirement that the Intraday Indicative
Value be disseminated as set forth under Rule 14.11(c) (``Index Fund
Shares'') for certain series of Index Fund Shares and under Rule
14.11(i) (``Managed Fund Shares'') for all series of Managed Fund
Shares. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Exchange Rules 14.11(c) and 14.11(i) relate to the listing and
trading of Index Fund Shares and Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange.
Among a number of other requirements, numerous sub-paragraphs of each
of these rules require that an intraday estimate of the value of a
share of each series (the ``Intraday Indicative Value'' or ``IIV'') of
Index Fund Shares and Managed Fund Shares be disseminated and updated
at least every 15 seconds.\3\ The Exchange is proposing to eliminate
the requirement to disseminate an IIV for all series of Managed Fund
Shares \4\ listed on the Exchange and for those series of Index Fund
Shares that also publish their Portfolio Holdings (as defined below) on
a daily basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See subparagraphs (c)(3)(C), (c)(6)(A), and (c)(9)(B)(i)(e)
of Exchange Rule 14.11. See also subparagraphs (i)(3)(C), (i)(3)(D),
(i)(4)(B)(i), (i)(4)(B)(iii)(b), and (i)(4)(B)(iv) of Exchange Rule
14.11.
    \4\ The Exchange notes that Rule 14.11(i)(4)(B)(ii)(a) requires
that the Disclosed Portfolio for a series of Managed Fund Shares be
disseminated at least once daily and be made available to all market
participants at the same time. Further, Rule 14.11(i)(4)(B)(iii)(b)
requires that the Exchange consider suspension of trading in and
commence delisting proceedings for a series of Managed Fund Shares
where the Disclosed Portfolio is not made available to all market
participants at the same time. As such, the Exchange is proposing to
eliminate the IIV dissemination requirements entirely from Rule
14.11(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of this proposal, the Exchange is also proposing to adopt
proposed Rule 14.11(c)(1)(F) to define the term ``Portfolio Holdings''
which would mean the holdings of a particular series of Index Fund
Shares that will form the basis for the calculation of its net asset
value (``NAV'') at the end of the business day.\5\ Existing Exchange
Rules require issuers of Managed Fund Shares to provide IIV and daily
disclosure of the Disclosed Portfolio.\6\ Similarly, existing Exchange
Rules require issuers of Index Fund Shares to disseminate an IIV for
each fund, but do not universally require daily disclosure of a fund's
underlying holdings.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For purposes of Rule 14.11(c), Portfolio Holdings would
include various information, to the extent applicable, as listed in
proposed subparagraphs (c)(1)(F)(i) through (c)(1)(F)(xi). The
proposed definition of Portfolio Holdings is substantively identical
to the definition of ``Disclosed Portfolio'' as set forth in Rule
14.11(i)(3)(B).
    \6\ See subparagraphs (i)(3)(B), (i)(4)(A)(ii), and
(i)(4)(B)(ii) of Exchange Rule 14.11. The term ``Disclosed
Portfolio'' means the identities and quantities of the securities
and other assets held by the Investment Company that will form the
basis for the Investment Company's calculation of net asset value at
the end of the business day. See also Exchange Rule 14.11(i)(3)(B).
    \7\ The Exchange notes that Rule 14.11(c)(1)(B)(iv) would
require the daily disclosure of certain information related to a
fund's portfolio holdings where a fund ``seeks to provide investment
results that either exceed the performance of a specified . . .
index . . . by a specified multiple or that correspond to the
inverse (opposite) of the performance of a specified . . . index . .
. by a specified multiple,'' however, the Exchange does not
currently list any such funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The dissemination of an IIV, together with disclosure of the fund's
underlying

holdings, was designed to allow investors to determine the value of the
underlying portfolio of such funds on a daily basis and provide a close
estimate of that value throughout the trading day. However, as
consistently highlighted in the adopting release of Rule 17 CFR 270.6c-
11 (``Rule 6c-11'') \8\ under the Investment Company Act of 1940 \9\
(the ``1940 Act''), the Commission has expressed concerns regarding the
accuracy of IIV estimates for certain Exchange-Traded Funds
(``ETFs'').\10\ Specifically, the Commission noted that an IIV may not
accurately reflect the value of an ETF that holds securities that trade
less frequently as such IIV can be stale or inaccurate.\11\ Similarly,
the Commission also expressed concerns with the IIV of ETFs with
frequently traded component securities because ``in today's fast moving
markets, given the dissemination lags, an IIV may not accurately
reflect the value of an ETF that holds frequently traded component
securities.'' \12\ Additionally, the Commission indicated that even in
circumstances when an IIV may be reliable, retail investors do not have
easy access to free, publicly available IIV information.\13\ Further,
in instances when IIV may be free and publicly available, it can be
delayed by up to 45 minutes.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Investment Company Act Release No. 10695 (September 25,
2019), 84 FR 57162 (October 24, 2019) (the ``Adopting Release'').
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-1.
    \10\ An Exchange-Traded Fund means a registered open-end
investment company: (i) That issues (and redeems) creation units to
(and from) authorized participants in exchange for a basket and a
cash balancing amount if any; and (ii) Whose shares are listed on a
national securities exchange and traded at market-determined prices.
See Id.
    \11\ See supra note 8, at 62.
    \12\ See id.
    \13\ See Id., at 66.
    \14\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Aside from the fact that the disseminated IIV may provide investors
with stale or misleading data, the Commission also stated that market
makers and authorized participants typically calculate their own
intraday value of an ETF's portfolio with proprietary algorithms that
use an ETF's daily portfolio disclosure and available pricing
information.\15\ Such information allows those market participants to
support the arbitrage mechanism for ETFs. The arbitrage mechanism is
designed to help keep the market price of ETF shares at or close to the
NAV per share of an ETF, and is important because it helps to ensure
ETF investors are treated equitably when buying and selling fund
shares.\16\ Therefore, as market participants who engage in arbitrage
typically calculate their own intraday value of an ETF's portfolio
based on the ETF's daily portfolio disclosure and pricing information
and use an IIV only as a secondary check to their own calculation,\17\
the Commission noted that IIV was not necessary to support the
arbitrage mechanism.\18\ Given this, combined with shortcomings of the
IIV noted above, the Commission concluded that ETFs will not be
required to disseminate an IIV under Rule 6c-11.\19\ As such, exchange
listing rules are the only reason that a series of Managed Fund Shares
is required to disseminate an IIV. Similarly, exchange listings rules
are the only reason that a series of Index Fund Shares that also
publishes its Portfolio Holdings on a daily basis is required to
disseminate an IIV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Id., at 63.
    \16\ See Id., at 12.
    \17\ See Id., at 63.
    \18\ See Id., at 65.
    \19\ See Id., at 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the limitations and shortcomings of IIV
as it pertains to ETFs relying on Rule 6c-11 and highlighted in the
Adopting Release are equally applicable to all Managed Fund Shares
listed on the Exchange and Index Fund Shares for which the Portfolio
Holdings are disclosed on a daily basis. The Exchange further agrees
with the conclusion of the Adopting Release that the ``IIV is not
necessary to support the arbitrage mechanism for ETFs that provide
daily portfolio holdings disclosure.'' The transparency that comes from
daily portfolio holdings disclosure provides market participants with
sufficient information to facilitate the intraday valuation of the
shares of an ETF, including Managed Fund Shares and Index Fund Shares
for which Portfolio Holdings are disclosed daily, which, ignoring the
many criticisms of IIV in the Adopting Order, renders IIV at the very
least duplicative and unnecessary.
    As such, the Exchange is proposing to eliminate the requirement for
the dissemination of the IIV for all series of Managed Fund Shares and
for Index Fund Shares for which Portfolio Holdings are disclosed on a
daily basis. Additionally, the Exchange is proposing to make conforming
numbering changes to Rules 14.11(c) and 14.11(i).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\20\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \21\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The proposed amendment seeks to eliminate the requirement that Managed
Fund Shares and Index Fund Shares for which the Portfolio Holdings are
disclosed daily, disseminate an IIV for the same reasons articulated in
the Adopting Order for Rule 6c-11, which does not require the
dissemination of IIV. The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment
will eliminate the dissemination of potentially stale and misleading
IIV information to market participants, as was also noted in the
Adopting Order. Further, as the proposed rule text would only eliminate
the requirement for series of Index Fund Shares \22\ and Managed Fund
Shares \23\ that provide full daily portfolio transparency, such full
daily portfolio transparency would provide market participants with a
tool to easily calculate the IIV of a series of Managed Fund Shares or
Index Fund Shares, which the Exchange believes generally mitigates the
need for the dissemination of an IIV for certain series of Index Fund
Shares or Managed Fund Shares. Nonetheless, nothing in this proposal
limits the ability of such Index Fund Shares or Managed Fund Shares
from disseminating the IIV should they choose to do so. Further, the
Exchange notes that its rules still include certain circumstances in
which an issuer would be required to disseminate an IIV.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \22\ As provided in proposed Rules 14.11(c)(3)(C) and
14.11(c)(6)(A), a series of Index Fund Shares would only be exempt
from IIV dissemination requirements where there is daily public
website disclosure of Portfolio Holdings.
    \23\ See supra note 4.
    \24\ For example, a series of Index Fund Shares that does not
provide daily portfolio transparency would still be required to
disseminate an IIV. Additionally, the requirement of IIV
dissemination will continue to be required for certain products that
are not subject to the Investment Company Act of 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the proposed rule change, the Exchange believes
issuers may benefit from cost savings because of the eliminated
requirement to disseminate an IIV. The reduced cost

could also result in lower barriers to entry for new issuers and new
series of Managed Fund Shares and Index Fund Shares for which the
Portfolio Holdings are disclosed daily, which will result in enhanced
competition among products and issuers of such funds, which can lead to
lower fees for investors, encourage financial innovation, and increase
investor choice in the ETF market.

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. To the contrary, the
Exchange believes that issuers may benefit from cost savings and lower
barriers to entry because of the eliminated requirement to disseminate
an IIV. In turn, the proposed rule change will enable increased product
competition among issuers of such funds, which can lead to lower fees
for investors, encourage financial innovation, and increase investor
choice in the ETF market.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CboeBZX-2020-007 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2020-007. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2020-007 and should be submitted
on or before March 19, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.

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

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-03920 Filed 2-26-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 60 (Thursday, March 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 15783]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06293]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent of waiver with respect to land; Lake Superior
College and City of Duluth, Duluth, Minnesota.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering a proposal to change 42.29 acres of
airport land from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use of property
located at Lake Superior College--Emergency Response Training Center,
11501 MN Highway 23, Duluth, MN 55808. The aforementioned land is not
needed for aeronautical use.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review by appointment at the FAA
Dakota-Minnesota Airports District Office, Jake Martin, Program
Manager, 6020 South 28th Ave., Suite 102, Minneapolis, MN 55450
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>/Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or
mailed to: Jake Martin, Program Manager, Federal Aviation
Administration, Dakota-Minnesota Airports District Office, 6020 South
28th Ave., Suite 102, Minneapolis, MN 55450 Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>/
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Martin, Program Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, Dakota-Minnesota Airports District Office,
6020 South 28th Ave., Suite 102, Minneapolis, MN 55450 Telephone: 612-
253-4634/Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 47107(h) of Title
49, United States Code, this notice is required to be published in the
Federal Register 30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that
requires the property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.
    The property is located along Highway 23 on the border of Minnesota
and Wisconsin, near the point where the St. Louis River enters Lake
Superior. This property is used to provide aircraft rescue and
firefighting (ARFF) training to personnel working for fire departments
responding to crashes involving aircraft. The proposed non-aeronautical
use is to shift focus from ARFF training to industrial firefighting of
all types.
    The property is presently used for an ARFF training facility for
personnel responding to emergencies involving aircraft. The land was
purchased using Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds. Lake Superior
College and the City of Duluth, co-sponsors for the grant, propose to
continue to use the facility as a firefighting training facility, but
one that focuses on emergencies and fires of all types; rather than
aircraft specific. This is no longer needed for an aeronautical
purpose. The property will remain under the jurisdiction of Lake
Superior College and the Minnesota State Colleges and University
system. Lake Superior College will repay the current Fair Market Value
(FMV) of the property to the City of Duluth where the funds will be
used for future airport improvement projects at the Duluth
International Airport.
    The disposition of proceeds from the property will be in accordance
with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue,
published in the Federal Register on February 16, 1999 (64 FR 7696).
    This notice announces that the FAA is considering the release of
the subject airport property at the Lake Superior College--Emergency
Response Training Center, 11501 MN Highway 23, Duluth, MN 55808 from
federal land covenants, subject to a reservation for continuing right
of flight as well as restrictions on the released property as required
in FAA Order 5190.6B section 22.16. Approval does not constitute a
commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the disposal of the
subject airport property nor a determination of eligibility for grant-
in-aid funding from the FAA.
    An irregular shaped parcel consisting of approximately 42.29 acres
described as the south 250 feet of the NW \1/4\ of the NE \1/4\, part
of the south 250 feet of the NE \1/4\ of the NE \1/4\, the north 480
feet of the SW \1/4\ -of the NE \1/4\ of the former Delzotto property,
and part of Government Lot 6 located in the SE \1/4\ of the NE \1/4\
all located in Section 9 of T48N-R15W

    Issued in Minneapolis, MN, on February 7, 2017.
Andrew Peek,
Manager, Dakota-Minnesota Airports District Office, FAA, Great Lakes
Region.
[FR Doc. 2017-06293 Filed 3-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P