LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 1 1 1.0 Introduction In establishing drinking water regulations for microbial and disinfection byproduct ( MDBP control, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) is promoting a multi barrier approach for treating drinking water. A multi barrier treatment process provides a number of protective " layers" against contamination by using more than one method of prevention and treatment to remove or inactivate microorganisms and minimize disinfection byproducts ( DBPs). To that end, EPA is publishing this guidance to help public water systems ( PWSs) choose appropriate combinations of treatment processes for compliance with the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( LT2ESWTR).

The LT2ESWTR focuses on improved control of microbial contamination, specifically the protozoan parasite Cryptosporidium. Differing from previous drinking water regulations, the LT2ESWTR requirements for each system are based on the PWS's vulnerability to contamination, as measured by the occurrence of Cryptosporidium in the source water. This " Microbial Framework" strategy stems from a recognition that only some systems may need to provide additional protection against Cryptosporidium and that such decisions should be made on a system specific basis.

With this approach, systems initially conduct source water monitoring to determine average Cryptosporidium concentrations ( small filtered systems first monitor for E. coli to determine if Cryptosporidium monitoring is required). Based on their monitoring results, systems are classified into different categories ( or bins). The bins indicate the additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements, if any, that must be met to comply with the rule. Systems required to provide additional treatment will choose from a " toolbox" of options consisting of treatment technologies, process optimization techniques, and management techniques to meet the requirements. Thus, this approach requires enhanced Cryptosporidium treatment for systems with higher vulnerability to Cryptosporidium contamination and provides several options for those systems to achieve compliance. These options are described in this manual.

1.1 Objectives The primary objectives of this manual are to provide guidance to public water systems for selecting appropriate toolbox options and achieving compliance for each option. To accomplish these objectives, this manual will describe each toolbox option in terms of achieving Cryptosporidium treatment credit( s) and discuss design and operational issues systems should consider for each option.

1.2 Organization This manual consists of fifteen chapters and appendices: Chapter 1  Introduction LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 1 2 Chapter 1 Introduction  The remainder of this chapter summarizes the LT2ESWTR, presents the bin classifications for conventional treatment plants, direct filtration plants, and plants with other treatment technologies ( i. e., softening, slow sand filtration, and diatomaceous earth filtration), and defines those processes in the context of the LT2ESWTR.

Chapters 2  14 Toolbox Options  These chapters describe each toolbox option and how systems can implement these options to achieve the associated Cryptosporidium treatment credit. Where applicable, basic design criteria are recommended to achieve a given log removal. Each chapter contains its own list of references.

Appendix A Site Specific Determination of Contact Time for Chlorine Dioxide and Ozone  describes the different elements of a site specific study to generate a set of chlorine dioxide or ozone CT values for that site and discusses some of the issues involved in the statistical analysis of the results.

Appendix B Ozone CT Methods  describes the Segmented Flow Analysis and Extended CSTR methods to calculate the CT inactivation credits with ozone.

Appendix C Measuring Ozone Residual  discusses ozone residual sample collection, measurement, and online ozone residual analyzer calibration.

Appendix D Derivation of SFA and Extended CSTR Equations  provides derivations for the Segmented Flow Analysis equation and the equation used to calculate k*.

Appendix E Watershed Control Best Management Practices ( BMPs)  provides a list of programmatic resources and guidance available to assist systems in building partnerships and implementing watershed protection activities.

1.3 Existing Regulations and Treatment Requirements The following sections describe the predecessors to the LT2ESWTR, along with the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule ( DBPR), which was promulgated to reduce the formation of DBPs in the plant and distribution system. Chapter 1  Introduction LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 1 3 1.3.1 Surface Water Treatment Rule Under the 1989 Surface Water Treatment Rule ( SWTR) ( 54 FR 27486), EPA established treatment requirements for all PWSs using surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water ( GWUDI) as a source. The requirements are intended to protect against the adverse health effects associated with Giardia lamblia, viruses, and Legionella and include the following:

Maintenance of a disinfectant residual in water entering and within the distribution system.

Removal/ inactivation of at least 99.9 percent ( 3 log) of Giardia and 99.99 percent ( 4 log) of viruses.

Filtration, unless systems meet specified avoidance criteria.

For filtered systems, a turbidity limit for the combined filter effluent of 5 nephelometric turbidity units ( NTUs) at any time and a limit of 0.5 NTU in 95 percent of measurements each month for treatment plants using conventional treatment or direct filtration ( with separate standards for other filtration technologies). These requirements were superseded by the 1998 IESWTR and the 2002 LT1ESWTR.

Watershed control programs and water quality requirements for unfiltered systems.

1.3.2 Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule The Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( IESWTR) ( 63 FR 69478) applies to PWSs serving at least 10,000 people and using surface water or GWUDI as a source. These systems were to comply with the IESWTR by January 2002. The requirements and guidelines include:

Removal of 99 percent ( 2 log) of Cryptosporidium for systems that provide filtration

For treatment plants using conventional treatment or direct filtration, a turbidity performance standard for the combined effluent of filters of 1 NTU as a maximum and 0.3 NTU as a maximum in 95 percent of monthly measurements, based on 4 hour monitoring ( these limits supersede the SWTR turbidity limits)

Continuous monitoring of individual filter effluent turbidity in conventional and direct filtration plants and recording of turbidity readings every 15 minutes Chapter 1  Introduction LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 1 4

A disinfection benchmark to assess the level of microbial protection provided before facilities change their disinfection practices to meet the requirements of the Stage 1 DBPR

Inclusion of Cryptosporidium in the definition of GWUDI and in the watershed control requirements for unfiltered PWSs

All new finished water reservoirs must be covered.

1.3.3 Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule Pursuant to requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act ( SDWA), EPA developed interrelated regulations to control microbial pathogens and disinfectants/ DBPs in drinking water. These rules, collectively known as the M DBP rules, are intended to address complex risk trade offs between the two different types of contaminants. EPA promulgated the IESWTR concurrently with the Stage 1 DBPR so that systems could coordinate their responses to the risks posed by DBPs and microbial pathogens.

The 1998 Stage 1 DBPR ( 63 FR 69390) applies to all community water systems ( CWSs) and nontransient noncommunity water systems ( NTNCWSs) that add a chemical disinfectant to their water. Certain requirements in the rule also apply to transient noncommunity water systems ( TNCWSs). Surface water and GWUDI systems serving at least 10,000 people were required to comply with the rule by January 2002. All other systems ( including ground water systems) must comply by January 2004.

The Stage 1 DBPR sets maximum residual disinfectant levels ( MRDLs) for chlorine, chloramines, and chlorine dioxide; and maximum contaminant levels ( MCLs) for total trihalomethanes ( TTHM), haloacetic acids ( HAA5), bromate, and chlorite. The MRDLs and MCLs, except those for chlorite and chlorine dioxide, are calculated as running annual averages. For conventional filtration systems, enhanced coagulation/ softening is the best available treatment technique for removal of DBP precursors.

1.3.4 Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule The Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( LT1ESWTR) ( 67 FR 1811) was promulgated in 2002 and extends most of the requirements of the IESWTR to surface water and GWUDI systems serving fewer than 10,000 people. Chapter 1  Introduction LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 1 5 1.4 Microbial Disinfection Byproduct Rule Summary In keeping with a phased M DBP strategy, EPA developed the Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR. These rules are summarized below.

1.4.1 Stage 2 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproduct Rule The requirements of the Stage 2 DBPR apply to all community water systems ( CWSs) and nontransient noncommunity water systems ( NTNCWSs)   both ground and surface water systems   that add a disinfectant other than ultraviolet light ( UV), or that deliver water that has been treated with a disinfectant other than UV.

Initial Distribution System Evaluations The Stage 2 DBPR is designed to reduce DBP occurrence peaks in the distribution system by changing compliance monitoring requirements and the procedure for determining compliance. Compliance monitoring will be preceded by an initial distribution system evaluation ( IDSE) to identify compliance monitoring locations that represent high TTHM and HAA5 levels. The IDSE consists of either a standard monitoring program ( SMP) or a system specific study ( SSS). NTNCWSs serving fewer than 10,000 people are not required to perform an IDSE, and other systems may receive waivers from the IDSE requirement.

Compliance Determination and Schedule The Stage 2 DBPR changes the way sampling results are averaged to determine compliance. The determination for the Stage 2 DBPR is based on a locational running annual average ( LRAA) ( i. e., compliance must be met at each monitoring location) instead of the system wide running annual average ( RAA) used under the Stage 1 DBPR.

The Stage 2 DBPR will be implemented in two phases, Stage 2A and Stage 2B. Under Stage 2A, all systems must comply with TTHM/ HAA5 MCLs of 120/ 100 µ g/ L measured as LRAAs at each Stage 1 DBPR monitoring site, while continuing to comply with the Stage 1 DBPR MCLs of 80/ 60 µ g/ L measured as RAAs. Under Stage 2B, systems must comply with TTHM/ HAA5 MCLs of 80/ 60 µ g/ L at locations identified under the IDSE.

Compliance Monitoring Systems will continue to monitor at their Stage 1 DBPR compliance monitoring sites for the Stage 2A DBPR. The Stage 2B DBPR compliance monitoring sites will be determined from the results of the IDSE. Stage 2B compliance monitoring requirements ( number of sites and frequency of sampling) will be similar to the Stage 1 DBPR requirements for most, but not all, Chapter 1  Introduction LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 1 6 systems. Some small systems will have to add an additional monitoring location if their highest TTHM and highest HAA5 site do not occur at the same location.

Significant Excursion Evaluations Because Stage 2 DBPR MCL compliance is based on an annual average of DBP measurements, a system could from time to time have DBP levels significantly higher than the MCL ( referred to as a significant excursion) while still being in compliance. This is because the high concentration could be averaged with lower concentrations at a given location. If a significant excursion occurs, a system must conduct a significant excursion evaluation and discuss the evaluation with the State no later than the next sanitary survey.

1.4.2 Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule <IP_ADDRESS> Filtered Systems The LT2ESWTR requires systems that use a surface water or GWUDI source ( referred to collectively in this manual as surface water systems) and provide filtration to conduct source water monitoring to determine average Cryptosporidium concentrations, unless they have historical Cryptosporidium data equivalent to what is required under the LT2ESWTR ( 40 CFR 141.701( a)). Based on its average source water Cryptosporidium concentration, a system will be classified in one of four possible bins. A system's bin assignment determines the extent of any additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements. The rule requires systems to comply with additional treatment requirements by using one or more management or treatment techniques from the toolbox of options ( 40 CFR 141.720( b)). The process is described in more detail below; the full monitoring requirements are described in the Source Water Monitoring Guidance Manual for Public Water Systems for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( USEPA 2003).

Monitoring Requirements The LT2ESWTR specifies two monitoring schemes for filtered systems serving at least 10,000 people. The first is that the system collect at least 24 samples, but not more than 47 samples, over a 2 year period and base the bin assignment on the maximum running annual average ( RAA) ( 40 CFR141.709( b( 1)). ( The first RAA will be the average of the results of the first 12 months of monitoring; the second RAA will be the average of results from months 2   13, the third will be the average of concentrations from months 3   14, etc.) Alternatively, systems may collect two or more samples per month over the 2 year period and use the average of all samples to determine bin placement ( 40 CFR 141.709( b( 1))).

For filtered systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, the LT2ESWTR requires those systems to first monitor for E. coli ( or an indicator approved by the State) at least every two Chapter 1  Introduction LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 1 7 weeks for 12 months; based on the results, they may be required to conduct Cryptosporidium monitoring at least twice a month for 12 months ( 40 CFR 141.701( e)). Systems that, based on their E. coli results, do not have to monitor Cryptosporidium are placed in Bin 1 ( see Table 1.1). Systems that must conduct Cryptosporidium monitoring include the following ( 40 CFR 141.702( b)):

Systems that use lakes or reservoirs as sources and that have an average E. coli concentration of more than 10 E. coli per 100 milliliters ( mL).

Those systems that use flowing streams as sources and that have an average E. coli concentration of more than 50 E. coli per 100 mL.

For those systems triggered into Cryptosporidium monitoring, bin assignment is based on the average Cryptosporidium concentration of the 24 required samples ( 40 CFR 141.709( b( 3))).

Bin Classification Table 1.1 presents the bin classifications and their corresponding additional treatment requirements for all filtered systems ( 40 CFR 141.709 and 40 CFR 141.720). Systems with average Cryptosporidium concentrations of less than 0.075 oocysts per liter are placed in Bin 1, for which no additional treatment is required. For concentrations of 0.075 or more, additional treatment is required on top of that required by existing rules. The additional treatment required for each bin, specified in terms of log removal, depends on the type of treatment already in place in the system. Chapter 1  Introduction LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 1 8 Table 1.1 Bin Requirements for Filtered Plants1 If your Cryptosporidium concentration ( oocysts/ L) is... Your bin classification is... And if you use the following filtration treatment in full compliance with existing regulations, then your additional treatment requirements are...

Conventional Filtration Treatment ( includes softening) Direct Filtration Slow Sand or Diatomaceous Earth Filtration Alternative Filtration Technologie s < 0.075 1 No additional treatment No additional treatment No additional treatment No additional treatment > 0.075 and < 1.0 2 1 log treatment2 1.5 log treatment2 1 log treatment2 As determined by the State2,4 > 1.0 and < 3.0 3 2 log treatment3 2.5 log treatment3 2 log treatment3 As determined by the State3,5 > 3.0 4 2.5 log treatment3 3 log treatment3 2.5 log treatment3 As determined by the State3,6 1 ( 40 CFR 141.709 and 40 CFR 141.720) 2 Systems may use any technology or combination of technologies from the microbial toolbox. 3 Systems must achieve at least 1 log of the required treatment using ozone, chlorine dioxide, UV, membranes, bag/ cartridge filters, or bank filtration. 4 Total Cryptosporidium treatment must be at least 4.0 log. 5 Total Cryptosporidium treatment must be at least 5.0 log. 6 Total Cryptosporidium treatment must be at least 5.5 log.

Additional Treatment Requirements The total Cryptosporidium treatment required for Bins 2, 3, and 4 is 4.0 log, 5.0 log, and 5.5 log, respectively. The additional treatment requirements in Table 1.1 are based on a determination that conventional, slow sand, and diatomaceous earth filtration plants in compliance with the IESWTR or LT1ESWTR achieve an average of 3 log removal of Cryptosporidium ( the 2 log credit for Cryptosporidium under the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR is based on the minimum removal expected with these types of filtration). Therefore, conventional, slow sand, and diatomaceous earth filtration plants will require an additional 1.0 to 2.5 log additional treatment to meet the total removal requirement, depending on the bin they are placed in.

Conventional treatment is a treatment train with coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, and granular media filtration. Sedimentation is defined in 40 CFR 141.2 as a process for removal Chapter 1  Introduction LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 1 9 of solids before filtration by gravity or separation. Solid/ liquid separation processes with solids removal capability include gravity sedimentation ( traditional, plate, tube, ballasted sand), dissolved air flotation ( DAF), solids contact clarifiers, and buoyant and non buoyant media clarifiers.

Direct filtration plants have coagulation, flocculation, and filtration processes, like conventional treatment, but lack a sedimentation process. By providing a second pathogen barrier, a sedimentation basin enhances the overall removal efficiency and stability of the treatment train. EPA has determined that direct filtration plants achieve an average 2.5 log removal of Cryptosporidium. Consequently, under the LT2ESWTR, direct filtration plants in Bins 2   4 must provide 0.5 log more in additional treatment than conventional plants to meet the total Cryptosporidium removal requirement.

The LT2ESWTR specifies that a State may award greater credit to a system demonstrating through a State approved protocol that it reliably achieves a higher level of Cryptosporidium removal ( 40 CFR 141.727( c)). Conversely, a State may award less credit to a system where the State determines, based on site specific information, that the system is not achieving the degree of Cryptosporidium removal indicated in Table 1.1 ( 40 CFR 141.727( c)).

For systems using alternative filtration technologies, such as bag or cartridge filters, the LT2ESWTR specifies that the State will determine additional treatment requirements based on the credit awarded to a particular technology. The additional treatment must be such that plants in Bins 2,3, and 4 achieve the total required Cryptosporidium reductions of 4.0, 5.0, and 5.5 log, respectively ( 40 CFR 141.720).

Systems in Bin 2 can meet additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements by using an option or combination of options in the toolbox ( 40 CFR 141.720( b)). In Bins 3 and 4, systems must achieve at least 1 log of the additional treatment requirement through use of ozone, chlorine dioxide, ultraviolet light, membrane filtration, bag filtration, cartridge filtration, or bank filtration ( 40 CFR 141.720( c)).

<IP_ADDRESS> Unfiltered Systems All existing requirements for unfiltered systems under the SWTR ( 40 CFR, parts 141.71 and 72( a)) remain in effect. This includes disinfection to achieve at least 3 log inactivation of Giardia and 4 log inactivation of viruses and to maintain a disinfectant residual in the distribution system ( e. g., free chlorine or chloramines). The IESWTR and LT1ESWTR did not change the disinfection requirements for unfiltered systems.

Under the LT2ESWTR, unfiltered systems are required to monitor their source water for Cryptosporidium to determine the amount of treatment required ( 40 CFR 141.701( d)). Systems serving 10,000 or more people must monitor at least once a month for two years ( 40 CFR 141.701( e)). Systems serving fewer than 10,000 people must monitor at least twice a month for Chapter 1  Introduction LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 1 10 one year ( 40 CFR 141.701( e)). All small unfiltered systems must monitor Cryptosporidium; there is no exception based on E. coli monitoring results as there is for small filtered systems. These monitoring requirements are described in detail in the Source Water Monitoring Guidance Manual ( USEPA 2003).

The arithmetic mean concentration of all Cryptosporidium samples taken is used to determine the amount of treatment required, as shown in Table 1.2 ( 40 CFR 141.721( a)). If the mean concentration is less than or equal to 0.01 oocysts/ L, the system must provide 2 log inactivation of Cryptosporidium ( 40 CFR 141.721( b)). If the mean concentration of Cryptosporidium exceeds 0.01 oocysts/ L, the system must provide at least 3 log inactivation of Cryptosporidium ( 40 CFR 141.721( b)).

Table 1.2 LT2ESWTR Treatment Requirements for Unfiltered Systems Average Cryptosporidium Concentration ( oocysts/ liter) Additional Cryptosporidium Inactivation Requirements < 0.01 2 log1 > 0.01 3 log1 1Overall disinfection requirements must be met with a minimum of two disinfectants.

The LT2ESWTR requires unfiltered systems to meet overall disinfection requirements ( i. e., Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and virus inactivation) using a minimum of two disinfectants ( 40 CFR 141.721( d)). Disinfectants that can be used to meet this requirement include ozone, ultraviolet ( UV) light, and chlorine dioxide. ( Refer to the UV Guidance Manual for rule requirements and guidance regarding UV systems.) Further, each of the two disinfectants must achieve by itself the total inactivation required for one of the three pathogen types. For example, a system could use UV light to achieve 2 log inactivation of Cryptosporidium and Giardia, and use chlorine to inactivate 1 log Giardia and 4 log viruses. In this case chlorine would achieve the total inactivation required for viruses, while UV light would achieve the total inactivation required for Cryptosporidium and Giardia, and the two disinfectants together would meet the overall treatment requirements for viruses, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium.

<IP_ADDRESS> Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs The LT2ESWTR requires systems with uncovered finished water reservoirs to cover the uncovered finished water reservoir, treat the reservoir discharge to the distribution system to achieve a 4 log virus inactivation, or implement a risk mitigation plan ( 40 CFR 141.724). The LT2ESWTR specifies that risk mitigation plans address physical access, surface water run off, animal and bird waste, and continuous water quality assessment ( 40 CFR 141.724( a)( 3))). Chapter 1  Introduction LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 1 11 1.5 Summary of Microbial Toolbox Options The LT2ESWTR requires systems to use one or more of the microbial toolbox options described in Table 1.3 ( 40 CFR 141.722). Components of the toolbox include watershed control programs, alternative sources, pretreatment process, additional filtration barriers, inactivation technologies, and enhanced plant performance. The intent of the toolbox is to provide systems with flexibility in selecting cost effective LT2ESWTR compliance strategies.

In most cases, systems will receive presumptive log credit for a toolbox option by demonstrating compliance with required design and implementation criteria. The demonstration of performance option allows States to approve a treatment credit greater than the presumptive log credit based on a site specific or technology specific demonstration of performance ( 40 CFR 141.727( c)).

Systems may use a combination of toolbox options to achieve the required log treatment. For example, a conventional filtration system assigned to Bin 3, requiring an additional 2 log treatment, can implement ozone with a contact time and concentration yielding 1.5 log credit and achieve the requirements for combined filter performance, thus receiving an additional 0.5 log credit for a total of 2 log credit.

Table 1.3 Summary of Microbial Toolbox Options with Available Log Credits and Design/ Implementation Criteria Toolbox Option Cryptosporidium Treatment Credit with Design and Implementation Criteria Source Toolbox Components Watershed control program 0.5 log credit for State approved program comprised of EPA specified elements. Specific criteria are in 40 CFR 141.725( a). See Chapter 2 of this manual.

Alternative source/ intake management No presumptive credit. Systems may conduct simultaneous monitoring for LT2ESWTR bin classification at alternative intake locations or under alternative intake management strategies. See 40 CFR 141.725( b). See Chapter 3.

Pre Filtration Toolbox Components Bank filtration 0.5 log credit for 25 foot setback; 1.0 log credit for 50 foot setback. Aquifer must be unconsolidated sand containing at least 10% fines. Average turbidity in wells must be < 1 NTU. Systems with existing wells must monitor well effluent to determine bin classification and are not eligible for presumptive credit. See 40 CFR 141.726( c). See Chapter 4. Chapter 1  Introduction Toolbox Option Cryptosporidium Treatment Credit with Design and Implementation Criteria LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 1 12 Presedimentation basin with coagulation 0.5 log credit for new basins with continuous operation and coagulant addition. Basins must achieve 0.5 log turbidity reduction based on the monthly mean of daily measurements in 11 of the 12 previous months. All flow must pass through basins. Systems with existing pre sed basins must monitor after basins to determine bin classification and are not eligible for presumptive credit. See 40 CFR 141.726( a). See Chapter 5.

Two stage lime softening 0.5 log credit for two stage softening with coagulant addition. Coagulant must be present in both clarifiers and includes metal salts, polymers, lime, or magnesium precipitation. Both clarifiers must treat 100% of flow. See 40 CFR 141.726( b). See Chapter 6.

Treatment Performance Toolbox Components Combined filter performance 0.5 log credit for combined filter effluent turbidity

0.15 NTU in 95% of samples each month. See 40 CFR 141.727( a). See Chapter 7.

Individual filter performance 1.0 log credit for individual filter effluent turbidity

0.1 NTU in 95% of daily maximum samples each month ( excluding 15 minutes following backwash) and no filter > 0.3 NTU in two consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart. See 40 CFR 141.727( b). See Chapter 7.

Demonstration of performance Credit based on a demonstration to the State through State approved protocol. See 40 CFR 141.727( c). See Chapter 12.

Additional Filtration Toolbox Components Bag filters 1 log credit with demonstration of at least 2 log removal efficiency in challenge test; Specific criteria are in 40 CFR 141.728( a). See Chapter 8.

Cartridge filters 2 log credit with demonstration of at least 3 log removal efficiency in challenge test; Specific criteria are in 40 CFR 141.728( a). See Chapter 8.

Membrane filtration Log removal credit up to the lower value of the removal efficiency demonstrated during the challenge test if verified by direct integrity testing. See 40 CFR 141.728( b). See the Guidance Manual for Membrane Filtration.

Second stage filtration 0.5 log credit for a second separate filtration stage; treatment train must include coagulation prior to first filter. No presumptive credit for roughing filters. See 40 CFR 141.728( c). See Chapter 9.

Slow sand filters 2.5 log credit for second separate filtration process. No disinfectant residiual present in influent. See 40 CFR 141.728( d). See Chapter 9.

Inactivation Toolbox Components Chlorine dioxide Log credit based on demonstration of compliance with CT tables. See 40 CFR 141.729( b). See Chapter 10.

Ozone Log credit based on demonstration of compliance with CT tables. See 40 CFR 141.729( c). See Chapter 11. Chapter 1  Introduction LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 1 13 UV Log credit based on demonstration of compliance with UV dose table; reactor testing required to establish validated operating conditions. See 40 CFR 141.729( d). See UV Guidance Manual.

1.6 Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking The purpose of a disinfection benchmark is to ensure that when a system makes a change to its disinfection processes, it does not compromise the adequacy of existing microbial protection. A disinfection profile is a graphical representation of a system's level of Giardia lamblia and viral inactivation measured during the course of 1 or more year( s). A benchmark is the lowest monthly average of microbial inactivation during the disinfection profile period. This tool was introduced in the IESWTR ( 63 FR 69478 December 16, 1998) as a means for ensuring maintenance of microbial protection when systems made changes to address DBP control for the Stage 1 DBPR. The LT2ESWTR also includes a disinfection benchmark to ensure that any significant treatment change, whether for byproduct control under the Stage 2 DBPR, improved Cryptosporidium control under the LT2ESWTR, or both, does not significantly compromise existing Giardia and virus protection.

The profiling and benchmarking requirements under the LT2ESWTR are similar to those promulgated under IESWTR and LT1ESWTR and are applicable to: 1) systems required to conduct Cryptosporidium source water monitoring and 2) small surface water systems that do not have to conduct Cryptosporidium source water monitoring and have Stage 1 DBPR TTHM annual average results of at least 56  g/ L or HAA5 annual average results of at least 42  g/ L ( 40 CFR 141.711). Figure 1.1 presents a flow chart that can be used to determine if a system must develop a disinfection profile and benchmark. The LT2ESWTR requires these systems to prepare a disinfection profile that characterizes current levels of Giardia lamblia and virus inactivation throughout the plant over the course of one year ( 40 CFR 141.713). The profile may be developed using equivalent historical data. Subsequently, if a system proposes to make a significant change to its disinfection practice, then the LT2ESWTR requires the system to calculate a disinfection benchmark and consult with the State regarding how the proposed change will affect that benchmark ( 40 CFR 141.714).

Detailed guidance for conducting a disinfection profile and calculating a benchmark is provided in the IESWTR Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance Manual for systems serving at least 10,000 people and the LT1ESWTR Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance Manual for systems serving less than 10,000 people. A summary of the steps required to create a disinfection profile and calculate a benchmark are listed in the following two subsections. Chapter 1  Introduction LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 1 14 Does system serve   10,000 people? Yes No Yes No Yes No Perform disinfection profiling starting at 42 months after promulgation Perform disinfection profiling starting at 24 months after promulgation Perform disinfection profiling starting at 54 months after promulgation No Calculate disinfection benchmark for both Giardia and viruses No No disinfection profile required Does system provide filtration?

Yes No Is system's TTHM   0.056 mg/ L or HAA5   0.042 mg/ L? Is system's E. coli   10/ 100 mL ( for reservoirs/ lakes) or   50/ 100 mL ( for flowing stream)? Crypto M onitoring Triggers Does system provide at least 5.5 log treatment for Crypto? Yes Yes Does system have equivalent historical disinfection profile data? Is system a NTNCWS or CWS?

Yes No Is system planning a significant change in disinfection? Yes No further action required No Figure 1.1 Systems Required to Develop a Disinfection Profile and Benchmark Chapter 1  Introduction LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 1 15 1.6.1 Creating a Disinfection Profile The following steps describe how to calculate the Giardia lamblia and virus inactivations over a one year period:

2) Collect disinfectant residual, temperature, and pH ( if chlorine is used) data daily for large systems and weekly for small systems for 12 consecutive months. The data should be collected after injection of the disinfectant and prior to the first customer ( or next disinfectant injection point if applicable) during peak hourly flow.

2) Determine disinfectant contact time during peak hourly flow conditions measured between the point of application and the point of residual measurement.

3) Calculate CT calc ( product of disinfectant residual concentration and contact time) and from the CT tables determine the CT 99.9, Giardia and CT 99.99, virus. ( Chapter 12 contains more detailed information on calculating CT.)

4) Calculate the estimated log inactivation for Giardia and viruses according to the following equations:

Log inactivation of Giardia = 3.0 × CT calc / CT 99.9, Giardia Log inactivation of viruses = 4.0 × CT calc / CT 99.99, virus 5) Plot the total log inactivations from each day or week on a graph ( Giardia and virus data on separate graphs). The resulting graph of 365 days or 52 weeks of data is the disinfection profile.

1.6.2 Disinfection Benchmark A system that is required to develop a disinfection profile and that plans to make a significant change to its disinfection practice must calculate a benchmark and notify the State prior to making the change ( 40 CFR 141.714( a)). The LT2ESWTR defines significant changes to disinfection practices as changing the point of disinfection, the type of disinfectant, the process used, or other changes identified by the State.

The benchmark is a system's lowest monthly average microbial inactivation based on the disinfection profile. If the benchmark is substantially greater than the required inactivation ( 3.0 log Giardia and 4.0 log virus), then a system may consider decreasing the amount of disinfectant added, contact time, or altering other disinfection practices, as long as it notifies the State. Chapter 1  Introduction LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 1 16 1.7 Implementation Schedule For those systems requiring additional treatment, the LT2ESWTR requires compliance by [ 72 months after promulgation] for systems serving 10,000 or more people and [ 102 months after promulgation] for systems serving less than 10,000 people ( 40 CFR 141.701( e)). States may grant an extra two years to systems that need to make capital improvements in order to meet the requirements. However, some toolbox options have additional requirements that must be met at an earlier date. Table 1.4 lists the requirements and compliance dates for each toolbox option for large and small systems, respectively. Chapter 1.0  Introduction LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 1 17 Table 1.4 Compliance Dates1 Toolbox Option Systems must submit the following information Schedule Systems serving > 10,000 people Systems serving < 10,000 people Watershed Control Program ( WCP) Notify State of intention to develop WCP No later than [ date 48 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] No later than [ date 78 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]

Submit initial WCP plan to State No later than [ date 60 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] No later than [ date 90 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]

Annual report and State approved watershed survey report By a date determined by the State, every 12 months,

beginning on [ date 84 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. By a date determined by the State, every 12 months,

beginning on [ date 114 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register].

Request for re approval and report on the previous approval period. Six months prior to the end of the current approval period or by a date previously determined by the State. Six months prior to the end of the current approval period or by a date previously determined by the State.

Presedimentation ( new basins) Monthly verification of:

Continuous basin operation

Treatment of 100% of the flow

Continuous addition of a coagulant

At least 0.5 log removal of influent turbidity based on the monthly mean of daily turbidity readings for 11 of the 12 previous months Within 10 days following each month in which the monitoring was conducted, beginning on [ date 72 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] Within 10 days following each month in which the monitoring was conducted, beginning on [ date 102 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] Chapter 1.0  Introduction Toolbox Option Systems must submit the following information Schedule Systems serving > 10,000 people Systems serving < 10,000 people LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 1 18 Bank filtration Initial demonstration of

Unconsolidated, predominantly sandy aquifer

Setback distance of at least 25 ft. ( 0.5 log) or 50 ft. ( 1.0 log) Initial demonstration no later than [ date 72 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] Initial demonstration no later than [ date 102 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]

If monthly average of daily max turbidity is greater than 1 NTU, then system must report result and submit an assessment of the cause Report within 30 days following the month in which monitoring was conducted, beginning [ date 72 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] Report within 30 days following the month in which monitoring was conducted, beginning [ date 102 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]

Two stage lime softening Monthly verification of:

Continuous operation of a second clarification step between the primary clarifier and filter

Continuous presence of a coagulant in both primary and secondary clarifiers

Both clarifiers treat 100% of the plant flow Within 10 days following each month in which the monitoring was conducted, beginning on [ date 72 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] Within 10 days following each month in which the monitoring was conducted, beginning on [ date 102 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]

Combined filter performance Monthly verification of:

Combined filter effluent ( CFE) turbidity levels less than or equal to 0.15 NTU in at least 95 percent of the 4 hour CFE measurements taken each month Within 10 days following each month in which the monitoring was conducted, beginning on [ date 72 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] Within 10 days following each month in which the monitoring was conducted, beginning on [ date 102 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]

Individual filter performance Monthly verification of:

Individual filter effluent ( IFE ) turbidity levels less than or equal to 0.1 NTU in at least 95 percent of all IFE measurements taken each month based on daily maximum ( excluding 15 min period following start up after backwash)

No individual filter greater than 0.3 NTU in two consecutive readings 15 minutes apart Within 10 days following each month in which the monitoring was conducted, beginning on [ date 72 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] Within 10 days following each month in which the monitoring was conducted, beginning on [ date 102 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] Chapter 1.0  Introduction Toolbox Option Systems must submit the following information Schedule Systems serving > 10,000 people Systems serving < 10,000 people LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 1 19 Membrane filtration Results of verification testing demonstrating:

Removal efficiency established through challenge testing that meets rule criteria

Integrity testing and associated baseline No later than [ date 72 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] No later than [ date 102 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]

Monthly report summarizing any direct integrity tests above the control limit, any indirect integrity monitoring results triggering direct integrity testing and the corrective action that was taken. Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring was conducted, beginning [ date 72 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring was conducted, beginning [ date 102 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]

Bag filters and cartridge filters Demonstration that the following criteria are met:

Process meets the definition of bag or cartridge filtration

Removal efficiency established through challenge testing that meets rule criteria

Challenge test shows at least 2 log removal for bag filters and 3 log removal for cartridge filters No later than [ date 72 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] No later than [ date 102 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]

Monthly verification that 100% of flow was filtered. Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring was conducted, beginning [ date 72 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring was conducted, beginning [ date 102 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]

Second stage filtration Monthly verification that 100% of flow was filtered. Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring was conducted, beginning [ date 72 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring was conducted, beginning [ date 102 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] Chapter 1.0  Introduction Toolbox Option Systems must submit the following information Schedule Systems serving > 10,000 people Systems serving < 10,000 people LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 1 20 Slow sand filtration Monthly verification that 100% of flow was filtered. Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring was conducted, beginning [ date 72 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring was conducted, beginning [ date 102 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]

Chlorine dioxide Summary of CT values for each day based on Tables in 40 CFR 141.729( b). Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring was conducted, beginning [ date 72 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring was conducted, beginning [ date 102 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]

Ozone Summary of CT values for each day based on Tables in 40 CFR 141.729( c). Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring was conducted, beginning [ date 72 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring was conducted, beginning [ date 102 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]

UV Validation test results demonstrating operating conditions that achieve required UV dose. No later than [ date 72 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] No later than [ date 102 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]

Monthly report summarizing the percentage of water entering the distribution system that was not treated by UV reactors operating within validated conditions. Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring was conducted, beginning [ date 72 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring was conducted, beginning [ date 102 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] Toolbox Option Systems must submit the following information Schedule Systems serving > 10,000 people Systems serving < 10,000 people LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 1 21 Demonstration of Performance Results from testing following a State approved protocol. No later than [ date 72 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] No later than [ date 102 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]

As required by the State, monthly verification of operating within conditions of State approval for demonstration of performance credit. Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring was conducted, beginning [ date 72 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring was conducted, beginning [ date 102 months after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]

1( 40 CFR 141.730)


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25038-25041]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11151]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80762; File No. SR-DTC-2017-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Modify the DTC Settlement Service Guide To Make Technical Revisions
To Clarify and Provide Enhanced Transparency With Respect to the
Calculation and Adjustment of Required Participants Fund Deposits

May 24, 2017.
    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 May 16, 2017, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') 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 clearing agency.\3\ DTC filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \4\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) \5\
thereunder. The proposed rule change was effective upon filing with the
Commission. 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.
    \3\ Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the
respective meanings set forth in the Rules, By-laws and Organization
Certificate (``Rules'') of The Depository Trust Company (``DTC''),
available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.aspx.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change would amend the text of the DTC Settlement
Service Guide (``Settlement Guide'') \6\ to make technical revisions to
clarify, and provide enhanced transparency with respect to, the (i)
calculation of the Required Participants Fund Deposit of a Participant
\7\ and (ii) factors that DTC may take into account in evaluating an
adjustment to the Required Participants Fund Deposit of a
Participant.\8\ The proposed rule change would also amend the text of
the Settlement Guide to (i) change and add defined terms, (ii) make (a)
changes for enhanced clarity and readability and (b) grammatical
corrections and (iii) add new section headings, as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/
legal/service-guides/Settlement.pdf.
    \7\ Rule 1, Section 1, supra note 3. The Required Participants
Fund Deposit of a Participant is the amount the Participant is
required to Deposit to the Participants Fund pursuant to Section 1
of Rule 4. Rule 4, Section 1, supra note 3. Deposit, in this
context, pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 1, means causing the
appropriate amount in cash to be paid to DTC for credit to the
Participants Fund pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 4. Rule 1, Section
1, supra note 3. The Participants Fund, described more fully below,
is provided for in Rule 4. Rule 4, supra note 3. The Settlement
Guide, which is proposed to be amended hereby, sets forth Procedures
for the calculation and payment of such Deposits. See Settlement
Guide, supra note 6 at 47-50. Procedures, in this context, pursuant
to Section 1 of Rule 1, means ``the Procedures, service guides, and
regulations of DTC adopted pursuant to Rule 27, as amended from time
to time.'' Rule 1, Section 1, supra note 3. The Settlement Guide
constitutes Procedures of DTC, as defined in the Rules. See
Settlement Guide, supra note 6 at 3.
    \8\ Rule 9(A), Section 2, supra note 3. Pursuant to Rule 9(A),
at the request of DTC, a Participant or Pledgee shall immediately
furnish DTC with such assurances as DTC shall require of the
financial ability of the Participant or Pledgee to fulfill its
commitments and shall conform to any conditions which DTC deems
necessary for the protection of DTC, other Participants or Pledgees,
including deposits to the Participants Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change would amend the text of the Settlement
Guide \9\ to make technical revisions to clarify, and provide enhanced
transparency with respect to, the (i) calculation of the Required
Participants Fund Deposit of a Participant and (ii) factors that DTC
may take into account in evaluating an adjustment to the Required
Participants Fund Deposit of a Participant. The proposed rule change
would also amend the text of the Settlement Guide to (i) change and add
defined terms, (ii) make (a) changes for enhanced clarity and
readability and (b) grammatical corrections and (iii) add new section
headings, as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Participants Fund Components and Calculations
    DTC maintains a cash Participants Fund in an aggregate amount based
on maintaining liquidity resources sufficient to complete net
settlement among non-defaulting Participants if a Participant, or
Affiliated Family of Participants, with the largest net settlement
obligation failed to settle.\10\ If a Participant fails to settle, its
entire Actual Participants Fund Deposit (the Required Participants Fund
Deposit plus any Voluntary Participants Fund Deposit) may be applied to
satisfy any liability or loss due to its default.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The DTC net settlement system and the Rules are structured
so that the net settlement obligation of a Participant (its Net
Debit Balance) is limited by its Net Debit Cap. The maximum Net
Debit Cap of any Participant is $1.8 BN and the maximum Net Debit
Cap for an Affiliated Family of Participants is $2.85 BN. See
Settlement Guide, supra note 6 at 64-65. These limits are determined
based on liquidity resources available to DTC in the cash
Participants Fund or under a committed line of credit from a
syndicate of commercial lenders for $1.9 BN (``Line of Credit'').
Id. Cash in the Participants Fund equals the aggregate amount of
Deposits to the Participants Fund by all Participants and the total
amount of the Participants Fund is required to be at least $1.15 BN.
See Settlement Guide, supra note 6 at 48. This proposed rule change
sets forth the basis on which the Required Participants Fund Deposit
of any Participant shall be calculated and certain factors that may
be considered by DTC if further assurances are required with respect
to a Participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amount of the Required Participants Fund Deposit for any
Participant is set by DTC in accordance with its Rules and the
Settlement Guide.\11\ Each Participant must make at least a minimum
Deposit of $7,500 to the Participants Fund.\12\ Those Participants with
higher liquidity demands are required to Deposit additional amounts.
Two additional amounts are determined by (i) the Participants' own
activity and (ii) whether they belong to an Affiliated Family of
Participants that has a has a Net Debit Cap that exceeds $2.15 BN.\13\
With respect to the former additional amount, the activity of each
Participant is calculated based on a rolling average over 60 Business
Days of the Participant's six highest intraday net debit peaks \14\
(for a Participant, at any time, its ``PF Average'').\15\ The latter
additional amount is based on a formula that takes into account the
amount by

which the Affiliated Family's Net Debit Cap exceeds $2.15 BN.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rule 4, supra note 3 and Settlement Guide, supra note 6
at 47-49.
    \12\ Settlement Guide, supra note 2 at 47.
    \13\ Settlement Guide, supra note 6 at 48-49.
    \14\ DTC monitors the levels of each Participant's net
settlement debits during each Business Day and records the highest
net debit. This measure of liquidity is referred to as the
Participant's intraday net debit peak. See Settlement Guide, supra
note 6 at 48.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Settlement Guide, supra note 6 at 48-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In aggregate, the Participants Fund includes four component
amounts, as clarified in this proposed rule change: the ``Core Fund,''
the ``Base Fund,'' the ``Incremental Fund'' and the ``Liquidity Fund,''
as defined below.\17\ The ``Core Fund'' is set by DTC at an aggregate
amount of $450 million and is comprised of the Base Fund and the
Incremental Fund.\18\ The ``Base Fund'' is the sum of minimum deposits
by all Participants, i.e., the amount that is $7,500 times the number
of Participants, at any time.\19\ The ``Incremental Fund'' is the
balance of the Core Fund up to $450 million; \20\ this is the amount
that must be ratably allocated based on Participants' activity, as
reflected by their intraday net debit peaks, among Participants that
are required to pay more than a minimum deposit.\21\ The proposed rule
change sets forth the basis for that ratable allocation. Additionally,
the ``Liquidity Fund'' component (set at $700 million) applies to
Participants whose Affiliated Families have Net Debit Caps that exceed
$2.15 BN, as currently set forth in the Settlement Guide.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The composition of each of these components is described in
the Settlement Guide, however (i) the Base Fund and the Core Fund
are not assigned specific defined terms and (ii) the Incremental
Fund and the Liquidity Fund are defined as the ``PF Differential''
and the ``Additional Amount,'' respectively, as discussed below. See
Settlement Guide, supra note 6 at 47-49. For enhanced clarity in
this regard, the four components would be renamed and/or defined in
the Settlement Guide, as discussed below. See discussion infra
``Changes to Defined Terms and Grammatical Revisions.''
    \18\ See supra text accompanying note 17.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Those Participants whose PF Averages exceed the total
amount of the Base Fund are required to make a Deposit to the
Incremental Fund. This is because a Participant whose PF Average
exceeds the total amount of the Base Fund, on an average basis,
exceeds the liquidity resources provided by the Base Fund during the
60-day rolling period used to determine a PF Average.
    \22\ See Settlement Guide, supra note 6 at 48-49. The amount of
the Deposit to the Liquidity Fund that is allocated among an
Affiliated Family of Participants is determined based on a ratio
determined by dividing the amount by which the Participant's
Affiliated Family Net Debit Cap exceeds $2.15 BN by the sum of the
amounts by which each Affiliated Families' Net Debit Cap exceeds
$2.15 BN. Once an Affiliated Family's Liquidity Fund allocation has
been established in this regard, DTC will allocate this sum among
the Participants comprising the Affiliated Family in proportion to
each Participant's individual Net Debit Cap. Id. In this regard, the
Liquidity Fund represents an additional amount allocated
proportionally among the Affiliated Families that present the
greatest liquidity risk to DTC. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 59148 (December 23, 2008), 73 FR 251 (December 31,
2008)(SR-DTC-2008-12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change clarifies the description in the
Settlement Guide of the calculation of the amount of the Deposit by
each Participant to the Incremental Fund and sets forth the methodology
used to calculate that amount, as further described below under
``Settlement Guide Changes.''
Additional Required Participants Fund Deposits
    If DTC becomes concerned with a Participant's operational or
financial soundness, DTC may require adequate assurances of financial
or operational capacity from the Participant, as a risk mitigant,\23\
including an additional Deposit to the Participants Fund.\24\ Any
additional requirements are designed to provide appropriate incentives
to affected Participant(s) to address the underlying condition or
activity. In determining whether it is appropriate to require an
additional Deposit to the Participants Fund for a Participant, DTC
takes into account credit, market, operational or other concerns
regarding the Participant. Typically, the following factors may be
considered, including: (i) The Participant's liquidity arrangements;
(ii) the Participant's overall financial condition; (iii) published
news or reports and/or regulatory observations relating to the
Participant; and (iv) the Participant's internal credit rating, if any.
As guidance to Participants regarding these types of considerations,
DTC proposes to add text to the Settlement Guide illustrating these
concerns, as further described below under ``Settlement Guide
Changes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Rule 9(A), Section 2, supra note 8.
    \24\ Any such additional amount shall be part of the Required
Participants Fund Deposit of the Participant. See Rule 4, Section
1(a), supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Settlement Guide Changes
Calculation of Incremental Fund
    First, the proposed rule change would amend the text of the
Settlement Guide to provide the methodology by which DTC takes into
account the activity of each Participant to allocate the portion of a
Participant's Required Participants Fund Deposit to the Incremental
Fund, as set forth below.
    In order to determine the amount a Participant must Deposit to the
Incremental Fund, DTC makes the following calculations.
    First, DTC determines the PF Average of each Participant as the
rolling average, over 60 Business Days, of the Participant's six
highest intraday net debit peaks (as noted above).
    Second, DTC arrays these PF Averages from highest to lowest and
``ranks'' them accordingly. As a result, each Participant will have a
``PF Average Rank,'' an absolute number that is the Participant's
numerical ranking in this array.
    Each Participant's PF Average is compared to the next lowest ranked
PF Average and DTC calculates the difference between the higher PF
Average and the next lower ranked PF Average to determine, for the
Participant in question, its ``Ranked Amount Difference.''
    Separately, a ``Factor'' is calculated by dividing the amount of
the Incremental Fund by the PF Average of the Participant with the
highest PF Average Rank minus the amount of the Base Fund.
    Finally, the amount that a Participant shall Deposit to the
Incremental Fund (``Required Incremental Fund Deposit'') is calculated
as the sum of each Participant's Ranked Amount Difference, divided by
the Participant's PF Average Rank, and multiplied by the Factor, for
all Participants with a PF Average Rank that is less than or equal to
the PF Average Rank of the Participant.
    The purpose of this calculation is to provide for an equitable
distribution of the Incremental Fund among Participants, based on the
amount by which each Participant's PF Average exceeds the amount of the
Base Fund.
Adjustments to a Required Participants Fund Deposit
    The proposed rule change would further amend the text of the
Settlement Guide to state that DTC may increase the Required
Participants Fund Deposit of a Participant as provided in Rule 9(A),
including due to a credit, market, operational, or other concern
regarding the Participant. For illustrative purposes, typically, the
following factors may be taken into consideration for such an increase:
    (a) The Participant's liquidity arrangement, if any;
    (b) the Participant's overall financial condition at the time and
its apparent stability or volatility;
    (c) published news or reports and/or regulatory observations
relating to the Participant; and
    (d) the Participant's internal credit rating, if any.
Changes to Defined Terms and Grammatical Revisions
    The Settlement Guide currently defines the portion of the
Participants Fund represented by the Liquidity Fund as the ``Remaining
Amount'' and the portion represented by the Incremental Fund as the
``PF Differential.'' The

proposed rule change would replace the current term ``Remaining
Amount'' with ``Liquidity Fund'' and ``PF Differential'' with
``Incremental Fund.'' The proposed rule change would also add to the
Settlement Guide defined terms for Core Fund, Base Fund, Factor, PF
Average Rank, Ranked Amount Difference and Required Incremental Fund
Deposit to be defined as these terms are defined above.
    Finally, the proposed rule change would make (i) changes to the
text of the Settlement Guide for readability, (ii) grammatical
corrections to punctuation and spacing and (iii) add the headings
``Core Fund'' and ``Liquidity Fund'' above the sections that would
discuss calculations of the Core Fund and the Liquidity Fund,
respectively.
Effective Date of Proposed Rule Change
    The proposed rule change would become effective immediately upon
filing with the Commission.
2. Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \25\ requires, inter alia, that the
Rules promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions. DTC believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with this provision because it (i) clarifies the existing
methodology utilized by DTC to calculate Required Participants Fund
Deposits, (ii) clarifies the factors that DTC may take into account in
evaluating an adjustment to the Required Participants Fund Deposit of a
Participant and (iii) makes other clarifying changes for readability
and grammatical changes to the text of the Settlement Guide in this
regard. As discussed above, funds Deposited to the Participants Fund
provide DTC with liquidity resources necessary to complete end-of-day
settlement notwithstanding the failure to settle of the Participant or
Affiliated Family of Participants with the largest settlement
obligation, as limited by the maximum Net Debit Cap for a Participant,
or the maximum Affiliated Family Net Debit Cap, as applicable.
Collectively, the proposed changes would enhance the transparency and
clarity of the applicable provisions of the Settlement Guide, which
would enable stakeholders to readily understand DTC's methodology for
computation of Required Participants Fund Deposits. Therefore, by
providing stakeholders with enhanced transparency and clarity with
regard to the description of the computation of Required Participants
Fund Deposits, which provide DTC with the liquidity to complete end-of-
day settlement notwithstanding the failure to settle of the Participant
or Affiliated Family of Participants with the largest settlement
obligation, as limited by the maximum Net Debit Cap for a Participant,
or the maximum Affiliated Net Debit Cap, as applicable, DTC believes
that the proposed rule change, would promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is also designed to be consistent with
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) of the Act.\26\ Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) requires DTC,
inter alia, to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to, as applicable, to
effectively measure, monitor, and manage the liquidity risk that arises
in or is borne by the covered clearing agency,\27\ including measuring,
monitoring, and managing its use of intraday liquidity by, at a minimum
maintaining sufficient liquid resources to effect same-day settlement
with a high degree of confidence under a wide range of stress scenarios
that includes, but is not limited to, the default of the participant
family that would generate the largest aggregate payment obligation for
the covered clearing agency in extreme but plausible market conditions.
As discussed above, the proposed rule change would (i) clarify and,
provide greater transparency in the Settlement Guide with respect to,
the (a) methodology used by DTC to calculate Required Participants Fund
Deposits, which, in conjunction with the Line of Credit, provides DTC
with an amount of liquidity sufficient to complete end-of-day
settlement notwithstanding the failure to settle of the Participant or
Affiliated Family of Participants with the largest settlement
obligation as limited by the maximum Net Debit Cap for a Participant,
or the maximum Affiliated Family Net Debit Cap, as applicable and (b)
factors that DTC may take into account in evaluating an adjustment to a
Participant's Required Participants Fund Deposit to address an
underlying condition or activity of a Participant that exposes DTC to
heightened risk due to a credit, market, operational, or other concern
regarding the Participant, as discussed above and (ii) make other
clarifying changes for readability and grammatical changes to the text
of the Settlement Guide in this regard. Therefore, because the proposed
changes to the Settlement Guide collectively clarify and provide
greater transparency with regard to the Procedures used by DTC to
measure, monitor, and manage each Participant's Required Participants
Fund Deposit with respect to (i) the amount of liquidity exposure
presented by the Participant to DTC through the Participant's DTC
activity so that DTC maintains sufficient liquid resources which it may
use to complete end-of-day settlement notwithstanding the failure to
settle of the Participant or Affiliated Family of Participants with the
largest settlement obligation, (ii) factors considered with respect to
additional risk exposure presented by the Participant and (iii)
readability and grammatical changes to the text of the Settlement Guide
in this regard, DTC believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) promulgated under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
    \27\ DTC is a ``covered clearing agency'' as defined by new Rule
17Ad-22(a)(5) and must comply with subsection (e) of Rule 17Ad-22.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78961 (September 28, 2016),
81 FR 70786 (October 13, 2016) (S7-03-14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any
impact on competition because the proposed rule change consists of
clarifying changes to the Settlement Guide that do not alter the
methodology by which Required Participants Fund Deposits are
calculated.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    DTC has not solicited and does not intend to solicit comments
regarding the proposed rule change. DTC has not received any
unsolicited written comments from interested parties. To the extent DTC
receives written comments on the proposed rule change, DTC will forward
such comments to the Commission.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \28\ of the Act and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \29\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors,

or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-DTC-2017-007 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2017-007. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet 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 DTC and on DTCC's
Web site (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). 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-DTC-2017-007 and should be
submitted on or before June 20, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-11151 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 244 (Friday, December 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82469-82470]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27935]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:
    Docket Numbers: EG21-53-000.
    Applicants: Centerfield Cooper Solar, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator of
Centerfield Cooper Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/14/20.
    Accession Number: 20201214-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/21.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-2042-035; ER10-1944-008; ER10-2051-010; ER10-
1942-027; ER17-696-015; ER14-2931-008; ER10-2043-010; ER10-2029-012;
ER10-2041-010; ER18-1321-003; ER10-2040-010; ER20-1939-001; ER10-1938-
030; ER10-2036-011; ER10-1934-029; ER10-1893-029; ER10-3051-034; ER10-
2985-033; ER10-3049-034; ER10-1889-008; ER10-3260-010; ER10-1895-008;
ER10-1870-008; ER11-4369-014; ER16-2218-014; ER10-1862-029; ER10-1858-
008; ER13-1401-008; ER10-2044-010.
    Applicants: Calpine Energy Services, L.P., Bethpage Energy Center
3, LLC, Calpine Bethlehem, LLC, Calpine Construction finance Co., L.P.,
Calpine Energy Solutions, LLC, Calpine Fore River Energy Center, LLC,
Calpine Mid-Atlantic Generation, LLC, Calpine Mid-Atlantic Marketing,
LLC, Calpine Mid Merit, LLC, Calpine Mid-Merit II, LLC, Calpine New
Jersey Generation, LLC, Calpine Northeast Development, LLC, Calpine
PowerAmerica--CA, LLC, Calpine Vineland Solar, LLC, CES Marketing IX,
LLC, CES Marketing X, LLC, Champion Energy, LLC, Champion Energy
Marketing LLC, Champion Energy Services, LLC, CPN Bethpage 3rd Turbine,
Inc., Granite Ridge Energy, LLC, KIAC Partners,Nissequogue Cogen
Partners, North American Power and Gas, LLC, North American Power
Business, LLC, TBG Cogen Partners, Power Contract Financing, L.L.C.,
Westbrook Energy Center, LLC, Zion Energy LLC
    Description: Response to November 13, 2020 Deficiency Letter of
Calpine Corporation indirect subsidiaries et al.
    Filed Date: 12/14/20.
    Accession Number: 20201214-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-162-030; ER10-2984-050; ER11-2044-036 ER13-
1266-033; ER15-2211-030.
    Applicants: Bishop Hill Energy II LLC, CalEnergy, LLC, Merrill
Lynch Commodities, Inc., MidAmerican Energy Company, MidAmerican Energy
Services, LLC.
    Description: Central Region Triennial Market Power Analysis of
Bishop Hill Energy II LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/11/20.
    Accession Number: 20201211-5205.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/9/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-635-000.
    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: PGE-BPA E&P Agreement to be
effective 12/14/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/11/20.
    Accession Number: 20201211-5169.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-636-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation, Ohio Power
Company, AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc., PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEP submits Arlington FA re:
ILDSA SA No. 1336 to be effective 2/10/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/11/20.
    Accession Number: 20201211-5178.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-637-000.
    Applicants: Foxglove Wind LLC, Moonlite Wind 2 LLC.
    Description: Request for Limited Waiver of Tariff Provisions, et
al. of Foxglove Wind LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/11/20.
    Accession Number: 20201211-5203.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-638-000.
    Applicants: RWE Renewables Americas, LLC.
    Description: Request for COVID-19 Related Waiver of Tariff
Provisions, et al. of RWE Renewables Americas, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/11/20.
    Accession Number: 20201211-5204.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-639-000.
    Applicants: Wapello Solar LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based
Rate Authority to be effective 12/17/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/14/20.
    Accession Number: 20201214-5056.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-640-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ISO-NE & NEPOOL; Changes to
Qualification of Energy Eff. Resources in the FCM to be effective 2/12/
2021.
    Filed Date: 12/14/20.
    Accession Number: 20201214-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-641-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of ISA, SA
No. 4519, Queue No. AA2-159 re: Withdrawal to be effective 1/15/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/14/20.
    Accession Number: 20201214-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-643-000.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: KYMEA Amended Wholesale
Distribution Service Agreement No. 22 to be effective 12/15/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/14/20.
    Accession Number: 20201214-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 14, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-27935 Filed 12-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 85 (Thursday, May 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 20968]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08958]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2000-7257, Notice No. 85]

Railroad Safety Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) meeting.

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

SUMMARY: FRA announces the fifty-seventh meeting of the RSAC, a Federal
Advisory Committee (Committee) that develops recommendations on
railroad safety regulations and other railroad safety issues through a
consensus process. This meeting has been rescheduled from January 26,
2017, the previously announced date. The RSAC meeting topics will
include opening remarks from the FRA Associate Administrator for
Railroad Safety and Chief Safety Officer, as well as a status report
from the Engineering Task Force. In addition, FRA will present to the
Committee the consensus recommendations from the Hazardous Materials
Working Group's retrospective review of certain portions of the
Hazardous Materials Regulations, with the intent of moving for a
Committee vote to approve the same. This agenda is subject to change,
including the possible addition of further proposed tasks.

DATES: The RSAC meeting is scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m. on
Thursday, May 25, 2017, and will adjourn by 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The RSAC meeting will be held at the National Association of
Home Builders, National Housing Center, located at 1201 15th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20005. The meeting is open to the public on a
first-come, first-served basis, and is accessible to individuals with
disabilities. Sign and oral interpretation can be made available if
requested 10 calendar days before the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenton Kilgore, RSAC Administrative
Officer/Coordinator, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mailstop 25,
Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Robert Lauby, Associate
Administrator for Railroad Safety and Chief Safety Officer, FRA, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Mailstop 25, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 493-
6474.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), FRA is giving notice of a
meeting of the RSAC. The RSAC was established to provide advice and
recommendations to FRA on railroad safety matters. The RSAC is composed
of 59 voting representatives from 38 member organizations, representing
various rail industry perspectives. In addition, there are non-voting
advisory representatives from the agencies with railroad safety
regulatory responsibility in Canada and Mexico, the National
Transportation Safety Board, and the Federal Transit Administration.
The diversity of the RSAC ensures the requisite range of views and
expertise necessary to discharge its responsibilities. See the RSAC Web
site for details on prior RSAC activities and pending tasks at http://rsac.fra.dot.gov/. Please refer to the notice published in the Federal
Register on March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9740), for additional information
about the RSAC.

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-08958 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 55 (Monday, March 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 15241]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06551]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2015-0006]

Notice of Public Meeting on the Proposed Revised Guidelines for
Implementing Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, As Revised
Through the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is to announce a public meeting to solicit public
input on the proposed ``Revised Guidelines for Implementing Executive
Order 11988, Floodplain Management.''

DATES: The public meeting will be held in New York, NY on March 27,
2015, from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held in New York, NY, at Columbia
Law School, Room 104, 435 West 116th Street, New York, NY 10027.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section by March 24.
    Due to space constraints of the facility, seating will be limited
to 180 participants for the meeting. To reserve a seat in advance for
this meeting, please provide a request via email or mail with the
contact information of the participant (including name, mailing
address, and email address), the meeting to be attended, and include
the subject/attention line (or on the envelope if by mail): Reservation
Request for FFRMS Meeting. Advance reservations are preferred at least
three (3) business days prior to the meeting to ensure processing, but
will be accepted until capacity is reached. Unregistered participants
will be accepted after all participants with reservations have been
accommodated and will be admitted on a first-come, first-serve basis,
provided the person capacity is not exceeded. To submit reservations,
please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or send by mail to the address
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT caption.
    To facilitate public participation, members of the public are
invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered at
the public meetings. Comments may be submitted by one of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief
Counsel, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-3100.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the docket ID
FEMA-2015-0006. Comments received will be posted without alteration at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, and search for the Docket ID FEMA-2015-
0006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bradley Garner,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mailing Address: FFRMS, 1800 South Bell Street,
Room 627, Arlington, VA 20598-3030. The Web site is https://www.fema.gov/federal-flood-risk-management-standard-ffrms.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 30, 2015, the President signed
Executive Order 13690, directing FEMA, on behalf of the Mitigation
Framework Leadership Group, to publish for public comment draft revised
Floodplain Management Guidelines to provide guidance to agencies on the
implementation of Executive Order 11988, as amended, consistent with a
new Federal Flood Risk Management Standard. These draft revised
Guidelines were developed by the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group
in consultation with the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task
Force. FEMA is publishing this Notice on behalf of the Mitigation
Framework Leadership Group, which is chaired by FEMA, to solicit and
consider public input on the draft revised Guidelines at a public
meeting.
    Background information about these topics is available on the FFRMS
Web site at https://www.fema.gov/federal-flood-risk-management-standard-ffrms or in the docket for this Notice at www.regulations.gov,
Docket ID FEMA-2015-0006.
    The meeting is exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), as the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group is an
intergovernmental committee and falls under the intergovernmental
committee exception to FACA, 41 CFR 102-3.40(g).

    Authority: Executive Order 11988, as amended; Executive Order
13690.

    Dated: March 16, 2015.
Roy Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-06551 Filed 3-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-47-P


                  EPA's Questions for Reverse Distributors

General Questions about the Returns Process
   1. Who initiates the return? Does the RD alert the healthcare facility that credit is available for certain pharmaceuticals or do health care facilities periodically go through inventory to return un-needed items?  Answer:  Both.  We have two types of service  -  On-Site and Mail-In.  With the On-Site service we will call the customer every six months and schedule an appointment for one of our reps to go into the pharmacy and process product returns.  For the Mail-In, customers simply log onto our website, inventory products, print an inventory list and shipping labels, then ship products to our facility.
   2. Does the RD have reps that go to healthcare facilities to pull and prepare pharmaceuticals for shipment to the RD?  If so, does the rep know which items will/will not receive credit?  We have reps that go into pharmacies.  They generally know which items will receive credit, but manufacturer policies change constantly so when the items arrive at our facility we do a final review to determine which items will be credited and which ones won't.
   3. Is credit received per container?  Per pill if container has been opened?  Full items are credited per container.  For those manufacturers who accept partial items for credit, some will issue credit on a per-pill basis while others will simply round to the next lowest quarter.
   4. Do healthcare facilities return pharmaceuticals from the patient floors (e.g., drugs that have been re-packaged)? Are re-packaged pharmaceuticals creditable?  Yes, sometimes we receive items that have been dispensed.  No, they are not credit-worthy.
   5. Once the shipment arrives at the RD facility, what is the timeframe for processing?  Less than a week.
   6. Are generic brands creditable?  Generally yes, but it depends on the manufacturer.
   7. Do expired items typically get credit?  Yes.  Typically up to six months or one year past expiration, but again, it depends on the manufacturer.
   8. How is the RD paid for its services? Does the RD receive a percentage of the credit?  Is there a flat fee? Are there additional charges to the healthcare facility for waste management?  We receive a percentage of the credit.  We do not charge additional fees for waste management.
   9. Under what circumstances would a healthcare facility return pharmaceuticals to a (forward) distributor in lieu of sending to a RD?  Do you process pharmaceuticals from (forward) distributors?  Many forward distributors (wholesalers) will accept unopened items for full credit (no handling fees) within 90 days of purchasing the item so a pharmacy might return product to them in that instance.  Once this 90-day grace period is up, some pharmacies still believe it is better to return product to their wholesaler  -  even though the fees are typically higher than those of a reverse distributor.
   10. When pharmaceuticals are received at the RD, are they ever shipped to another RD's facility for crediting? Yes.
   11. Do you accept non-pharmaceutical products?  Yes.  Typically HBC items (shampoo, deodorant, toothpaste, etc.)
   12. How long are pharmaceuticals kept on-site after providing credit?  How long are the pharmaceuticals that become hazardous wastes kept on-site?  On average how long does it take a pharmaceutical to cycle through your facility?  Returnable products are typically in our facility less than 45 days.  Hazardous wastes are here no longer than 90 days.

Shipment
   1. Are returned pharmaceuticals shipped to the RD via commercial mail carrier or USPS or private hauler?  Answer:  UPS or FedEx.  Is the shipment tracked and is the healthcare facility notified by the RD that the shipment has been received?  Answer:  The healthcare facility is not notified by us when a shipment is received.  Since we utilize UPS or FedEx shipments are easily traceable should the need arise.  Do healthcare facilities notify the RD that a shipment has been sent? Answer:  No.
   2. Does the board of pharmacy require RDs to keep an inventory of everything received at an RD? No.  But we keep records for at least two years.
   3. Are controlled substances shipped separately from other pharmaceuticals?  Can you explain more about the process of handling returned controlled substances?  CII products are shipped separately than other items.  CIII-CV products are not segregated for shipping.  Much more documentation is required for our processing of controlled substances.  These items are maintained in either a locked cage or a concrete/steel vault while at our facility.
   4. Have there been incidences where shipments have been lost or stolen? Answer:  Yes.  We have had several instances where FedEx employees have pilfered items from our boxes.  We have taken additional steps over the years to help reduce this.

Waste Determination and Management
   1. What percentage of returned pharmaceuticals is typically RCRA hazardous waste once it is determined credit will or will not be given?  Answer:  About 2%  Typically, do pharmaceuticals that meet RCRA's definition of a hazardous waste get credit?  Answer:  Yes.  Do you ever manage non-hazardous pharmaceuticals as RCRA hazardous waste?  Answer:  No.
   2. Is the manufacturer always contacted prior to disposal of a creditable pharmaceutical? Answer:  Yes.  For a non-creditable pharmaceutical?  Answer:  No.
   3. What percentage of returned pharmaceuticals is sent back to the manufacturer versus being disposed of directly by the RD?  Answer:  About 93.75% of credit-worthy items processed by us are shipped back to manufacturers or other reverse distributors.  The remaining 6.25% are destroyed.


Agreement.                                                        Federal Register       unredacted portion of the
                                                                                citation].             Consent Order and
                                                                                Agreement.
Keystone Plant.....................  Consent Order.........  Armstrong...............         10/1/18  10/19/20, [Insert      Sulfur dioxide emission
                                                                                Federal Register       limits established with
                                                                                citation].             AERMOD modeling without
                                                                                AERMOIST and related
                                                                                parameters in unredacted
                                                                                portions of the Consent
                                                                                Order dated 10/11/17.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Name of non-regulatory SIP        Applicable        State submittal                           Additional
            revision               geographic area          date         EPA approval date       explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Attainment Plan for the          Indiana County and  10/11/17            10/19/20, [Insert  52.2033(f).
 Indiana, Pennsylvania            portions of         Supplemental        Federal Register
 Nonattainment Area for the       Armstrong County    information         citation].
 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary      (Plumcreek          submitted 02/05/
 National Ambient Air Quality     Township, South     20, redacted
 Standard.                        Bend Township,      permits submitted
                                  and Elderton        on 05/13/20.
                                  Borough).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  52.2033 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2033  Control strategy: Sulfur oxides.

* * * * *
    (f) EPA approves the attainment demonstration State Implementation
Plan for the Indiana, PA Nonattainment Area submitted by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection on October 11,
2017, updated on February 5, 2020, and corrected permits and plan
approvals submitted on May 13, 2020.

[FR Doc. 2020-23037 Filed 10-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P