[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 47554]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22036]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Notice of Adjustment of Statewide Per Capita Impact Indicator

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: FEMA gives notice that the statewide per capita impact
indicator under the Public Assistance program for disasters declared on
or after October 1, 2017, will be increased.

DATES: This adjustment applies to major disasters declared on or after
October 1, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Logan, Recovery
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 44 CFR 206.48 provides that FEMA will adjust
the statewide per capita impact indicator under the Public Assistance
program to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers published by the Department of Labor.
    FEMA gives notice that the statewide per capita impact indicator
will be increased to $1.46 for all disasters declared on or after
October 1, 2017.
    FEMA bases the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers of 1.9 percent for the 12-month period
that ended in August 2017. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S.
Department of Labor released the information on September 14, 2017.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters).

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-22036 Filed 10-11-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14168-14169]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04561]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2023-N-0008]

Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel of the Medical
Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming
public advisory committee meeting of the Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation
Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee. The general
function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to
the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the
public.

DATES: The meeting will take place virtually on April 20, 2023, from 9
a.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES: Please note that due to the impact of this COVID-19
pandemic, all meeting participants will be joining this advisory
committee meeting via an online teleconferencing platform. Answers to
commonly asked questions, including information regarding special
accommodations due to a disability, may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/about-advisory-committees/common-questions-and-answers-about-fda-advisory-committee-meetings.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Akinola Awojope, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5214, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER>, or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area). A notice in the Federal Register about last-minute modifications
that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot
always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore,
you should always check the Agency's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the

appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory
committee information line to learn about possible modifications before
the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: The meeting presentations will be heard, viewed, captioned,
and recorded through an online teleconferencing platform. On April 20,
2023, the committee will discuss, make recommendations, and vote on
clinical information related to the De Novo request for the NUsurface
Meniscus Implant sponsored by Active Implants, Inc. The device is a
polymeric disc-shaped device implanted in the medial compartment of the
knee to distribute load between the distal femur and proximal tibia and
is intended to improve pain and function in the medial compartment of a
knee in which the medial meniscus has been resected.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at
the time of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material
will be posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material
and the link to the online teleconference meeting room will be
available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down and select the appropriate advisory committee
meeting link. The meeting will include slide presentations with audio
components to allow the presentation of materials in a manner that most
closely resembles an in-person advisory committee meeting.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
April 4, 2023. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled on
April 20, 2023, between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Eastern Time.
Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should
notify the contact person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). The
notification should include a brief statement of the general nature of
the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses
of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time
requested to make their presentation on or before March 27, 2023. Time
allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of
registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably
accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may
conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open
public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested
persons regarding their request to speak by March 28, 2023.
    For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Artair Mallett at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER> at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: March 1, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-04561 Filed 3-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5085-5087]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2134]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66256; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify the Fee for a Written Interpretation of the Nasdaq Listing Rules

January 26, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 13, 2012, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') 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 Nasdaq. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Nasdaq proposes to modify the fee for a written interpretation of
the Nasdaq listing rules. Nasdaq will implement the proposed rule
change immediately.
    (a) The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Changes are marked to the rule text that appears in the
electronic manual of Nasdaq found at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com.

* * * * *

5602. Written Interpretations of Nasdaq Listing Rules

    (a) A Company listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market or the Nasdaq
Global Market may request from Nasdaq a written interpretation of
the Rules contained in the Rule 5000 through 5900 Series. In
connection with such a request, the Company must submit to Nasdaq a
non-refundable fee of [$15,000]$5,000. [(b)] A response to such a
request[for a written interpretation] generally will be provided
within four weeks from the date Nasdaq receives all information
necessary to respond to the request [, although if a Company
requires a response by a specific date it should state the date in
its request for the written interpretation and Nasdaq will attempt
to respond by that date].
    (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a Company may request a
written interpretation of the Rules contained in the 5000 through
5900 Series by a specific date that is less than four weeks, but at
least one week, after the date Nasdaq receives all information
necessary to respond to the

request. In connection with such a request for an expedited
response, the Company must submit to Nasdaq a non-refundable fee of
$15,000.
    (c)-(f) No change.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq rules allow a company to request from Nasdaq a written
interpretation on the application of the Nasdaq listing rules,
contained in the Rule 5000 through 5900 Series. Nasdaq proposes to
modify the fee in connection with such a request. Today, a company is
required to submit a non-refundable fee of $15,000,\4\ and Nasdaq
generally provides a response to the request within four weeks from the
date Nasdaq receives all information necessary to respond to the
request, although if a company requires a response by a specific date,
Nasdaq will attempt to respond by that date.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Nasdaq Listing Rule 5602(a).
    \5\ See Nasdaq Listing Rule 5602(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Previously, Nasdaq rules provided for two tiers of fees for a
written interpretation of the Nasdaq listing rules, depending on the
urgency of the request. Nasdaq eliminated that two-tier structure
because few companies took advantage of the lower fee alternative.\6\
However, Nasdaq has received feedback from listed companies and their
counsel that the option to submit a non-expedited request for a lower
fee is an important alternative. Accordingly, Nasdaq proposes to revert
to the prior version of the rules,\7\ under which a company could
submit a non-refundable fee of $5,000 for a regular request, to which
Nasdaq generally will provide a response within four weeks from the
date Nasdaq receives all information necessary to respond to the
request. As under the current rule, a company may, alternatively,
submit a non-refundable fee of $15,000 for an expedited request, in
which the company requests a response by a specific date that is less
than four weeks, but at least one week, after the date Nasdaq receives
all necessary information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-61669 (March 5,
2010), 75 FR 11958 (March 12, 2010) (approving SR-NASDAQ-2009-081).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, companies would have the option to choose an
expedited or non-expedited track for their request, and no company will
pay a higher fee for a written interpretation of the Nasdaq listing
rules than is currently charged. Nasdaq will continue to endeavor to
respond to all requests as quickly as possible, while making
appropriate decisions as to the application of the Nasdaq rules. Nasdaq
also will continue not to charge companies for oral guidance on the
Nasdaq rules.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Commission notes that Nasdaq informed Commission staff
in connection with a previous rule proposal that Nasdaq does not
charge companies for oral interpretation requests of their rules.
See supra note 6, 75 FR at 11959 n. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the proposed rule change will not affect Nasdaq's
commitment of resources to its regulatory oversight of the listing
process or its other regulatory programs, and the proposed change is
not expected to meaningfully impact Nasdaq's revenue from its listing
program.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\9\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular. The proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable fees, dues, and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or
system which Nasdaq operates or controls. Under the proposed rule
change, issuers that do not need an expedited request could pay a lower
fee. Nasdaq believes that the availability of a lower priced
alternative for non-expedited interpretation requests is an equitable
allocation of Nasdaq's fees. The proposed rule change also is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) in that it does not unfairly
discriminate between issuers in that issuers that do not need an
expedited interpretation will have the lower-priced alternative
available to them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \11\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2012-012 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2012-012. 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 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2012-012 and should be submitted
on or before February 22, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-2134 Filed 1-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 141 (Thursday, July 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43825-43826]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18030]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 31717; 812-14503]

Broms Asset Management NextShares Trust, et al.; Notice of
Application

July 16, 2015.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from sections
2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the
Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from
sections 17(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J)
of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the
Act.

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

    Applicants: Broms Asset Management NextShares Trust (``Trust''),
Broms Asset Management LLC (``Manager''), and Foreside Fund Services,
LLC (``Distributor'').
    Summary of Application: Applicants request an order (``Order'')
that permits: (a) Actively managed series of certain open-end
management investment companies to issue shares (``Shares'') redeemable
in large aggregations only (``Creation Units''); (b) secondary market
transactions in Shares to occur at the next-determined net asset value
plus or minus a market-determined premium or discount that may vary
during the trading day; (c) certain series to pay redemption proceeds,
under certain circumstances, more than seven days from the tender of
Shares for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of the series to
deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the series in
connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; (e)
certain registered management investment companies and unit investment
trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the series
to acquire Shares; and (f) certain series to create and redeem Shares
in kind in a master-feeder structure. The Order would incorporate by
reference terms and conditions of a previous order granting the same
relief sought by applicants, as that order may be amended from time to
time (``Reference Order'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Eaton Vance Management, et al., Investment Company Act Rel.
Nos. 31333 (Nov. 6, 2014) (notice) and 31361 (Dec. 2, 2014) (order).

DATES:  Filing Dates: The application was filed on June 30, 2015.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on August 12, 2015, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: The Commission: Brent J. Fields, Secretary, U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Applicants: Broms Asset Management NextShares Trust and Broms Asset
Management LLC, 40 Wall Street, 35th Floor, New York, NY 10005 and
Foreside Fund Services, LLC, Three Canal Plaza, Suite 100, Portland, ME
04101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean E. Minarick, Senior Counsel, or
Dalia Osman Blass, Assistant Chief Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division
of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants

    1. The Trust will be registered as an open-end management
investment company under the Act and is a statutory trust organized
under the laws of Delaware. Applicants seek relief with respect to four
Funds (as defined below, and those Funds, the ``Initial Funds''). Each
Fund's portfolio positions will

consist of securities and other assets selected and managed by its
Manager or Subadviser (as defined below) to pursue the Fund's
investment objective.
    2. The Manager is a Delaware limited liability company and will be
the investment manager to the Initial Funds. A Manager (as defined
below) will serve as investment manager to each Fund. The Manager is,
and any other Manager will be, registered as an investment adviser
under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act''). The
Manager and the Trust may retain one or more subadvisers (each a
``Subadviser'') to manage the portfolios of the Funds. Any Subadviser
will be registered, or not subject to registration, under the Advisers
Act.
    3. The Distributor is a Delaware limited liability company and a
broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
will act as the principal underwriter of Shares of the Funds.
Applicants request that the requested relief apply to any distributor
of Shares, whether affiliated or unaffiliated with the Manager
(included in the term ``Distributor''). Any Distributor will comply
with the terms and conditions of the Order.

Applicants' Requested Exemptive Relief

    4. Applicants seek the requested Order under section 6(c) of the
Act for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e)
of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b)
of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the
Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from
sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. The requested Order would
permit applicants to offer exchange-traded managed funds. Because the
relief requested is the same as the relief granted by the Commission
under the Reference Order and because the Manager has entered into, or
anticipates entering into, a licensing agreement with Eaton Vance
Management, or an affiliate thereof in order to offer exchange-traded
managed funds,\2\ the Order would incorporate by reference the terms
and conditions of the Reference Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Eaton Vance Management has obtained patents with respect to
certain aspects of the Funds' method of operation as exchange-traded
managed funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Applicants request that the Order apply to the Initial Funds and
to any other existing or future open-end management investment company
or series thereof that: (a) Is advised by the Manager or any entity
controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Manager
(any such entity included in the term ``Manager''); and (b) operates as
an exchange-traded managed fund as described in the Reference Order;
and (c) complies with the terms and conditions of the Order and of the
Reference Order, which is incorporated by reference herein (each such
company or series and Initial Fund, a ``Fund'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ All entities that currently intend to rely on the Order are
named as applicants. Any other entity that relies on the Order in
the future will comply with the terms and conditions of the Order
and of the Reference Order, which is incorporated by reference
herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security or transaction, or any class of persons,
securities or transactions, from any provisions of the Act, if and to
the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed
transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that
the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or
received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on
the part of any person concerned, and the proposed transaction is
consistent with the policies of the registered investment company and
the general purposes of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act
provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or
transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or
transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption
is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
    7. Applicants submit that for the reasons stated in the Reference
Order: (1) With respect to the relief requested pursuant to section
6(c) of the Act, the relief is appropriate, in the public interest and
consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly
intended by the policy and provisions of the Act; (2) with respect to
the relief request pursuant to section 17(b) of the Act, the proposed
transactions are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on
the part of any person concerned, are consistent with the policies of
each registered investment company concerned and consistent with the
general purposes of the Act; and (3) with respect to the relief
requested pursuant to section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act, the relief is
consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.

    By the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated
authority.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-18030 Filed 7-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54780-54783]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19538]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0312; FRL-9950-81-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; Removal of Stage II Gasoline Vapor
Recovery Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve changes to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky through its Energy and
Environment Cabinet (EEC) on May 3, 2016. This SIP revision seeks to
remove Stage II vapor control requirements for new and upgraded
gasoline dispensing facilities in the State and allow for the
decommissioning of existing Stage II equipment in Boone, Campbell and
Kenton Counties in Kentucky. EPA has preliminarily determined that
Kentucky's May 3, 2016, SIP revision is approvable because it is
consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 16,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2016-0312 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory

Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Sheckler's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. She can also
be reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background for Federal Stage II Requirements

    Stage I vapor recovery is a type of emission control system that
captures gasoline vapors that are released when gasoline is delivered
to a storage tank. The vapors are returned to the tank truck as the
storage tank is being filled with fuel, rather than released to the
ambient air. Stage II and onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) are
two types of emission control systems that capture fuel vapors from
vehicle gas tanks during refueling. Stage II systems are specifically
installed at gasoline dispensing facilities and capture the refueling
fuel vapors at the gasoline pump nozzle. The system carries the vapors
back to the underground storage tank at the gasoline dispensing
facility to prevent the vapors from escaping to the atmosphere. ORVR
systems are carbon canisters installed directly on automobiles to
capture the fuel vapors evacuated from the gasoline tank before they
reach the nozzle. The fuel vapors captured in the carbon canisters are
then combusted in the engine when the automobile is in operation.
    Under section 182(b)(3) of the CAA, each state was required to
submit a SIP revision to implement Stage II for all ozone nonattainment
areas classified as moderate, serious, severe, or extreme, primarily
for the control of volatile organic compounds (VOC)--a precursor to
ozone formation.\1\ However, section 202(a)(6) of the CAA states that
the section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirements for moderate ozone
nonattainment areas shall not apply after the promulgation of ORVR
standards.\2\ ORVR standards were promulgated by EPA on April 6, 1994.
See 59 FR 16262 and 40 CFR parts 86, 88 and 600. As a result, the CAA
no longer requires moderate areas to impose Stage II controls under
section 182(b)(3), and such areas were able to submit SIP revisions, in
compliance with section 110(l) of the CAA, to remove Stage II
requirements from their SIPs. EPA's policy memoranda related to ORVR,
dated March 9, 1993, and June 23, 1993, provide further guidance on
removing Stage II requirements from certain areas. The policy
memorandum dated March 9, 1993, states that ``[w]hen onboard rules are
promulgated, a State may withdraw its Stage II rules for moderate areas
from the SIP (or from consideration as a SIP revision) consistent with
its obligations under sections 182(b)(3) and 202(a)(6), so long as
withdrawal will not interfere with any other applicable requirement of
the Act.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 182(b)(3) states that each State in which all or
part of an ozone nonattainment area classified as moderate or above
shall, with respect to that area, submit a SIP revision requiring
owners or operators of gasoline dispensing systems to install and
operate vapor recovery equipment at their facilities. Specifically,
the CAA specifies that the Stage II requirements must apply to any
facility that dispenses more than 10,000 gallons of gasoline per
month or, in the case of an independent small business marketer
(ISBM), as defined in section 324 of the CAA, any facility that
dispenses more than 50,000 gallons of gasoline per month.
Additionally, the CAA specifies the deadlines by which certain
facilities must comply with the Stage II requirements. For
facilities that are not owned or operated by an ISBM, these
deadlines, calculated from the time of State adoption of the Stage
II requirements, are: (1) 6 months for facilities for which
construction began after November 15, 1990, (2) 1 year for
facilities that dispense greater than 100,000 gallons of gasoline
per month, and (3) by November 15, 1994, for all other facilities.
For ISBMs, section 324(a) of the CAA provides the following three-
year phase-in period: (1) 33 percent of the facilities owned by an
ISBM by the end of the first year after the regulations take effect;
(2) 66 percent of such facilities by the end of the second year; and
(3) 100 percent of such facilities after the third year.
    \2\ ORVR is a system employed on gasoline-powered highway motor
vehicles to capture gasoline vapors displaced from a vehicle fuel
tank during refueling events. These systems are required under
section 202(a)(6) of the CAA and implementation of these
requirements began in the 1998 model year. Currently they are used
on all gasoline-powered passenger cars, light trucks and complete
heavy trucks of less than 14,000 pounds GVWR. ORVR systems typically
employ a liquid file neck seal to block vapor escape to the
atmosphere and otherwise share many components with the vehicles'
evaporative emission control system including the onboard diagnostic
system sensors.
    \3\ Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, to EPA Regional Air Directors,
Impact of the Recent Onboard Decision on Stage II Requirements in
Moderate Areas (March 9, 1993), available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/19930309_seitz_onboard_impact_stage2_.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 202(a)(6) also provides discretionary authority to the
EPA Administrator to, by rule, revise or waive the section 182(b)(3)
Stage II requirement for serious, severe, and extreme ozone
nonattainment areas after the Administrator determines that ORVR is in
widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet. On May 16, 2012, in
a rulemaking entitled ``Air Quality: Widespread Use for Onboard
Refueling Vapor Recovery and Stage II Waiver,'' EPA determined that
ORVR technology is in widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet
for purposes of controlling motor vehicle refueling emissions. See 77
FR 28772. By that action, EPA waived the requirement for states to
implement Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems at gasoline
dispensing facilities in nonattainment areas classified as serious and
above for the ozone NAAQS. Effective May 16, 2012, states implementing
mandatory Stage II programs under section 182(b)(3) of the CAA were
allowed to submit SIP revisions to remove this program. See 40 CFR
51.126(b).\4\ On April 7, 2012, EPA released the guidance entitled
``Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from
State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures'' for
states to consider in preparing their SIP revisions to remove existing
Stage II programs from state implementation plans.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As noted above, EPA found, pursuant to CAA section
202(a)(6), that ORVR systems are in widespread use in the motor
vehicle fleet and waived the CAA section 182(b)(3) Stage II vapor
recovery requirement for serious and higher ozone nonattainment
areas on May 16, 2012. Thus, in its implementation rule for the 2008
ozone NAAQS, EPA removed the section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement
from the list of applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.1100(o). See
80 FR 12264 for additional information.
    \5\ This guidance document is available at: http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/pdfs/20120807guidance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Kentucky's Stage II Requirements for the Northern Kentucky Area

    On November 6, 1991, EPA designated and classified Boone, Campbell
and Kenton Counties in Kentucky (hereinafter referred to as the
``Northern Kentucky Area'' or ``Area'') as part of the seven-county
area in and around the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY, area as a moderate
nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.\6\ See 56 FR 56694,
56764. As mentioned above, the ``moderate'' classification triggered
various statutory requirements for this Area, including the requirement
pursuant to section 182(b)(3) of the CAA for the Area to require all
owners and operators of gasoline dispensing systems to install and
operate a system for gasoline vapor recovery of emissions from the
fueling of motor vehicles known as ``Stage II.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The other counties in this nonattainment area were Butler,
Clermont, Hamilton and Warren Counties in Ohio. See 56 FR 56813.
    \7\ As discussed above, Stage II is a system designed to capture
displaced vapors that emerge from inside a vehicle's fuel tank when
gasoline is dispensed into the tank. There are two basic types of
Stage II systems, the balance type and the vacuum assist type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 3, 1998, the Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted a SIP
revision to address the Stage II

requirements for the Northern Kentucky Area. EPA approved that SIP
revision, containing Kentucky regulation 401 KAR 59:174--Stage II
controls at gasoline dispensing facilities, in a notice published on
February 8, 1999. 63 FR 67586. Northern Kentucky's Stage II rule, as
currently incorporated into the SIP, requires that Stage II systems be
tested and certified to meet a 95 percent emission reduction efficiency
by using a system approved by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB). The rule requires sources to verify proper installation and
function of Stage II equipment through use of a liquid blockage test
and a leak test prior to system operation and every five years or upon
major modification of a facility (i.e., 75 percent or more equipment
change). The Commonwealth also established an inspection program
consistent with that described in EPA's Stage II guidance and has
established procedures for enforcing violations of the Stage II
requirements.
    On December 13, 1999, Kentucky submitted to EPA a request to
redesignate the Northern Kentucky Area to attainment for the 1-hour
ozone standard and an associated maintenance plan. The maintenance
plan, as required under section 175A of the CAA, showed that nitrogen
oxides and VOC emissions in the Area would remain below the 1996
``attainment year'' levels through the greater than ten-year period
from 1996-2010. In making these projections, Kentucky factored in the
emissions benefit of the Area's Stage II program, thereby maintaining
this program as an active part of its 1-hour ozone SIP. Originally, the
redesignation request and maintenance plan were approved by EPA,
effective July 5, 2000. See 65 FR 37879. However, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated EPA's approval of this
redesignation request and maintenance plan and remanded it back to EPA
after the Court concluded that EPA erred in one respect pertaining only
to the Ohio portion of the Area. On July 31, 2002, EPA reinstated the
approval of the redesignation request and maintenance plan for
Kentucky. See 67 FR 49600.
    Subsequently, Boone, Campbell and Kenton Counties in Kentucky (or
portions thereof) were designated nonattainment as a part of a larger
tri-state nonattainment area which included Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana
counties in and around the Cincinnati area for both the 1997 8-hour
ozone and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On August 5, 2010, the Area (i.e.,
the Kentucky portion of the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area) was
redesignated to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 75 FR
47218. The tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area is attaining the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, and the Commonwealth is in the process of submitting
a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.

III. Analysis of the Commonwealth's Submittal

    On May 3, 2016, the Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted a SIP
revision to EPA seeking modifications of the Stage II requirements in
the Northern Kentucky Area. Specifically, it seeks the removal of the
Stage II requirements in Kentucky regulation 401 KAR 59:174--Stage II
Controls at gasoline dispensing facilities. These modifications would
remove Stage II vapor control requirements for new and upgraded
gasoline dispensing facilities in the State and allow for the
decommissioning of existing Stage II equipment.
    EPA's primary consideration for determining the approvability of
the Commonwealth of Kentucky's request is whether this requested action
complies with section 110(l) of the CAA.\8\ Section 110(l) requires
that a revision to the SIP not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as
defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the
Act. EPA evaluates each section 110(l) noninterference demonstration on
a case-by-case basis, considering the circumstances of each SIP
revision. EPA interprets 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in
effect, including those that have been promulgated but for which the
EPA has not yet made designations. The degree of analysis focused on
any particular NAAQS in a noninterference demonstration varies
depending on the nature of the emissions associated with the proposed
SIP revision. EPA's analysis of Kentucky's May 3, 2016, SIP revision
pursuant to section 110(l) is provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ CAA section 193 is not relevant because Kentucky's Stage II
rule was not included in the SIP before the 1990 CAA amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its May 3, 2016, SIP revision, Kentucky used EPA's guidance
entitled ``Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control
Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable
Measures'' to conduct a series of calculations to determine the
potential impact on air quality of removing the Stage II program.\9\
Kentucky's analysis focused on VOC emissions because, as mentioned
above, Stage II requirements affect VOC emissions and because VOC are a
precursor for ozone formation.\10\ The results of Kentucky's analysis
are provided in the table below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA, Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control
Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable
Measures, EPA-457/B-12-001 (Aug. 7, 2012), available at https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/ozone-stage-two-vapor-recovery-rule-and-guidance. This guidance document notes that ``the potential emission
control losses from removing Stage II VRS are transitional and
relatively small. ORVR-equipped vehicles will continue to phase in
to the fleet over the coming years and will exceed 80 percent of all
highway gasoline vehicles and 85 percent of all gasoline dispensed
during 2015. As the number of these ORVR-equipped vehicles increase,
the control attributed to Stage II VRS will decrease even further,
and the potential foregone Stage II VOC emission reductions are
generally expected to be no more than one percent of the VOC
inventory in the area.''
    \10\ Two counties in Kentucky are currently designated
nonattainment for the 1997 Annual fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) standard: Bullitt and Jefferson. While VOC is one
of the precursors for particulate matter (NAAQS) formation, studies
have indicated that, in the southeast, emissions of direct
PM2.5 and the precursor sulfur oxides are more
significant to ambient summertime PM2.5 concentrations
than emissions of nitrogen oxides and anthropogenic VOC. See, e.g.,
Quantifying the sources of ozone, fine particulate matter, and
regional haze in the Southeastern United States, Journal of
Environmental Management (2009), available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479709001893.

   Table 1--VOC Emissions Difference Between Stage II VRS in Place and
                                 Removed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          VOC emissions
                         Year                            (tons per day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011..................................................               N/A
2014..................................................             -0.21
2017..................................................             -0.15
2020..................................................             -0.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 shows that the removal of Stage II vapor recovery systems
in the Northern Kentucky Area starting in 2014 would have resulted and
will result in a VOC emission decrease. If instead Stage II
requirements are kept in place, VOC emissions will decrease by less,
and it will less beneficial to air quality in Northern Kentucky to keep
Stage II systems in operation.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The emissions-reduction disbenefit associated with
continued implementation of Stage II requirements is due to the
incompatibility of some Stage II and ORVR systems. Compatibility
problems can result in an increase in emissions from the underground
storage tank (UST) vent pipe and other system fugitive emissions
related to the refueling of ORVR vehicles with some types of vacuum
assist-type Stage II systems. This occurs during refueling an ORVR
vehicle when the vacuum assist system draws fresh air into the UST
rather than an air vapor mixture from the vehicle fuel tank. Vapor
flow from the vehicle fuel tank is blocked by the liquid seal in the
fill pipe which forms at a level deeper in the fill pipe than can be
reached by the end of the nozzle spout. The fresh air drawn into the
UST enhances gasoline evaporation in the UST which increases
pressure in the UST. Unless it is lost as a fugitive emission, any
tank pressure in excess of the rating of the pressure/vacuum valve
is vented to the atmosphere over the course of a day. See EPA,
Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from
State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures, EPA-
457/B-12-001 (Aug. 7, 2012), available at: https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/ozone-stage-two-vapor-recovery-rule-and-guidance.
Thus, as ORVR technology is phased in, the amount of emission
control that is gained through Stage II systems decreases.

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

    The affected sources covered by Kentucky's Stage II vapor recovery
requirements are sources of VOC. Other criteria pollutants (carbon
monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and
lead) are not emitted by gasoline dispensing facilities and will not be
affected by the removal of Stage II controls.
    The proposed revisions to 401 KAR 59:174 include that gasoline
dispensing facilities located in Boone, Campbell and Kenton Counties
shall decommission and remove the systems no later than December 31,
2018. Kentucky noted in its submission that the decommissioning
procedures in the revised version of 401 KAR 59:174 follow Petroleum
Equipment Institute (PEI) guidance, ``Recommended Practices for
Installation and Testing of Vapor Recovery Systems at Vehicle Refueling
Sites,'' PEI/RP300-09.
    EPA is proposing to determine that Kentucky's technical analysis is
consistent with EPA's guidance on removing Stage II requirements from a
SIP, including as it relates to the decommissioning and phasing out of
the Stage II requirements for the Northern Kentucky Area. EPA is also
making the preliminary determination that Kentucky's SIP revision is
consistent with the CAA and with EPA's regulations related to removal
of Stage II requirements from the SIP and that these changes will not
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or any
other applicable requirement of the CAA, and therefore satisfy section
110(l).

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Kentucky Regulation 401 KAR 59:174--Stage II controls at
gasoline dispensing facilities, effective March 4, 2016. EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth of Kentucky's May 3,
2016, SIP revision that changes Kentucky's Stage II rule, 401 KAR
59:174, to allow for the removal of the Stage II requirement and the
orderly decommissioning of Stage II equipment. EPA is proposing this
approval because the Agency has made the preliminary determination that
the Commonwealth of Kentucky's May 3, 2016, SIP revision related to the
Commonwealth's Stage II rule is consistent with the CAA and with EPA's
regulations and guidance.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 8, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2016-19538 Filed 8-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26199-26201]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09441]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0365 and EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0366; FRL 8310-01-OW]

Draft Recommended Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: As part of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
commitment to safeguard the environment from per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS), the agency is announcing the availability of Clean
Water Act (CWA) national ``Draft Recommended Aquatic Life Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)'' and ``Draft
Recommended Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS)'' for a 30-day public comment
period. These draft criteria are a priority action identified in EPA's
PFAS Strategic Roadmap and reflect the latest scientific knowledge
regarding the effects of PFOA and PFOS on freshwater organisms. These
draft criteria have undergone external peer review, and EPA has revised
the documents accordingly. When these draft CWA recommended criteria
are finalized, they will provide information that states and tribes may
consider when adopting water quality standards.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 2, 2022.

ADDRESSES:
    Docket: EPA has established dockets for these actions under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0365 for the ``Draft Recommended Aquatic Life
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)'' and
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0366 for the ``Draft Recommended Aquatic
Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid
(PFOS).'' You may send comments, identified by the Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OW-2022-0365 for the draft PFOA criteria or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2022-0366 for the draft PFOS criteria, through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Out
of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the
EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are open to the public by
appointment only to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our
Docket Center staff also continue to provide remote customer service
via email, phone, and webform. Hand deliveries and couriers may be
received by scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA
Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us online
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Justice, Health and Ecological
Criteria Division, Office of Water (Mail Code 4304T), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation--Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2022-
0365 for the draft PFOA criteria or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0366
for the draft PFOS criteria, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once
submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. EPA
may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located

outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. What are PFOA and PFOS, and how do they affect aquatic life?

    PFOA and PFOS are two of the most widely used and studied chemicals
in the PFAS group. PFAS have been manufactured and used by a broad
range of industries since the 1940s. PFOA and PFOS are not naturally
occurring and have no biologically important functions or beneficial
properties to aquatic life. The mechanisms underpinning the toxicity of
PFOA and PFOS to aquatic organisms, like other PFAS, is an active and
on-going area of research. The draft recommended criteria are based on
observed effects of PFOA and PFOS to the survival, growth, and
reproduction of aquatic organisms. Based on the available ecotoxicity
data, aquatic plants are generally less sensitive to PFOA and PFOS than
fish and other aquatic life.

III. What are EPA's recommended criteria for PFOA and PFOS in
freshwater for the protection of aquatic life?

    EPA's draft recommended aquatic life ambient water quality criteria
documents provide a critical review of PFOA and PFOS toxicity data,
quantify the toxicity of these chemicals to aquatic life, and provide
separate PFOA and PFOS criteria to protect aquatic life from the toxic
effects of these chemicals. These draft criteria were derived to
reflect the latest scientific knowledge using the available data on the
toxicological effects of PFOA and PFOS on aquatic life. EPA developed
these draft aquatic life ambient water quality criteria following the
general approach outlined in EPA's ``Guidelines for Deriving Numerical
Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and
Their Uses.''
    EPA developed the draft PFOA and PFOS criteria to be protective of
most aquatic organisms in the community (i.e., approximately 95 percent
of tested aquatic organisms representing the aquatic community) and to
be protective of aquatic life designated uses established for
freshwaters. The draft criteria documents both contain acute and
chronic criteria for freshwaters (see Table 1). The draft criteria
documents also contain chronic criteria expressed as tissue-based
concentrations to protect aquatic life from PFOA and PFOS
bioaccumulation (see Table 1 below). The chronic freshwater and chronic
tissue criteria for both of these chemicals are intended to be
independently applicable and no one criterion takes primacy.
    Data limitations did not allow for derivation of PFOA or PFOS
national recommended water quality criteria in estuarine/marine waters.
However, EPA derived acute estuarine/marine benchmarks through
application of a New Approach Method (NAM), using available toxicity
data supplemented with modeled estimates of acute toxicity. The acute
estuarine/marine benchmarks for PFOA and PFOS are recommendations for
states and tribes to consider as protective values in their water
quality protection programs.
    EPA's draft recommended criteria are the maximum concentrations of
PFOA and PFOS (individually, not in mixture), with associated frequency
and duration specifications, that will support protection of aquatic
life from acute and chronic effects in freshwaters (see Table 1).

           Table 1--Draft Recommended Freshwater Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for PFOA and PFOS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Chronic water    Invertebrate     Fish whole-
      Criteria component          Acute water      column (CCC)   whole-body (mg/   body (mg/kg     Fish muscle
                               column (CMC) \1\        \2\           kg ww\3\)          ww)         (mg/kg ww)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PFOA Magnitude...............  49 mg/L.........  0.094 mg/L.....            1.11            6.10           0.125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PFOS Magnitude...............  3.0 mg/L........  0.0084 mg/L....           0.937            6.75            2.91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duration.....................  1-hour average..  4-day average..  Instantaneous.\4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency....................  Not to be         Not to be        Not to be exceeded more than once in ten
                                exceeded more     exceeded more   years, on average.
                                than once in      than once in
                                three years, on   three years,
                                average.          on average.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Criterion Maximum Concentration.
\2\ Criterion Continuous Concentration.
\3\ Wet Weight.
\4\ Tissue data provide instantaneous point measurements that reflect integrative accumulation of PFOA or PFOS
  over time and space in aquatic life population(s) at a given site.

IV. What are CWA national recommended ambient water quality criteria
developed by EPA?

    Section 304(a)(1) of the CWA directs EPA to develop and publish
and, from time to time, revise criteria for water quality accurately
reflecting the latest scientific knowledge. Water quality criteria
developed under CWA Section 304(a) are based solely on data and
scientific judgments on the relationship between pollutant
concentrations and environmental and human health effects. CWA Section
304(a) recommended criteria do not reflect consideration of economic
impacts or the technological feasibility of meeting pollutant
concentrations in ambient water.
    Under the CWA and its implementing regulations, states and
authorized tribes are to adopt water quality criteria to protect
designated uses (e.g., aquatic life, recreational use). CWA Section
304(a) recommended criteria provide guidance to states and authorized
tribes in adopting water quality standards that ultimately provide a
basis for controlling discharges of pollutants. Standards consist of
designated uses, water quality criteria to protect those uses, a policy
for antidegradation, and may include general policies for application
and implementation. EPA CWA Section 304(a) water quality criteria
recommendations are not regulations and do not constitute legally
binding requirements. States and authorized tribes may adopt other
scientifically defensible water quality criteria that differ from these
recommendations. CWA Section 303(c)(1) requires states and authorized
tribes to review and modify, if appropriate, their water quality
standards at least once every three years. Consistent with EPA
regulations 40 CFR 131.11, protective criteria must be based on a sound
scientific rationale and contain sufficient parameters or constituents
to protect the designated

uses. Criteria may be expressed in either narrative or numeric form.
When states and authorized tribes adopt numeric water quality criteria,
those criteria should be based on (1) recommended CWA Section 304(a)
criteria; (2) CWA Section 304(a) criteria modified to reflect site-
specific conditions; or (3) other scientifically defensible methods.
Alternatively, states and authorized tribes may adopt narrative
criteria or criteria based upon biomonitoring methods where numeric
criteria cannot be established or to supplement numeric criteria.

Radhika Fox,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-09441 Filed 5-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 197 (Thursday, October 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61803-61804]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24969]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67986; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2012-104]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Proposing To Amend
the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange
Services

October 4, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on September 24, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of
Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (``Fee Schedule'') to (i)
increase the credit for executions of Mid-Point Passive Liquidity
(``MPL'') Orders that provide liquidity on the Exchange in certain
active Tape C Securities, and (ii) eliminate the credit that is
currently applicable to Passive Liquidity (``PL'') Orders in Tape B
Securities that provide liquidity on the Exchange. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to (i) increase the credit for executions of
MPL Orders that provide liquidity on the Exchange in certain active
Tape C Securities, and (ii) eliminate the credit that is currently
applicable to PL Orders in Tape B Securities that provide liquidity on
the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes on
October 1, 2012.
    A PL Order is an order to buy or sell a stated amount of a security
at a specified, undisplayed price.\4\ An MPL Order is a PL Order
executable only at the midpoint of the Protected Best Bid and Offer.\5\
In this regard, PL Orders, including MPL Orders, allow for additional
opportunities for passive interaction with trading interest on the
Exchange and are designed to offer potential price improvement to
incoming marketable orders submitted to the Exchange.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 7.31(h)(4).
    \5\ See Rule 7.31(h)(5).
    \6\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54511
(September 26, 2006), 71 FR 58460, 58461 (October 3, 2006) (SR-PCX-
2005-53).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, MPL Orders that provide liquidity on the Exchange
receive a $0.0015 per share credit, regardless of whether the order is
for a Tape A, B, or C Security. The Exchange proposes to increase this
credit to $0.0025 per share for MPL Orders that provide liquidity on
the Exchange in the following Tape C Securities, which were selected
based on year-to-date consolidated average daily volume (``CADV''):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Company name                            Symbol
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cisco Systems, Inc...........................  CSCO
Dell Inc.....................................  DELL
Facebook, Inc................................  FB
Intel Corporation............................  INTC
Microsoft Corporation........................  MSFT
Micron Technology Inc........................  MU
Oracle Corporation...........................  ORCL
Research In Motion Limited...................  RIMM
SIRIUS XM Radio Inc..........................  SIRI
Zynga, Inc...................................  ZNGA
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These securities would be deemed ``Active Tape C Securities'' for
purposes of the Fee Schedule.\7\ The Exchange believes that this
proposed change would incentivize ETP Holders to submit additional MPL
Orders in the Active Tape C Securities. This would increase the
liquidity available on the Exchange in the Active Tape C Securities
and, therefore, could increase the potential price improvement to
incoming marketable orders submitted to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Any change to the list of Active Tape C Securities would be
made by submitting a proposed rule change to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Separately, PL Orders in Tape B Securities that provide liquidity
on the Exchange currently receive a per share credit.\8\ The Exchange
proposes to eliminate this Tape B PL Order credit, such that PL Orders
in Tape B Securities that provide liquidity on the Exchange would
neither receive a credit nor be charged a fee. The credit for PL Orders
in Tape B securities that provide liquidity to the Exchange was
originally designed to incentivize ETP Holders to submit orders that
provide liquidity on the Exchange in such securities.\9\ The Exchange
has determined to eliminate the Tape B PL Order credit because it has
generally not incentivized ETP Holders to submit additional liquidity
in Tape B Securities in the form of PL Orders. The Exchange notes that
PL Orders in Tape A and C Securities that provide liquidity on the
Exchange are currently neither provided with a credit nor charged a
fee, as is proposed for Tape B Securities. Accordingly, this proposed
change would align the treatment of PL Orders in Tape B securities that
provide liquidity on the Exchange with that of Tape A and C Securities
in the Exchange's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The credit is currently $0.0015 per share for Tier 1 and
Step Up Tier 1 and $0.0010 per share for Tier 2, Tier 3, Step Up
Tier 2 and Basic Rates. For Investor Tiers 1-4, the applicable
credit is based on a firm's qualifying levels.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67180 (June 11,
2012), 77 FR 36027 (June 15, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\11\ in particular, because it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members, issuers and other persons using its facilities and does
not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable
because the increased credit of $0.0025 per share would incentivize ETP
Holders to submit additional MPL Orders in Active Tape C Securities.
This would increase

the liquidity available on the Exchange in Active Tape C Securities
and, therefore, could increase the potential price improvement to
incoming marketable orders submitted to the Exchange. In this regard,
the selection by the Exchange of the particular Active Tape C
Securities is reasonable because the Exchange's market for such
securities would improve as a result of the increase in liquidity that
the Exchange anticipates resulting from the proposed credit increase.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to MPL Orders
from all ETP Holders in Active Tape C Securities. Additionally, the
proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because,
by applying to Active Tape C Securities, all market participants will
have an opportunity to interact in such names, as opposed to thinly
traded securities that might be less liquid.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change is reasonable
because eliminating the Tape B PL Order credit would remove a pricing
feature from the Fee Schedule that has generally not incentivized ETP
Holders to submit additional PL Orders in Tape B Securities, as was
originally intended. In this regard, the PL Order credit was originally
designed to incentivize ETP Holders to provide additional liquidity on
the Exchange in Tape B Securities and, therefore, to potentially
increase the quality of the Exchange's market in these securities.\12\
Removal of the Tape B PL Order credit is also equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it would be eliminated for all ETP
Holders. The Exchange also notes that PL Orders in Tape A and C
Securities that provide liquidity on the Exchange are currently neither
provided with a credit nor charged a fee, as is proposed for Tape B
Securities. Accordingly, this proposed change would align the treatment
of PL Orders in Tape B securities that provide liquidity on the
Exchange with that of Tape A and C Securities for purposes of the
Exchange's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment.

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

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

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \13\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \14\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the NYSE Arca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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.

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-NYSEArca-2012-104 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-104. 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-104 and should
be submitted on or before November 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-24969 Filed 10-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P