[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 621-623]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00563]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0020]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Tanapag Harbor, Saipan, CNMI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a safety zone for
navigable waters within Tanapag Harbor, Saipan. This safety zone will
encompass the designated swim course for the Escape from Managaha swim
event in the waters of Tanapag Harbor, Saipan, Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands. This action is necessary to protect all
persons and vessels participating in this marine event from potential
safety hazards associated with vessel traffic in the area. Race
participants, chase boats, and organizers of the event will be exempt
from the safety zone. Entry of persons or vessels into the safety zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Guam.
We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before March 4, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0020 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Chief Petty Officer Todd Wheeler,
Sector Guam, U.S. Coast Guard, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Escape from Managaha swim event is a recurring annual event. We
have established safety zones for this swim event in past years.
    The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of the
participants and the navigable waters in the safety zone before,
during, and after the scheduled swim event. The Coast Guard is
proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C 70034 (previously
codified in 33 U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP is proposing to establish a safety zone from 6:30 a.m. to
8:30 a.m. on March 31, 2019. This safety zone is necessary to protect
all persons and vessels participating in this marine event from
potential safety hazards associated with vessel traffic in the area.
Race participants, chase boats, and organizers of the event will be
exempt from the safety zone. Entry of persons or vessels into this
safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP. The regulatory
text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
will be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which will
impact a small designated area of Tanapag Harbor for 2 hours. Moreover,
the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM
marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek
permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies, and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction, and
you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42

U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this
action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting for 2 hours that will
prohibit entry within 100-yards of swim participants. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
L63(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01,
Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or when
a final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--SAFETY ZONE; TANAPAG HARBOR, SAIPAN, CNMI

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously codified in 33 U.S.C
1231); 46 U.S.C. 70051 (previously codified in 50 U.S.C. 191); 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. Add Sec.  165.T14-0020 to read as follows:

165. T14-0020  Safety Zone; Tanapag Harbor, Saipan, CNMI.

    (a) Location. The following area, within the Guam Captain of the
Port (COTP) Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-15), all navigable waters within a
100-yard radius of race participants in Tanapag Harbor, Saipan. Race
participants, chase boats and organizers of the event will be exempt
from the safety zone.
    (b) Effective Dates. This rule is effective from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30
a.m. on March 31, 2019.
    (c) Enforcement. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer, and any other COTP representative permitted by law, may
enforce this temporary safety zone.
    (d) Waiver. The COTP may waive any of the requirements of this rule
for any person, vessel, or class of vessel upon finding that
application of the safety zone is unnecessary or impractical for the
purpose of maritime security.
    (e) Penalties. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject
to the penalties set forth in 46 U.S.C. 70036 (previously codified in
33 U.S.C. 1232) and 46 U.S.C. 70052 (previously codified in 50 U.S.C.
192).

    Dated: January 23, 2019.
Christopher M. Chase,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Guam.
[FR Doc. 2019-00563 Filed 1-30-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37086-37089]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15055]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67203; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-066]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New Market Maker
Peg Order Available to Exchange Market Makers

June 14, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 6, 2012, the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new Market Maker Peg Order to
provide similar functionality as the automated functionality provided
to market makers under Rules 4613(a)(2)(F) and (G).
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *
4751. Definitions

    The following definitions apply to the Rule 4600 and 4750 Series
for the trading of securities listed on Nasdaq or a national securities
exchange other than Nasdaq.
    (a)-(e) No change.
    (f) The term ``Order Type'' shall mean the unique processing
prescribed for designated orders that are eligible for entry into the
System, and shall include:
    (1)-(14) No change.
    (15) ``Market Maker Peg Order'' is a limit order that, upon entry,
the bid or offer is automatically priced by the System at the
Designated Percentage away from the then current National Best Bid and
National Best Offer, or if no National Best Bid or National Best Offer,
at the Designated Percentage away from the last reported sale from the
responsible single plan processor in order to comply with the quotation
requirements for Market Makers set forth in Rule 4613(a)(2). Upon
reaching the Defined Limit, the price of a Market Maker Peg Order bid
or offer will be adjusted by the System to the Designated Percentage
away from the then current National Best Bid and National Best Offer,
or, if no National Best Bid or National Best Offer, to the Designated
Percentage away from the last reported sale from the responsible single
plan processor. If a Market Maker Peg Order bid or offer moves a
specified number of percentage points away from the Designated
Percentage towards the then current National Best Bid or National Best
Offer, as described in Rule 4613(a)(2)(F) (Quotation Creation and
Adjustment), the price of such bid or offer will be adjusted to the
Designated Percentage away from the then current National Best Bid and
National Best Offer, or if no National Best Bid or National Best Offer,
to the Designated Percentage away from the last reported sale from the
responsible single plan processor. In the absence of a National Best
Bid or National Best Offer and if no last reported sale, the order will
be cancelled or rejected. Market Maker Peg Orders are not eligible for
routing pursuant to Rule 4758 and are always

displayed on NASDAQ. Notwithstanding the availability of Market Maker
Peg Order functionality, a Market Maker remains responsible for
entering, monitoring, and re-submitting, as applicable, quotations that
meet the requirements of Rule 4613. A new timestamp is created for the
order each time that it is automatically adjusted. For purposes of this
paragraph, NASDAQ will apply the Designated Percentage and Defined
Limit as set forth in Rule 4613, subject to the following exception.
Nothing in this rule shall preclude a Market Maker from designating a
more aggressive offset from the National Best Bid or National Best
Offer than the given Designated Percentage for any individual Market
Maker Peg Order. If a Market Maker designates a more aggressive offset
from the National Best Bid or National Best Offer, the price of a
Market Maker Peg Order bid or offer will be adjusted by the System to
maintain the Market Maker-designated offset from the National Best Bid
or National Best Offer, or if no National Best Bid or National Best
Offer, the order will be cancelled or rejected.
    (g)-(i) No change.
* * * * *

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
    NASDAQ is proposing to adopt a new Market Maker Peg Order to
provide similar functionality presently available to Exchange market
makers under Rules 4613(a)(2)(F) and (G). NASDAQ will continue to offer
the present automated quote management functionality provided to market
makers under Rules 4613(a)(2)(F) and (G) for a period of 3 months after
the implementation of the proposed Market Maker Peg Order. The purpose
of this transition period, during which both the present automated
quote management functionality under Rules 4163(a)(2)(F) and (G) and
the Market Maker Peg Order will operate concurrently, is to afford
market makers with the opportunity to adequately test the new Market
Maker Peg Order and migrate away from the present automated quote
management functionality under Rules 4613(a)(2)(F) and (G). Prior to
the end of this 3 month period, NASDAQ will submit a rule filing to
retire the automated quote management functionality under Rules
4613(a)(2)(F) and (G).
    NASDAQ adopted Rules 4613(a)(2)(F) and (G) as part of an effort to
address issues uncovered by the aberrant trading that occurred on May
6, 2010.\3\ The automated quote management functionality (``AQ'')
offered by these rules is designed to help Exchange market makers meet
the enhanced market maker obligations adopted post May 6, 2010,\4\ and
avoid execution of market maker ``stub quotes'' in instances of
aberrant trading.\5\ As part of these enhanced obligations, NASDAQ
requires market makers for each stock in which they are registered to
continuously maintain a two-sided quotation within a designated
percentage of the National Best Bid and National Best Offer,\6\ as
appropriate. Although AQ has been successful in allowing Exchange
market makers to meet their enhanced obligations and in avoiding the
deleterious effect on the markets caused by ``stub quote'' executions,
AQ presents difficulties to market makers in meeting their obligations
under Rule 15c3-5 under the Act (the ``Market Access Rule'') \7\ and
Regulation SHO.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63255 (November 5,
2010), 75 FR 69484 (November 12, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-115, et al.).
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ For each issue in which a market maker is registered, AQ
automatically creates a quotation for display to comply with market
making obligations. Compliant displayed quotations are thereafter
allowed to rest and are not further adjusted unless the relationship
between the quotation and its related national best bid or national
best offer, as appropriate, shrinks to the greater of: (a) 4
percentage points, or, (b) one-quarter the applicable percentage
necessary to trigger an individual stock trading pause as described
in Rule 4120(a)(11), or expands to within that same percentage less
0.5%, whereupon AQ will immediately re-adjust and display the market
maker's quote to the appropriate designated percentage. Quotations
originally entered by market makers are allowed to move freely
towards the national best bid or national best offer, as
appropriate, for potential execution. In the event of an execution
against a System (as defined in Rule 4751(a)) created compliant
quotation, the market maker's quote is refreshed by AQ on the
executed side of the market at the applicable designated percentage
away from the then national best bid (offer), or if no national best
bid (offer), the last reported sale. Rule 4613(F) & (G).
    \6\ As defined by Regulation NMS Rule 600(b)(42). 17 CFR
242.600.
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-5.
    \8\ 17 CFR 242.200 through 204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Market Access Rule requires a broker-dealer with market access,
or that provides a customer or any other person with access to an
exchange or alternative trading system through use of its market
participant identifier or otherwise, to establish, document, and
maintain a system of risk management controls and supervisory
procedures reasonably designed to manage the financial, regulatory, and
other risks of this business activity. These controls must be
reasonably designed to ensure compliance with all regulatory
requirements, which are defined as ``all federal securities laws, rules
and regulations, and rules of self-regulatory organizations, that are
applicable in connection with market access.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the obligations of the Market Access Rule, broker-
dealers have independent obligations that arise under Regulation SHO.
Regulation SHO obligations generally include properly marking sell
orders, obtaining a ``locate'' for short sale orders, closing out fail
to deliver positions, and, where applicable, complying with the short
sale price test.\10\ While there are certain exceptions to some of the
requirements of Regulation SHO where a market maker is engaged in bona-
fide market making activities,\11\ the availability of

those exceptions is distinct and independent from whether a market
maker submits an order that is a Market Maker Peg Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Supra note 9.
    \11\ See 17 CFR 242.203(b)(1). The Commission adopted a narrow
exception to Regulation SHO's ``locate'' requirement for market
makers that may need to facilitate customer orders in a fast moving
market without possible delays associated with complying with such
requirement. Only market makers engaged in bona fide market making
in the security at the time they effect the short sale are excepted
from the ``locate'' requirement. See Exchange Act Release No. 50103
(July 28, 2004), 69 FR 48008, 48015 (August 6, 2004) (providing
guidance as to what does not constitutes bona-fide market making for
purposes of claiming the exception to Regulation SHO's ``locate''
requirement). See also Exchange Act Release No. 58775 (October 14,
2008), 73 FR 61690, 61698-9 (October 17, 2008) (providing guidance
regarding what is bona-fide market making for purposes of complying
with the market maker exception to Regulation SHO's ``locate''
requirement including without limitation whether the market maker
incurs any economic or market risk with respect to the securities,
continuous quotations that are at or near the market on both sides
and that are communicated and represented in a way that makes them
widely accessible to investors and other broker-dealers and a
pattern of trading that includes both purchases and sales in roughly
comparable amounts to provide liquidity to customers or other
broker-dealers). Thus, market makers would not be able to rely
solely on quotations priced in accordance with the Designated
Percentages under proposed Rule 4751(f)(15) or the AQ functionality
under Rules 4163(a)(2)(F) and (G) for eligibility for the bona-fide
market making exception to the ``locate'' requirement based on the
criteria set forth by the Commission. It should also be noted that a
determination of bona-fide market making is relevant for the
purposes of a broker-dealers close-out obligations under Rule 204 of
Regulation SHO. See 17 CFR 242.204(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current AQ functionality offered to market makers reprices and
``refreshes'' a market maker's quote when it is executed against,
without any action required by the market maker. When a market maker's
quote is refreshed by the Exchange, however, the market maker has an
obligation to ensure that the requirements of the Market Access Rule
and Regulation SHO are met. To meet these obligations, a market maker
must actively monitor the status of its quotes and ensure that the
requirements of the Market Access Rule and Regulation SHO are being
satisfied.
Market Maker Peg Order
    In an effort to simplify market maker compliance with the
requirements of the Market Access Rule and Regulation SHO, NASDAQ is
proposing to adopt a new order type available only to Exchange market
makers, which offers AQ-like functionality but also allows a market
maker to comply with the requirements of the Market Access Rule and
Regulation SHO. Specifically, NASDAQ is proposing to replace AQ
functionality with the Market Maker Peg Order. The Market Maker Peg
Order would be a one-sided limit order and similar to other peg orders
available to market participants in that the order is tied or
``pegged'' to a certain price,\12\ but it would not be eligible for
routing pursuant Rule 4758 and would always be displayed and
attributable (as defined in Rule 4751). The Market Maker Peg Order
would be limited to market makers and would have its price
automatically set and adjusted, both upon entry and any time
thereafter, in order to comply with the Exchange's rules regarding
market maker quotation requirements and obligations.\13\ It is expected
that market makers will perform the necessary checks to comply with
Regulation SHO, as discussed above, prior to entry of a Market Maker
Peg Order. Upon entry and at any time the order exceeds either the
Defined Limit, as described in Rule 4613(a)(2)(E), or moves a specified
number of percentage points away from the Designated Percentage towards
the then current National Best Bid or National Best Offer, as described
in Rule 4613(a)(2)(F), the Market Maker Peg Order would be priced by
the Exchange at the Designated Percentage \14\ away from the then
current National Best Bid and National Best Offer, or, if no National
Best Bid or National Best Offer, to the Designated Percentage away from
the last reported sale from the responsible single plan processor. In
the absence of a National Best Bid or National Best Offer and last
reported sale, the order will be cancelled or rejected. Adjustment to
the Designated Percentage is designed to avoid an execution against a
Market Maker Peg Order that would initiate a single stock circuit
breaker. In the event of an execution against a Market Maker Peg Order
that reduces the size of the Market Maker Peg Order below one round
lot, the market maker would need to enter a new order, after performing
the regulatory checks discussed above, to satisfy their obligations
under Rule 4613.\15\ In the event that pricing the Market Maker Peg
Order at the Designated Percentage away from the then current National
Best Bid and National Best Offer, or, if no National Best Bid or
National Best Offer, to the Designated Percentage away from the last
reported sale from the responsible single plan processor would result
in the order exceeding its limit price, the order will be cancelled or
rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Rule 4751(f)(4) defines Pegged Orders.
    \13\ The Market Maker Peg Order is one-sided so a market maker
seeking to use Market Maker Peg Orders to comply with the Exchange's
rules regarding market maker quotation requirements would need to
submit both a bid and an offer using the order type.
    \14\ The Designated Percentage is the individual stock pause
trigger percentage under Rule 4120(a)(11) (or comparable rule of
another exchange) less two (2) percentage points. See Rule
4613(a)(2)(D).
    \15\ Rule 4613 generally sets forth NASDAQ market maker
requirements, which include quotation and pricing obligations, and
the firm quote obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ is also proposing to allow a market maker to designate an
offset more aggressive (i.e., smaller) than the Designated Percentage
for any given Market Maker Peg Order. This functionality will allow a
market maker to quote at price levels that are closer to the National
Best Bid and National Best Offer if it elects to do so. To use this
functionality, a market maker must designate the desired offset upon
order entry.\16\ Thereafter and unlike the default \17\ Market Maker
Peg Order, a Market Maker Peg Order with a market maker-designated
offset will have its price automatically adjusted on a tick-by-tick
basis by the System to maintain the market maker-designated offset from
the National Best Bid or National Best Offer until the order is
executed or cancelled.\18\ In the absence of a National Best Bid or
National Best Offer, Market Maker Peg Orders with a market maker-
designated offset will be cancelled or rejected. In the event that
pricing the Market Maker Peg Order at the market maker-designated
offset away from the then current National Best Bid and National Best
Offer would result in the order exceeding its limit price, the order
will be cancelled or rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ If a market maker wishes, it can designate a more
aggressive bid while using the Defined Percentage and Defined Limit
for its offer, or vice versa.
    \17\ In the absence of an offset designation, a Market Maker Peg
Order will default to using the Defined Percentage and Defined
Limit, and the repricing process whereby, upon reaching the Defined
Limit, the price of a Market Maker Peg Order bid or offer will be
adjusted by the System to the Designated Percentage away from the
then current National Best Bid or National Best Offer, or, if no
National Best Bid or National Best Offer, to the Designated
Percentage away from the last reported sale from the responsible
single plan processor.
    \18\ Market Maker Peg Orders with a market maker-designated
offset may be able to qualify as bona-fide market making for
purposes of Regulation SHO, depending on the facts and
circumstances. A market maker entering such an order must consider
the factors set forth by the Commission in determining whether
reliance on the exception from the ``locate'' requirement of Rule
203 for bona-fide market making is appropriate with respect to the
particular Market Maker Peg Order and its designated offset. See
supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Market Maker Peg Order will be accepted and executable during
System hours. During pre- and post-market hours, the wider Designated
Percentage and Defined Limit associated with the 9:30 a.m.-9:45 a.m.
and 3:35 p.m.-4:00 p.m. periods under Rule 4613(a)(2)(D) and (E) will
be applied.
    NASDAQ believes that this order-based approach is superior in terms
of the ease in complying with the requirements of the Market Access
Rule and Regulation SHO while also providing similar quote adjusting
functionality to its market makers. Market makers would have control of
order origination, as required by the Market Access Rule, while also
allowing market makers to make marking and locate determinations prior
to order entry, as required by Regulation SHO. As such, market makers
are fully able to comply with the requirements of the Market Access
Rule and Regulation SHO, as they would when placing any order, while
also meeting their Exchange market making obligations. In this regard,
the Market Maker Peg Order, like the current AQ system, does not ensure
that the market maker is satisfying the requirements of Regulation SHO,
including the satisfaction of the locate requirement of Rule 203(b)(1)
or an exception thereto.

2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\19\ which requires the rules of an exchange to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The
proposed rule change also is designed to support the principles of
Section 11A(a)(1) \20\ of the Act in that it seeks to assure fair
competition among brokers and dealers and among exchange markets. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule meets these requirements in
that it promotes transparency and uniformity across markets concerning
minimum market maker quotation requirements and member obligations to
comply with the regulatory requirements of the Market Access Rule and
Regulation SHO. The Exchange also believes that providing Exchange
market makers with a transition period, during which they may
adequately test the new functionality, will serve to minimize the
potential market impact caused by the implementation of the order type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission shall:
    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-NASDAQ-2012-066 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-NASDAQ-2012-066. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2012-066 and should
be submitted on or before July 11, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-15055 Filed 6-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 246)]
[Notices]
[Page 68421-68422]
[DOCID:fr24de09-21]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

December 14, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP10-228-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC submits Original Sheet
No 90A et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No 1.
    Filed Date: 12/09/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091209-0042.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-229-000.
    Applicants: Petal Gas Storage, LLC.
    Description: Petal Gas Storage, LLC submits Sixth Revised Sheet No.
0 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, to be effective 1/
9/10.

    Filed Date: 12/09/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091210-0134.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-230-000.
    Applicants: Steckman Ridge, LP.
    Description: Steckman Ridge, LP submits First Revised Sheet 2 et
al. of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be effective 1/9/10.
    Filed Date: 12/09/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091210-0130.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-231-000.
    Applicants: Carolina Gas Transmission Corporation.
    Description: Carolina Gas Transmission Corporation submits First
Revised Sheet 195 to part of CGT's FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 12/09/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091210-0131.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-232-000.
    Applicants: Ozark Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Ozark Gas Transmission, LLC submits Second Revised
Sheet No. 1 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 12/09/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091210-0132.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-233-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC submits Third Revised
Sheet 3 et al. of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 1/11/09.
    Filed Date: 12/11/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091211-0191.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 23, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-234-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company submits Original
Sheet 236 and 237 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 12/11/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091211-0188.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 23, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-235-000.
    Applicants: NGO Transmission, Inc.
    Description: NGO Transmission, Inc. submits Second Revised Sheet
No. 170 to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 12/11/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091211-0189.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 23, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-236-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC submits
second amendment to a service agreement with Virginia Power Energy
Marketing, Inc.
    Filed Date: 12/11/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091211-0190.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 23, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-30586 Filed 12-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 131 (Monday, July 11, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41079-41080]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14682]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 174, 175, and 177

[Docket No. FDA-2022-F-1108]

Environmental Defense Fund, Maricel Maffini, Breast Cancer
Prevention Partners, Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund, Consumer
Reports, Endocrine Society, Environmental Working Group, Healthy Babies
Bright Futures, Linda Birnbaum, and the Nicholas School of the
Environment at Duke University; Filing of Food Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification of petition.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing
that we have filed a petition, submitted by Environmental Defense Fund,
Maricel Maffini, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Clean Water Action/
Clean Water Fund, Consumer Reports, Endocrine Society, Environmental
Working Group, Healthy Babies Bright Futures, Linda Birnbaum, and the
Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University, proposing that
the food additive regulations be amended to remove or restrict
authorizations for the use of bisphenol A (BPA).

DATES: The food additive petition was filed on May 2, 2022. Submit
either electronic or written comments on the filing notice by September
9, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of September 9, 2022. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery
service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2022-F-1108 for ``Environmental Defense Fund, Maricel Maffini,
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund,
Consumer Reports, Endocrine Society, Environmental Working Group,
Healthy Babies Bright Futures, Linda Birnbaum, and the Nicholas School
of the Environment at Duke University; Filing of Food Additive
Petition.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see
DATES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as
``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' We will review
this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our
consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed
confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for
public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both
copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name
and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide
this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify this information as ``confidential.''
Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except
in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law.
For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets,
see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marissa Santos, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr.,
College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under section 409(b)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5)), we are giving notice that we have filed a food
additive petition (FAP 2B4831), submitted by Environmental Defense
Fund, Maricel Maffini, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Clean Water
Action/Clean Water Fund, Consumer Reports, Endocrine Society,
Environmental Working Group, Healthy Babies Bright Futures, Linda
Birnbaum, and the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke
University, c/o Mr. Thomas Neltner, 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20009. The petition proposes to amend the food additive
regulations in Sec. Sec.  175.105, 175.300, 177.1440, 177.1580,
177.1585, 177.2280, and 177.2440 (21 CFR 175.105, 175.300, 177.1440,
177.1580, 177.1585, 177.2280, and 177.2440); Indirect Food Additives:
General (part 174 (21 CFR part 174)); Indirect Food Additives:
Adhesives and Components of Coatings (21 CFR part 175); and

Indirect Food Additives: Polymers (21 CFR part 177), to remove
authorizations for the use of BPA in Sec. Sec.  175.105, 175.300, and
177.2440; establish a migration limit for BPA from the authorized uses
of BPA in food contact articles in Sec. Sec.  177.1440, 177.1580,
177.1585, and 177.2280; and add a new provision to part 174 with a
restriction on the use of BPA, stating that the substance is subject to
a specific migration limit of 0.5 nanograms per kilogram of food. The
petition is available in Docket No. FDA-2022-F-1108.

II. Amendment of Sec. Sec.  175.105, 175.300, 177.1440, 177.1580,
177.1585, 177.2280, and 177.2440 and Addition of New Provision With BPA
Restriction

    In accordance with the procedures for amending or repealing a food
additive regulation in Sec.  171.130 (21 CFR 171.130), the petition
asks us to amend Sec. Sec.  175.105, 175.300, 177.1440, 177.1580,
177.1585, 177.2280, and 177.2440 to remove authorizations for the use
of BPA in Sec. Sec.  175.105, 175.300, and 177.2440; establish a
migration limit for BPA from the authorized uses of BPA in food contact
articles in Sec. Sec.  177.1440, 177.1580, 177.1585, and 177.2280; and
add a new provision to part 174 with a restriction on the use of BPA.
The petitioners cite, as evidence, a draft opinion by the European Food
Safety Authority (EFSA), which analyzed studies related to the health
effects of dietary BPA exposure that were published between January 1,
2013, through October 15, 2018. EFSA's draft opinion entitled ``Re-
evaluation of the risks to public health related to the presence of
bisphenol (BPA) in foodstuffs,'' was published in December 2021 for
public comment. Based on the analysis in the draft EFSA opinion, the
petitioners conclude that the use of BPA in food and food contact
articles is toxic and disrupts the ``proper functioning of the immune
and reproductive systems.'' To support their conclusion, the
petitioners also cite publications referred to in comments to EFSA on
the draft opinion and an epidemiology study that petitioners assert
show an association of in utero exposure to BPA with an increased risk
of asthma and wheezing in school-age girls.
    We invite comments, additional scientific data, and other
information related to the issues raised by this petition. If we
determine that the available data justify removing authorizations for
the use of BPA as listed under Sec. Sec.  175.105, 175.300, and
177.2440; establishing a migration limit for BPA from authorized uses
of BPA in food contact articles as listed under Sec. Sec.  177.1440,
177.1580, 177.1585, and 177.2280; or adding a new provision with a
restriction on the use of BPA, we will publish our decision in the
Federal Register in accordance with Sec.  171.130.
    The petitioners have claimed that this action is categorically
excluded under 21 CFR 25.32(m) because this action would prohibit or
otherwise restrict the use of a substance in food packaging. In
addition, the petitioners have stated that, to their knowledge, no
extraordinary circumstances exist. If FDA determines a categorical
exclusion applies, neither an environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is required. If FDA determines a
categorical exclusion does not apply, we will request an environmental
assessment and make it available for public inspection.

    Dated: July 1, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-14682 Filed 7-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: November 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 71542]
[DOCID:fr29no05-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1603-DR]

Louisiana; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-1603-DR), dated August 29, 2005, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective November 16, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Acting Director, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order
12148, as amended, Alexander S. Wells, of FEMA is appointed to act as
the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
    This action terminates my appointment of Vice Admiral Thad Allen of
the United States Coast Guard as Federal Coordinating Officer for this
disaster.

    (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032,
Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034,
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049,
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050,
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
Acting Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E5-6651 Filed 11-28-05; 8:45 am]


[Federal Register: October 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 200)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58762]
[DOCID:fr17oc07-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 67

[USCG-2007-28098]
RIN 1625-AB18

Vessel Documentation; Recording of Instruments

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: On August 2, 2007, we published a direct final rule. The
direct final rule notified the public of our intent to amend vessel
documentation regulations to eliminate the requirement to provide
certain original documents to the National Vessel Documentation Center
(NVDC) for recording, and to eliminate the additional fee for filing by
facsimile. We have not received an adverse comment, or notice of intent
to submit an adverse comment, on the rule. Therefore, the rule will go
into effect as scheduled.

DATES: The effective date of the direct final rule published at 72 FR
42310, August 2, 2007, is confirmed as October 31, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas L. Willis, Director,
National Vessel Documentation Center, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone (304)
271-2506.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We undertook this rulemaking to conform our
business practices with similar functions provided by other
governmental entities and to allow our customers to avail themselves of
better service through electronic filing. This rulemaking is expected
to improve efficiency at the NVDC and permit the use of improved
information collection technology.

    Dated: October 11, 2007.
Stefan G. Venckus,
Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, United States
Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. E7-20434 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: July 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 138)]
[Notices]
[Page 42175-42176]
[DOCID:fr20jy10-112]

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

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 19b-5 and Form PILOT, SEC File No. 270-448, OMB Control No.
3235-0507.

    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 19b-5 (17 CFR
240.19b-5) and Form PILOT (17 CFR 249.821) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 19b-5 provides a temporary exemption from the rule-filing
requirements of Section 19(b) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78s(b)) to self-
regulatory organizations (``SROs'') wishing to establish and operate
pilot trading systems. Rule 19b-5 permits an SRO to develop a pilot
trading system and to begin operation of such system shortly after
submitting an initial report on Form PILOT to the Commission. During
operation of any such pilot trading system, the SRO must submit
quarterly reports of the system's operation to the Commission, as well
as timely amendments describing any material changes to the system.
After two years of operating such pilot trading system under the
exemption afforded by Rule 19b-5, the SRO must submit a rule filing
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)) in order
to obtain permanent approval of the pilot trading system from the
Commission.
    The collection of information is designed to allow the Commission
to maintain an accurate record of all new pilot trading systems
operated by SROs and to determine whether an SRO has properly availed
itself of the exemption afforded by Rule 19b-5, is operating a pilot
trading system in compliance with the Act, and is carrying out its
statutory oversight obligations under the Act.
    The respondents to the collection of information are national
securities exchanges and national securities associations.
    While there are 14 national securities exchanges and national
securities associations that may avail themselves of the exemption
under Rule 19b-5 and the use of Form PILOT, it is estimated that
approximately three respondents will file a total of 3 initial reports
(for a 72 hour estimated annual burden), 12 quarterly reports (for a 36
hour estimated annual burden), and 6 amendments (for an 18 hour
estimated annual burden) on Form PILOT per year, with an estimated
total annual response burden of 126 hours. At an average hourly cost of
$307.74, the aggregate related cost of compliance with Rule 19b-5 for
all respondents is $38,775 per year (126 burden hours multiplied by
$307.74/hour = $38,775).
    Although Rule 19b-5 does not in itself impose recordkeeping burdens
on SROs, it relies on existing requirements imposed by Rule 17a-1 under
the Act (17 CFR 240.17a-1) to require SROs to retain all the rules and
procedures relating to each pilot trading system operating pursuant to
Rule 19b-5, and to make such records available for Commission
inspection for a period of not less than five years, the first two
years in an easily accessible place.
    The filing of a Form PILOT is mandatory for any SRO seeking a
temporary exemption under Rule 19b-5 from the rule filing requirements
of Section 19(b) of the Act in connection with the operation of a pilot
trading system. It is also mandatory that an SRO operating a pilot
trading system file with the Commission notices of material systems
changes and quarterly transaction reports on Form PILOT. Information
provided on Form PILOT is deemed confidential and shall be available
only for examination by the Commission, other agencies of the federal
government and state securities authorities.
    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 Shirley Martinson,
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.

    Dated: July 14, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-17642 Filed 7-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Appendix A: FINDINGS OF FACT

ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES OF THE FORT PECK RESERVATION

Decision Document for UIC Program Approval under Section 1425 of the
SDWA

RE:	Factual information on the potential for direct effects from
existing and future Class II underground injection activities of
nonmembers within the exterior boundaries of the Fort Peck Reservation
on the health, welfare, political integrity, and economic security of
the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes that are serious and substantial.

	This document is organized to present information relating to nonmember
Class II underground injection activities within the exterior boundaries
of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the potential effects of these
activities, if unregulated or improperly managed, on underground sources
of drinking water (USDW) used by the Fort Peck Tribes (Tribes) or their
members.  The information summarized below first demonstrates the manner
in which the underground injection control program protects USDWs from
contaminants associated with Class II underground injection activities
and thus generally protects human health and welfare and economic and
political interests.  The document then describes the Fort Peck
Reservation, including the various USDWs located on the Reservation, the
Tribes’ uses of those USDWs, and the Class II underground injection
activities occurring on the Reservation.  Finally, the document provides
a specific and relevant example of actual impacts on the Tribes’ use
of these USDWs from nonmember oil production activities.  These facts
support EPA’s finding that there are USDWs afforded protection under
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) within the Reservation used by the
Tribes or their members (and thus that the Tribes or their members could
be exposed to contaminants present in, or introduced into, those USDWs),
and that nonmember  underground injection activities have the potential
to directly affect the Tribes’ health and welfare and political and
economic interests in a way that is serious and substantial.

The discussion below is organized under the following four headings:

A.	The role of the underground injection control program in protecting
human health and welfare, and political and economic interests.

B.	The potential surface and ground water quality impacts related to
Class II underground injection activities.

C.	The relationship of nonmember Class II underground injection
activities on the Fort Peck Reservation to the Tribes’ use of
underground and surface sources of drinking water.

D.	A specific and relevant example of actual impacts on Tribal use of
underground sources of drinking water from nonmember oil production
activities on the Fort Peck Reservation.

	A.	The Role of the Underground Injection Control Program in Protecting
Human Health and Welfare, and Political and Economic Interests

	The federal underground injection control (UIC) program was established
by Congress under the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. Section 300f, et seq.   In the
SDWA, Congress directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
promulgate regulations with minimum requirements for preventing
underground injection that could endanger present and potential future
drinking water sources.  (See 42 U.S.C. Sections 300h (b)(1) and
(d)(2).)  The minimum requirements that EPA promulgated are in 40 CFR
Parts 124 and 144 - 48.

	In keeping with the Congressional intent to prevent endangerment both
to current and potential future underground sources of drinking water,
EPA defined the term “underground sources of drinking water” or
“USDWs” to mean an aquifer or its portion:

(a)	(1) Which supplies any public water system; or

(2) Which contains a sufficient quantity of ground water to supply a
public water system; and

(i) currently supplies drinking water for human consumption; or

(ii) contains fewer than 10,000 milligrams per liter (mg/l) total
dissolved solids (TDS); and

(b)	Which is not an exempted aquifer.  [40 CFR Section 144.3]

	Congress defined the term “endangerment” in the following way:

Underground injection endangers drinking water sources if such injection
may result in the presence in underground water which supplies or can
reasonably be expected to supply any public water system of any
contaminant, and if the presence of such contaminant may result in such
system’s not complying with any national primary drinking water
regulation or may otherwise adversely affect the health of persons.  [42
U.S.C. Section 300h (d)(2)]

	To prevent endangerment, EPA’s regulations state that any injection
activity that may allow the movement of fluid containing any contaminant
into USDWs is prohibited, if the presence of that contaminant may cause
a violation of the primary drinking water regulations under 40 CFR Part
141, or other health based standards, or may adversely affect the health
of persons.  (See 40 CFR Sections 144.12(a) and 144.82(a).)

	The protection of all underground sources of drinking water via proper
regulation of underground injection activities helps ensure that human
health will be protected from disease and exposure to toxic materials
through various uses (e.g., consumption) of drinking water.  This
protection is basic to the health, welfare, political integrity, and
economic security of communities potentially affected by underground
injection activities.

	B.	The Potential Surface and Ground Water Quality Impacts Related to
Class II Underground Injection Activities

	Class II underground injection well fluids pose a potential for
contamination because of the constituents typically found in these
fluids.  Specifically, these fluids are generated from oil and
gas-related activities.  Generally, these fluids or “brines” contain
very high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS), typically between
5,000 to 100,000+ mg/l.  In addition to common constituents such as
chloride, these fluids have been found to contain petroleum
hydrocarbons, radium and other radioactive materials, additives such as
corrosion inhibitors (GAO, 1989), as well as other contaminants
including arsenic, benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)
(Remediation Technologies, Inc., 1991), cadmium, and lead (EPA, 1987).

	  EPA has found that contamination of USDWs can occur from unregulated
or improperly managed Class II underground injection activity.
Specifically, the potential for contamination of USDWs can occur through
a variety of “pathways of contamination,” or pathways in which
injected fluids can enter USDWs, having escaped the well or zone into
which the fluids are injected.  These pathways are:

1.	migration of fluids through a leak in the casing of an injection well
and directly into a USDW;

		2.	vertical migration of fluids through improperly abandoned and
improperly completed wells in the vicinity of injection well operations;

3.	direct injection of fluids into or above a USDW;

4.	upward migration of fluids through the annulus which is the space
located between the injection well’s casing and the well bore.  This
can occur if there is sufficient injection pressure to push such fluid
into an overlying USDW;

5.	migration of fluids from an injection zone through the confining
strata over or underlying a USDW.  This can occur if there is sufficient
injection pressure to push fluid through a stratum which is either
fractured or permeable and into the adjacent USDW; and

6.	lateral migration of fluids from within an injection zone into a
portion of that stratum considered to be a USDW.  In this scenario,
there may be no

impermeable layer or other barrier to prevent migration of such fluids
(EPA, 1980).

	The federal UIC program has established minimum requirements to ensure
that Class II underground injection activities will not contaminate
USDWs.  There are two major technical requirements designed to protect
USDWs:  (1) injection wells must have mechanical integrity to ensure
that leaks do not result in significant movement of fluids into a USDW
(pathways one and four); and (2) an area of review is conducted for
newly drilled and converted injection wells to ensure that existing,
improperly completed, and abandoned wells within that area of review
(i.e., area of endangering influence) do not provide avenues for
vertical migration into USDWs (pathway two) (Osborne, 1991).  The UIC
program has also established requirements to control a number of
operating conditions, including injection pressure and volume, where
necessary to prevent contamination from pathways five and six.

	Figure 1 illustrates contamination pathways one and four through
failure of a well’s mechanical integrity.  A well does not have
mechanical integrity if:  (1) there are significant leaks in the well
tubing, casing, and packer; or (2) there is significant fluid movement
into a USDW adjacent to the well casing.  The absence of leaks in the
tubing, casing, and packer can be determined by pressure testing the
casing/tubing annulus of a conventional injection well while the well is
shut-in (see Figure 2).  Figure 3 is an illustration of the potential
problems associated with improperly plugged wells within the radius of
endangering influence of the injection well.  This radius is defined as
the point where the injection pressure gradient intersects the base of
the lowermost USDW.  The injection pressure gradient represents the
level to which fluids would rise in a hypothetical well at a given
location.  Therefore, determination of this pressure gradient is
important in determining whether any improperly plugged wells could
facilitate movement of contaminated fluid up into an overlying USDW.  In
cases where the calculated radius of endangering influence exceeds the
minimum quarter-mile area of review (see Figure 3), this radius becomes
the area of review within which all wells penetrating the confining zone
must be identified (Osborne, 1991).

 	In addition to potential impacts to USDWs, these migratory pathways
can allow for the contamination of surface water either: (1) through
upward migration (via the injection or other well) of injected fluid to
the surface which discharges into a water body; or (2) where
contaminated USDWs are hydrogeologically connected with surface water.
Surface water  contamination can impair water quality and associated
designated uses, creating potential impacts to the health, welfare,
political integrity, and economic security of affected tribal or other
communities (see Appendix B: “Decision Document: Assiniboine and Sioux
Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Application for Treatment as
a State Under Section 303 of the Clean Water Act,” 1996, for a more
detailed discussion of the Fort Peck Tribes’ uses of Reservation
surface waters and the potential impacts on the Tribes and their members
of surface water contamination).

	Once present in USDWs through one or more of the pathways of
contamination noted above, the chemical constituents of these injected
fluids can have impacts on human health and  welfare, political
integrity, and economic security that are both serious and substantial.
Health-related impacts can occur from domestic uses of this water
involving consumption, skin contact, and inhalation.  Health effects in
persons consuming water exceeding drinking water standards for Class II
injected fluid-related contaminants include:  cancer (from exposure to
benzene, arsenic, radium, and PAH), neurological and developments
effects (from exposure to lead and arsenic), and damage to specific
organs such as the kidney (from exposure to cadmium).  Health effects
from skin contact (e.g., via bathing and washing) and inhalation (e.g.,
via showering and cooking) at levels above concentrations equivalent to
drinking water standards include cancer (from exposure to benzene and
PAHs) (see e.g., EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System website at
  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/iris"  http://www.epa.gov/iris  for a
summary of the health effects data, guidance for dermal risk assessment,
and methods for inhalation dosimetry) (EPA, 1987, 1991, 1992, 1994,
2000, and 2001).

	Serious and substantial impacts to human health and welfare, political
integrity, and economic security can also occur in a number of ways when
USDWs and associated water wells are contaminated with Class II injected
fluids.  Specifically: 1) treatment of contaminated well water and
ground water clean up; 2) development of alternative drinking water
sources (e.g., drilling of new wells); 3) inaccessibility of USDWs to
industry (e.g., for manufacturing processes), agriculture (e.g., for
irrigation), and ranching (e.g., for livestock watering); 4) inability
of  communities to retain and/or attract jobs and tourism; 5) lost wages
and jobs; 6) increased medical costs; and 7) costs associated with
hauling water, purchasing bottled water, and installing and maintaining
home water treatment systems (EPA, 2003).

	Finally, serious and substantial impacts to human health and welfare,
political integrity, and economic security can occur when USDWs or
surface water interconnected to USDWs used by tribal members or other
local communities for ceremonial or cultural purposes become
contaminated.  For example, the Fort Peck Tribes frequently use surface
water in their traditional ceremonies for consumption, immersion as part
of baptism, preparation of traditional foods, and associated
recreational activities (Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson, & Perry,
2003).

	Therefore Class II underground injection activities, if left
unregulated or improperly managed, generally have the potential to
contaminate surface as well as underground sources of drinking water,
thereby potentially having an effect on the health, welfare, economic,
and political interests of tribes, their members and nonmembers alike
that are serious and substantial.

	C.	The Relationship of Nonmember Class II Underground Injection
Activities on the Fort Peck Reservation to the Tribes’ Use of
Underground and Surface Sources of Drinking Water

	The Fort Peck Indian Reservation (the Reservation) is located in
northeastern Montana’s glaciated plains and is bound by the Missouri
River on the south, the Milk River and Porcupine Creek to the west, Big
Muddy Creek on the east, and on the north by 48 degrees 38 minutes north
latitude.  (See Figure 4).  The Reservation’s population consists of
about 52% Tribal members and 48% nonmembers.  Agriculture is the primary
economic activity for both sectors of the population.  The Reservation
is composed of 45% trust and allotted land and 55% fee land.  The
majority of fee lands are owned by nonmembers (Moon, 1996).  The
attached color map (see Figure 5) shows that Tribal member and nonmember
land ownership is interspersed throughout the Reservation (Fort Peck
Tribes and Thamke, 2000).  Class II underground injection activity
occurs in various oil fields across the Reservation and has been
conducted primarily by nonmembers.

	The EPA has regulated Class II injection wells located within the
external boundaries of the Reservation since June 25, 1984 (see 49 Fed.
Reg. 20138), consistent with the definition of “Indian lands,”
which, in 40 CFR Section 144.3, EPA defines as Indian country as defined
at 18 U.S.C. Section 1151.  There are currently 23 Class II injection
wells operating within the external boundaries of the Reservation.
Figure 5 shows the locations of these injection wells and other
injection wells that have been operational in the past.  This map also
shows that these wells are located throughout the Reservation.  Most of
the active wells are located on nonmember-owned fee land (personal
communication with Debi Madison, Fort Peck Tribes, August 24, 2000).
These wells are completed into, in increasing depth, the Judith River,
Dakota, Nisku, and Firemoon Formations, all of which are overlain by the
Bearpaw Shale Formation.  This impermeable shale layer underlies the
shallow ground water aquifers used by Tribal members and nonmembers for
domestic uses (see below), and is depicted in a cross-sectional view in
Figure 6.

	Ground water is the primary source of water supply, and is also the
primary source of drinking water across the Reservation.  Aquifers used
by Tribal members and nonmembers for various domestic purposes (e.g.,
drinking, livestock, and irrigation) are (in increasing depth): the
Quaternary deposits (alluvial and glacial deposits), Flaxville
Formation, Fort Union Formation, and a combination of the Fox Hills
Sandstone and the lower part of the Hell Creek Formation (Thamke, 1991).
 Generally, these formations underlie both Tribal trust and nonmember
owned fee lands throughout the Reservation (Fort Peck Tribes and Thamke,
2000).  The green and yellow shaded areas in Figure 5 cover much of the
Reservation and represent where all of these formations are exposed
directly at/near the surface (note: the glacial deposits are not shown).
 All formations are generally interconnected across the Reservation and
typically occur within 1000 feet of the surface.  Precipitation (rain
and snow) provides recharge to these formations, either where these
formations are exposed at/near the surface, or via overlying formations.
 Ground water flow for the nonbedrock formations (Quaternary deposits,
Flaxville, and Fort Union) is primarily towards, and intermixes with,
various surface water drainages (or “watersheds”) that generally run
north to south across the Reservation (Montana Bureau of Mines and
Geology, 1987).  As noted above, these formations are underlain by the
relatively impermeable Bearpaw Shale as depicted in Figure 6.

	In 1991, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) inventoried a
number of water supply wells throughout the Reservation.  The results
showed:  (1) 78 domestic (e.g., drinking water) wells, of which 35
tapped alluvial or glacial aquifers, 14 tapped the Flaxville, 14 tapped
the Fort Union, and 15 tapped the Fox Hills/Hell Creek; (2) 17 wells
primarily used for livestock, of which six tapped the alluvial or
glacial aquifers, one tapped the Flaxville, two tapped the Fort Union,
and eight tapped the Fox Hills/Hell Creek; (3) three wells primarily
used for irrigation, of which one tapped the Flaxville and two tapped
the Fox Hills/Hell Creek; and (4) one commercial well, which tapped the
Fox Hills/Hell Creek (Thamke, 1991).  Some of these water supply wells
have been and continue to be used by Tribal members across the
Reservation (personal communication with Debi Madison, Fort Peck Tribes,
October 31, 2003).

	The alluvial aquifers generally follow along the major stream valleys
and are used for most ground water withdrawals (Thamke, 1991).  Alluvial
wells range from 15 to 50 feet in depth (Craigg and Thamke, 1995).
Glacial aquifers are present in most of the Reservation, but water
yields differ greatly with location (Thamke, 1991).  Wells completed in
glacial deposits generally range from 70 to 120 feet in depth (Craigg
and Thamke, 1995).  The Flaxville aquifer is present in the northern and
central parts of the Reservation, and the Fort Union aquifer is present
in the north-central and eastern parts.  The Fox Hills-lower Hell Creek
aquifer is present in all areas of the Reservation, except the extreme
south-central and western parts, and is the second most common source of
ground water withdrawals.  Chemical analyses of water samples from
selected wells (four alluvial wells, two glacial wells, two Flaxville
wells, two Fort Union wells, and two Fox Hills-lower Hell Creek wells)
throughout the Reservation were performed by the Montana USGS in 1989.
The analytical results indicated ambient TDS concentrations from 221 to
2,280 mg/l (Thamke, 1991) for these formations.  Ground water with TDS
concentrations up to 2,000 mg/l is readily consumed without treatment.
Therefore, much of the ground water found in these shallow aquifers
across the Reservation is of drinkable quality, and all ground water
with TDS concentrations less than 10,000 mg/l are protected as USDWs
under the SDWA’s UIC regulations.

	The above discussion and associated figures demonstrate that land
ownership on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation is very significantly
“checkerboarded,” and that underlying ground water aquifers used for
various domestic purposes (e.g., consumption) are generally
interconnected across the Reservation and within local watersheds where
intermixing with surface water occurs. Consequently, any current or
future ground water contamination resulting from unregulated or
improperly managed Class II underground injection activities conducted
by nonmembers can migrate into USDWs or interconnected surface waters
used by Tribal members, thereby directly impacting their health,
welfare, political integrity, and economic security in a way that is
serious and substantial.

	The discussion that follows illustrates the potential for such impacts
by demonstrating how an improperly managed oil production well actually
impacted USDWs used by Tribal members.  While production wells are not
regulated by the UIC program, this discussion demonstrates that these
impacts did occur via the fourth established pathway of contamination
noted in Section B above and thus reflect potential impacts of
UIC-regulated activities.

	D.	A Specific and Relevant Example of Actual Impacts on Tribal Use of
Underground Sources of Drinking Water from Nonmember Oil Production
Activities on the Fort Peck Reservation

	Oil production activity by nonmembers has occurred, and continues to
occur, across the Reservation.  This includes the East Poplar Oil Field,
located in the southeastern part of the Reservation within the Poplar
River drainage.  This Oil Field is approximately ten miles
upstream/gradient from the town of Poplar.  (See Figure 4).  Poplar is
located at the mouth of the drainage and has Tribal member and nonmember
residents.  The Oil Field is located on lands with checkerboarded
ownership:  17% are Tribal trust lands, 35% are alloted lands held in
trust for individual Tribal members, and 48% are fee title lands
(personal communication with Debi Madison, Fort Peck Tribes, November
25, 1996).  The majority of fee lands are owned by nonmembers.  This Oil
Field has produced oil since the early 1950s.  Brine from the East
Poplar Oil Field is produced primarily from the Charles Formation of the
Madison Group, beginning at 5,300 feet below the land surface, and
ranges in TDS concentration from 16,000 to 201,000 mg/l (Levings, 1984).

	The presence of brine-related contamination in the Quaternary alluvium
along the Poplar River was first noted in the late 1970s, when
landowners reported increased salinity in their domestic well waters
(Thamke and Craigg, 1997).  Since then various field studies have been
conducted to determine the occurrence, extent, and movement of any
ground water contamination.  The contamination of the Quaternary aquifer
system (i.e., alluvium and glacial deposits) was formally documented in
a study published in 1984 through a USGS Reconnaissance Evaluation
(Levings, 1984).  This aquifer system is the sole developed drinking
water source for local (Tribal member and nonmember) residents (Thamke
and Craigg, 1997).

	This report, along with subsequent USGS reports issued through 2003,
found that brine from oil production-related activities is the source of
shallow, Quaternary aquifer contamination as well as contamination of
surface water (i.e., the Poplar River) interconnected to this ground
water.  In one of these subsequent reports, the USGS identified at least
32 different wells completed into the Quaternary aquifers located within
the East Poplar Oil Field.  These included water wells that served the
domestic needs of local residents as well as livestock (Thamke, Craigg,
and Mendes, 1996).  Some of these domestic water wells were owned by
Tribal members ((Nathan Wiser, EPA Region 8, May 1, 2001).

	The USGS’s most recent (December 2003) report provides additional
information on domestic water wells that were contaminated by oil
production-related activities, including the M-31 well, an Indian-owned
domestic water well that has been abandoned.  The earliest sampling data
(1985) from this well showed a TDS concentration of 2,930 mg/l.  A
series of additional samples was then taken from this well over the next
15 years that indicated considerable contamination.  The latest
available sampling data (2000) shows a TDS concentration of 60,800 mg/l.
 By this time, the water collected from the M-31 had become similar in
quality to the brine produced from the East Poplar Oil Field (Thamke and
Midtlyng, 2003).

	The EPA has subsequently conducted its own sampling, including samples
from various domestic water wells in this same area.  Among its results,
EPA’s sampling of the M-31 abandoned Tribal water well showed benzene
concentrations between 58 - 78 micrograms per liter.  EPA’s
health-based drinking water standard for benzene is 5 micrograms per
liter.  Benzene is a volatile organic compound known to cause cancer in
humans (Mears, Risner, and Janik, 1999).

	Concluding that this contamination may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to human health, and based on its review of
published USGS reports and results of its own field investigations, EPA
has issued a series of emergency orders against various companies that
had conducted oil production-related activities in this Oil Field.  EPA
has sought, among other things, to identify the possible source(s) of
contamination by obtaining records of company oil production activities
including exploration, production and injection wells, surface
facilities (e.g., tanks and pipelines), and geologic and hydrologic
field data related to such activities (Mears, Risner, Janik, 1999).

	Upon review of these records, EPA confirmed an earlier USGS report of
an active source of ground water contamination contributing to the same
plume impacting the M-31 Tribal well noted above.  Specifically, EPA
concluded that an abandoned oil production well completed into the
Charles Formation, the Mesa Biere #1-22, had been improperly plugged.
As a result, brine from this pressurized formation was flowing up the
well bore and into the overlying Quarternary aquifers.  EPA subsequently
ordered the current well owner to stop this well from leaking, which
appears to have been achieved by the re-drilling and plugging of this
well.  Additionally, EPA has determined that the historical use of
unlined surface pits was also a contributing source of contamination.
As a result of the contamination documented within this Oil Field,
EPA’s enforcement actions required approximately 20 Tribal and
non-Tribal member households be provided bottled water for drinking and
other domestic purposes (Nathan Wiser, EPA Region 8, February 3, 2003).

	This example of documented ground water contamination demonstrates the
importance of properly managing brine under pressurized conditions
common to the operation of wells associated with oil production-related
activities on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, including both
production and injection wells.  The improper plugging of the Mesa Biere
#1-22 production well created a pathway for brine to migrate from a
highly saline production formation into overlying USDWs used by local
residents, including Tribal members.  As noted in Section B above, this
pathway of contamination can also occur from unregulated or improperly
managed Class II underground injection activities, thereby directly
affecting the health, welfare, political integrity, and economic
security of the Fort Peck Tribes and all persons living on the Fort Peck
Indian Reservation in a way that is serious and substantial.

REFERENCES

Craigg, S.D., and Thamke, J.N., 1995, The effects of oil-field brines on
aquifers - Brine Disposal in the East Poplar Oil Field, Fort Peck Indian
Reservation, northeastern Montana, in Carter, L.M.H., ed., Energy and
the Environment - Application of geosciences to decision-making; Program
and Short Papers; Tenth V.E. McKelvey Forum on Mineral and Energy
Resources, 1995:  U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1108, p. 95-98.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1980, Underground Injection Control
Regulations:  Statement of Basis and Purpose, Washington, DC.

Environmental Protection Agency, National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations; Benzene (1987); Final Rule (52 FR 25690), Cadmium (1991);
Final Rule (56 FR 3526), Lead (1991); Final Rule (56 FR 26460), PAH
(1992); Final Rule (57 FR 31776), Radium (200); Final Rule (65 FR
76708), Arsenic (2001); Final Rule (66 FR 6976), Office of Ground Water
& Drinking Water, Washington DC.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1987, Report to Congress:  Management
of Wastes from the Exploration, Development, and Production of Crude
Oil, Natural Gas, and Geothermal Energy, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Washington DC.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1994, Methods for Derivation of
Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of Inhalation
Dosimetry, Office of Research and Development.

Environmental Protection Agency, 2001, Draft:  Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E:
Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment), Interim, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.

Environmental Protection Agency, 2003, Final Draft:  Ground Water Report
to Congress, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.

General Accounting Office, 1989, Drinking Water:  Safeguards Are Not
Preventing Contamination From Injected Oil and Gas Wastes,
GAO/RCED-89-97

House of Representatives Report No. 93-1185, 93rd Congress, 2nd Session
(1974), reprinted in “A Legislative History of the Safe Drinking Water
Act,” February, 1982, by the Government Printing Office, Serial No.
97-9.

Levings, G.W., 1984, Reconnaissance evaluation of contamination in the
alluvial aquifer in the East Poplar Oil Field, Roosevelt County,
Montana:  U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report
84-4174.

Madison, D.D., Fort Peck Tribes, Personal Communications on November
25th, 1996, November 24th, 2000, and October 31st, 2003.

Mears, C.E., Risner, M.T., and Janik, D.J., 1999, Environmental
Protection EPA, First Amended Emergency Administrative Order, Docket No.
SDWA-8-99-68.

Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, 1987, Report MBMG-178:  Groundwater
Resources of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Emphasis on Aquifers of
the Preglacial Missouri River Valley.

Moon, D.L., 1996, Appendix of EPA Region 8’s Decision Document:
Approval of Fort Peck Tribes Application for Program Approval Under
Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act.

Osborne, P.S., 1991, Program Overview, Underground Injection Control,
EPA Region 8, 2nd Ed.

Remediation Technologies, Inc., 1991, On-site Remediation of Oily
Exploration and Production Wastes, Perf Project E88-05, prepared for
Petroleum Environmental Research Forum c/o Conoco, Inc. Ponca City, OK.

Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson, & Perry, LLP, 2003, Letter to Fort
Peck Chairman Arlyn Headdress Regarding Tribes’ Underground Injection
Control Primacy Application, p. 4.

Thamke, J.N., 1991, Reconnaissance of Ground-Water Resources of the Fort
Peck Indian Reservation:  U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources
Investigation Report 91-4032.

Thamke, J.N., and Craigg, S.D., 1997, Saline-water Contamination in
Quaternary Deposits and the Poplar River, East Poplar Oil Field,
Northwestern Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources
Investigations Report 97-4000.

Thamke, J.N., Craigg, S.D., and Mendes, T.M., 1996, Hydrologic Data for
the East Poplar Oil Field, Fort Peck Indian Reservation, NE Montana:
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report.

Thamke, J.N., Midtlyng, K.S., 2003, Ground-water Quality for Two Areas
in the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, NE Montana, 1993-2000: USGS
Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4214.

Wiser, N. M., 2001, EPA Region 8, Fact Sheet on East Poplar Oil Field
Contamination.

Wiser, N.M., 2003, EPA Region 8, Fact Sheet on Fort Peck SDWA Emergency
Orders.

  PAGE   1