[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 222 (Monday, November 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55098-55099]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25058]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Public Notice of Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record

communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Docket No.                               File date                   Presenter or requester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Prohibited
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CP17-101-000............................  10-30-2017                          Robert G. Swarnout.
2. CP17-101-000............................  11-7-2017                          Claude Holbrook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Exempt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CP15-115-000, CP15-115-001..............  10-30-2017                         U.S. House Representative Alex
                                                                                X. Mooney.
2. P-2305-000..............................  10-31-2017                         Louisiana Municipal Association.
3. CP17-495-000............................  10-31-2017                         FERC Staff.\1\
4. CP16-480-000............................  10-31-2017                         FERC Staff.\2\
5. CP16-454-000, CP16-455-000..............  11-1-2017                          FERC Staff.\3\
6. CP16-498-000............................  11-1-2017                          FERC Staff.\4\
7. CP17-41-000.............................  11-3-2017                          FERC Staff.\5\
8. CP17-458-000............................  11-7-2017                          FERC Staff.\6\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Meeting Summary for meeting on October 11, 2017 with Jordan Cove LNG and PHMSA.
\2\ Conference call summary for call on October 4, 2017 with Annova LNG and PHMSA.
\3\ Email communication dated October 31, 2017 with Erik Swenson or Orrick.
\4\ Phone Memorandum for calls between October 26 and October 31, 2017 with Mary Jagiello, of the Federal
  Aviation Administration.
\5\ Telephone Call Summary for call on November 1, 2017 with National Marine Fisheries Services.
\6\ Conference call notes for call on November 7, 2017 with Midship Pipeline, LLC.

    Dated: November 14, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-25058 Filed 11-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 232)]
[Notices]
[Page 63749]
[DOCID:fr04de09-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. AC10-18-000]

Excel Pipeline LLC; Notice of Filing

November 25, 2009.
    Take notice that on November 20, 2009, Excel Pipeline LLC submitted
a request for the waiver of the requirement to file the third quarter
FERC Form No. 6-Q from September 11, 2009 through September 30, 2009.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: November 25, 2009.

Kimberly Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-28923 Filed 12-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:	November 20, 2014

TO:	Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR-2013-0602

FROM:	Rob Lawrence EPA/Region 6/PD

SUBJECT:	July 10, 2014 Call with Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality regarding the Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

A conference call was made by EPA to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and the attendees listed below on July 10, 2014, to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants, which was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

Participants:	Tegan Treadaway, Vivian Aucoin, and Mike Vince

EPA Participants:	Mark Hansen, Clovis Steib, Terry Johnson, and Guy Donaldson (Region 6) and Brian Fisher, and Kristen Bremer (OAR)


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 236 (Thursday, December 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 88696]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29380]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2016-0032; OMB No. 1660-0107]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Federal Emergency Management Agency Public Assistance
Customer Satisfaction Surveys

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a revision of a currently approved information
collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
this notice seeks comments concerning the collection of Public
Assistance customer satisfaction survey responses and information for
assessment and improvement of the delivery of disaster assistance to
States, Local and Tribal governments, and eligible non-profit
organizations.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2016-0032. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-
3100.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Brooks, Statistician, Customer
Survey Analysis Section, Reporting and Analytics Division, Recovery
Directorate, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may
contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed
collection of information at email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This collection is in accordance with
Executive Orders 12862 and 13571 requiring all Federal agencies to
survey customers to determine the kind and quality of services they
want and their level of satisfaction with existing services. The
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) requires Federal
agencies to set missions and goals and to measure agency performance
against them. See Public Law 103-62, 107 Stat 285 (1993). The GPRA
Modernization Act of 2010 requires quarterly performance assessments of
government programs for the purposes of assessing agency performance
and improvement. See Public Law 111-352, 124 Stat 3875 (2011). The
Federal Emergency Management Agency fulfills these requirements by
collecting customer satisfaction program information through surveys of
States, Local and Tribal governments, and eligible non-profit
organizations.

Collection of Information

    Title: FEMA Public Assistance Customer Satisfaction Surveys.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0107.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 519-0-32, Public Assistance Initial Customer
Satisfaction Survey (Telephone); FEMA Form 519-0-33, Public Assistance
Initial Customer Satisfaction Survey (Internet); FEMA Form 519-0-34,
Public Assistance Assessment Customer Satisfaction Survey (Telephone);
FEMA Form 519-0-35, Public Assistance Assessment Customer Satisfaction
Survey (Internet).
    Abstract: Federal agencies are required to survey their customers
to determine the kind and quality of services customers want and their
level of satisfaction with those services. FEMA managers use the survey
results to measure performance against standards for performance and
customer service, measure achievement of strategic planning objectives,
and generally gauge and make improvements to disaster service that
increase customer satisfaction.
    Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions, State, Local, or
Tribal government.
    Number of Respondents: 7,804.
    Number of Responses: 7,804.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,293.
    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $150,116.19. There are no annual costs to respondents'
operations and maintenance costs for technical services. The annual
costs to respondents' for Non-Labor Cost (expenditures on training,
travel and other resources) is $11,664.00. There are no annual start-up
or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is $697,526.37.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: November 30, 2016.
Richard W. Mattison,
Records Management Program Chief, Mission Support, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2016-29380 Filed 12-7-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 239 (Friday, December 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80202-80206]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27200]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90577; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-079]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Relocate Its Equity and General Rules From Its Current Rulebook Into
Its New Rulebook Shell

December 7, 2020.
    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 November 23, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to relocate its equity and general rules from
its current Rulebook into its new Rulebook shell.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules, 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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this rule change is to relocate Nasdaq equity and
general rules from the current Rulebook into the new Rulebook shell.\3\
The Exchange also proposes a number of minor, non-substantive changes
to the Rulebook shell as described below. The relocation and
harmonization of these rules is part of the Exchange's continued effort
to promote efficiency and conformity of its processes with those of its
affiliated exchanges. The Exchange believes that the placement of these
rules into their new location in the Rulebook shell will

facilitate the use of the Rulebook by members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Previously, the Exchange filed to relocate other rules
within its Rulebook. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87778
(December 17, 2019), 84 FR 70590 (December 23, 2019) (SR-NASDAQ-
2019-098).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Universal Changes
    The Exchange proposes to update all cross-references within the
Rulebook shell to the new relocated rule cites. The Exchange proposes
to replace internal rule references to simply state ``this Rule'' where
the rule is citing itself without a more specific cite included in the
Rule. For example, if Nasdaq Rule 4619 refers currently to ``Rule
4619'' or ``this Rule 4619'' the Exchange will amend the phrase to
simply ``this Rule.'' Except where the Exchange specifies below that it
will retain the current rule numbering, the Exchange also proposes to
conform the paragraph numbering and lettering to that used in the
Rulebook shell for greater consistency, and to correct punctuation.
Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to delete any empty reserved rules
and already deleted rules in the current Rulebook other than in
relocated Equity 11. Lastly, the Exchange will delete the following
rule numbers from the current Rulebook, but will relocate the substance
of these rules into the new Rulebook shell: Conduct Rules (2000-3000),
3300, 4000, 4100, 4600, 4610, 4700, 4750, 6000, and 6100.
General 1
    The Exchange proposes to amend the section heading from General 1,
General 1 to General 1, Section 1. The Exchange also proposes to
retitle General 1, Section 1 from ``General Provisions'' to
``Definitions.'' Lastly, the Exchange proposes a non-substantive change
in paragraph (b)(15) to delete ``Exchange'' immediately before
``Options 3, Section 4.''
General 2
    The Exchange proposes to relocate Rule 4615 (Sponsored
Participants) to General 2, Section 22, which is currently reserved, to
harmonize the Exchange's rule numbering to that of Nasdaq PHLX LLC
(``Phlx'') General 2, Section 22, which currently sets forth the same
rule on Phlx.
General 3
    The Exchange proposes to relocate the membership rules 1001, 1002,
1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018 and 1019 into
General 3 (Membership and Access). The Exchange proposes to retain the
current rule numbers which closely align with FINRA rules. The Exchange
will delete current Rule 1031 as this Rule presently has no substantive
rule text. The Exchange also proposes to update a number of obsolete
cross-references in the relocated membership rules that presently refer
to rules that were already moved to the Rulebook shell under SR-NASDAQ-
2019-098.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Specifically, the Exchange will update obsolete cross-
references in Rule 1002(d)(2), the introductory paragraph to Rule
1011, Rule 1011(o)(3), and Rule 1013(a)(1)(N).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General 4
    The Exchange proposes to remove the ``1.'' from the rule numbering
within General 4. The Exchange also proposes to replace ``General 4,
Section 1.'' with ``General 4, Rule'' throughout General 4. The
proposed changes are intended to better align General 4's rule
numbering with FINRA rules. The Exchange also proposes to make
corresponding changes in other places throughout the Rulebook shell
outside of General 4 to replace all instances of ``General 4, Section
1.'' with ``General 4, Rule'' for greater consistency.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Specifically, the Exchange will make corresponding changes
to the following rules in the proposed Rulebook shell outside of
General 4: General 3, Rule 1001; General 3, Rule 1011; General 5,
IM-9216; General 5, Rule 9630; and General 9, Section 20(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General 5
    In General 5, IM-9216, the Exchange proposes to add chapter headers
before the cross-cites to Rules 1013, 8211, and 11870 for greater
consistency within this Rule. As amended, the cross-cites would be
General 3, Rule 1013; General 5, Rule 8211; and Equity 11, Rule 11870.
General 9
    The Exchange proposes to relocate Rule 2170 (Disruptive Quoting and
Trading Activity Prohibited) to General 9, Section 53, and to reserve
General 9, Section 52. The proposed rule numbering is to ensure that
the Exchange's General 9 rules mirror its affiliated exchanges' General
9 rules as closely as practicable. In particular, relocating this Rule
to General 9, Section 53 will harmonize the Exchange's rule numbering
to that of Phlx General 9, Section 53, which currently sets forth the
same rule prohibiting disruptive quoting and trading activity on Phlx.
Because this Rule is being added to General 9, which applies to both
the Exchange's equities and options markets, the Exchange proposes to
delete a duplicate rule in Options 9, Section 4, which applies only to
the options market.
    The Exchange also proposes to relocate Rule 4570 (Custodian of
Books and Records) to General 9, Section 71, and to reserve Sections
54--70 to harmonize its General rule numbering with that of Phlx's
General 9.
    The Exchange further proposes to update several obsolete cross-
references throughout General 9 that presently refer to rules that were
already moved to the Rulebook shell under SR-NASDAQ-2019-098.\6\ The
Exchange will also update the cross-references to Rule 2310A (within
General 9, Section 12(b)) and Rule 2810A (within General 9, Section
18(c)(1)(C)(iv)) to relocated Equity 10, Section 1. Rule 2810A does not
exist within the current Rulebook, but the Exchange is updating this
cite to relocated Equity 10, Section 1 as this rule governs direct
participation programs. Lastly, the Exchange proposes to fix a
formatting error in General 9, Section 20(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Specifically, the Exchange will update obsolete cross-
references in General 9, Section 1(b), Section 10(b)(1) and Section
14(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Equity 1
    The Exchange proposes to amend the section header from Equity 1,
Equity 1 to Equity 1, Section 1. The Exchange also proposes to add
``(a)'' before the phrase ``When used in the Equity Rules. . .'' to
conform to the paragraph lettering of the Rulebook shell. Lastly, the
Exchange proposes to relocate the defined terms currently within Rule
4701(a)--(l) into Equity 1, Section 1(a)(3)--(14).
Equity 2
    The Exchange proposes to relocate the following rules into Equity
2:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Shell rule                          Current rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1................  4601. Scope.
Section 2................  4200. Definitions.
Section 3................  4611. Nasdaq Market Center Participant
                            Registration.
Section 4................  4612. Registration as a Nasdaq Market Maker.
Section 5................  4613. Market Maker Obligations.
Section 6................  4614. Stabilizing Bids.

Section 7................  4616. Reports.
Section 8................  4617. Normal Business Hours.
Section 9................  4618. Clearance and Settlement.
Section 10...............  4619. Withdrawal of Quotations and Passive
                            Market Making.
Section 11...............  4620. Voluntary Termination of Registration.
Section 12...............  4621. Suspension and Termination of
                            Quotations.
Section 13...............  4622. Termination of Nasdaq Service.
Section 14...............  4623. Alternative Trading Systems.
Section 15...............  4624. Penalty Bids and Syndicate Covering
                            Transactions.
Section 16...............  4625. Obligation to Provide Information. \7\
Section 17...............  4626. Limitation of Liability.
Section 18...............  4627. Obligation to Honor System Trades.
Section 19...............  4628. Compliance with Rules and Registration
                            Requirements.
Section 20...............  4631. Customer Disclosures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Equity 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange will not port over the reference to IM-4120-1
into the Rulebook shell as this Rule does not currently exist in the
Nasdaq Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to reserve Equity 3, currently titled
``Equity Trading Rules.''
Equity 4
    The Exchange proposes to re-title Equity 4, currently ``Limit Up
Limit Down,'' to ``Equity Trading Rules.'' The Exchange proposes to
relocate Rules 4110, 4120, 4121, 4370, 4702, 4703, 4752, 4753, 4754,
4756, 4757, 4758, 4759, 4760, 4761, 4762, 4763, and 4770 into Equity 4
and retain the current rule numbers. In relocated Rule 4110, the
Exchange also proposes to update an obsolete cross-reference to the
Rule 4300 and 4400 Series to the Rule 5000 Series.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange previously relocated the Nasdaq listing
standards within the Rule 4300 and 4400 Series to the Rule 5000
Series. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59663 (March 31,
2009), 74 FR 15552 (April 6, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Equity 5
    The Exchange proposes to update an obsolete cross-reference in
Equity 5, Section 6 that presently refers to Rule 2010A (Standards of
Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade), which was already moved to
General 9, Section 1 in the Rulebook shell under SR-NASDAQ-2019-098.
Equity 6
    The Exchange proposes to title Equity 6, which is currently
reserved, to ``Nasdaq Risk Management Service; Other Systems and
Programs,'' and to relocate the following rules into Equity 6:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Shell rule                          Current rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1................  6110. Definitions.
Section 2................  6120. System Functions.
Section 3................  6130. Nasdaq Kill Switch.
Section 4................  6200. Exchange Sharing of Participant Risk
                            Settings.
Section 5................  IM-6200-1. Risk Settings.
Section 6................  6300. Nasdaq Equity Value Indicator Cross.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will also correct a typographical error in Equity 6,
Section 3(e) where the Exchange inadvertently capitalized ``When'' in
the first sentence.
Equity 8
    The Exchange proposes to re-title Equity 8, currently ``Uniform
Practice Code,'' to ``Trading of Non-Convertible Bonds Listed on
Nasdaq.'' The Exchange proposes to relocate Rule 4000B (Trading of Non-
Convertible Bonds Listed on Nasdaq) into Equity 8, Section 1.
Equity 9
    The Exchange proposes to re-title Equity 9, currently
``Supplementary Conduct Rules,'' to ``Business Conduct,'' and to
relocate the following rules into Equity 9:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Shell rule                          Current rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1................  3220. Adjustment of Open Orders.
Section 2................  3230. Clearing Agreements.
Section 3................  3310. Publication of Transactions and
                            Quotations.
Section 4................  IM-3310. Manipulative and Deceptive
                            Quotations.
Section 5................  3320. Offers at Stated Prices.
Section 6................  3340. Prohibition on Transactions,
                            Publication of Quotations, or Publication of
                            Indications of Interest During Trading
                            Halts.
Section 7................  3350. Suspension of Trading.
Section 8................  3351. Trading Practices.
Section 9................  3360. Short-Interest Reporting.
Section 10...............  3370. Prompt Receipt and Delivery of
                            Securities.
Section 11...............  3380. Order Entry and Execution Practices.
Section 12...............  3381. SEC Rule 19c-1--Governing Certain Off-
                            Board Agency Transactions by Members of
                            National Securities Exchanges.
Section 13...............  3385. SEC Rule 19c-3 -- Governing Off-Board
                            Trading by Members of National Securities
                            Exchanges.
Section 14...............  3390. SEC Rule 604--Display of Customer Limit
                            Orders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to update two obsolete cross-references
in Equity 9, Section 4 (Manipulative and Deceptive Quotations) that
currently point to Rules 2110 and 2120. Rule 2110 (Standards of
Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade) was previously renumbered as
Nasdaq Rule 2010A, which the Exchange then relocated to General 9,
Section 1 of the Rulebook shell under SR-NASDAQ-2020-098.\9\ Rule 2120
(Use of Manipulative, Deceptive or Other Fraudulent Devices) was
likewise relocated to General 9, Section 1 of the Rulebook shell under
SR-NASDAQ-2019-098.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68153 (November 5,
2012), 77 FR 67409 (November 9, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-124).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Equity 10
    The Exchange proposes to title Equity 10, which is currently
reserved, to ``Other Products and Securities,'' and to relocate the
following rules into Equity 10:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Shell rule                          Current rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1................  2310A. Direct Participation Programs.
Section 2................  2830. Investment Company Securities.
Section 3................  2840. Trading in Index Warrants, Currency
                            Index Warrants, and Currency Warrants.
                           2841. General.
                           2842. Definitions.
Section 4................  2850. Position Limits.
Section 5................  2851. Exercise Limits.
Section 6................  2852. Reporting Requirements.
Section 7................  2853. Liquidation of Index Warrant Positions.
Section 8................  4630. Trading in Commodity-Related
                            Securities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Equity 11: Uniform Practice Code
    The Exchange proposes to add new Equity 11, titled ``Uniform
Practice Code,'' and relocate the current Rule 11000 Series into new
Equity 11 without renumbering them.
    The Exchange also proposes to update an obsolete cross-reference in
IM-11720 (Obligations of Members Who Discover Securities in Their
Possession to Which They Are Not Entitled) that currently points to
Rule 2110. Rule 2110 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of
Trade) was previously renumbered as Nasdaq Rule 2010A, which the
Exchange then relocated to General 9, Section 1 of the Rulebook shell
under SR-NASDAQ-2020-098.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors
and the public interest by bringing greater transparency to its rules
by relocating the equity and general rules into the new Rulebook shell
together with other rules which have already been relocated.\13\ The
Exchange's proposal is consistent with the Act and will protect
investors and the public interest by harmonizing its rules, where
applicable, across Nasdaq markets so that members can readily locate
rules which cover similar topics. The relocation and harmonization of
the Nasdaq Rules is part of the Exchange's continued effort to promote
efficiency and conformity of its processes with those of its affiliated
exchanges. The Exchange believes that the placement of the Nasdaq
equity and general rules into their new location in the shell will
facilitate the use of the Rulebook by members. Specifically, the
Exchange believes that market participants that are members of more
than one Nasdaq market will benefit from the ability to compare
Rulebooks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is not substantively amending rule text. The
renumbering, re-lettering, deleting reserved and already deleted rules,
amending cross-references and other minor technical changes will bring
greater transparency to Nasdaq's Rules. The Exchange's affiliates
intend to file similar rule changes to relocate their respective equity
and general rules into the same location in each Rulebook for ease of
reference. The Exchange believes its proposal will benefit investors
and the general public by increasing the transparency of its Rulebook
and promoting easy comparisons among the various Nasdaq affiliated
exchanges' Rulebooks.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
proposed amendments do not impose an undue burden on competition
because the amendments to relocate the equity and general rules are
non-substantive. This rule change is intended to bring greater clarity
to the Exchange's Rules and to promote easy comparisons among the
various Nasdaq affiliated exchanges' Rulebooks. Renumbering, re-
lettering, deleting reserved rules and amending cross-references will
bring greater transparency to Nasdaq's Rules.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \16\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\17\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. Waiver of the
operative delay would allow the Exchange to immediately relocate its
rules and continue to file other rules that are affected by this
relocation in a timely manner. The Commission believes that waiver of
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission waives
the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-079 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-079. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-079 and should be submitted
on or before January 4, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-27200 Filed 12-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEETING SUMMARY NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee June 17 19, 2002 Holiday Inn and Suites 625 First Street Alexandria, Virginia   Prepared by Meridian Institute July 23, 2002 NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee 2 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02 NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee Meeting June 17 19, 2002 The NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee held its first meeting June 17 through 19, 2002 in Arlington, Virginia. This document summarizes discussion topics and key decisions made during the meeting. A full transcript of the meeting will be made available through the Environmental Protection Agency's ( EPA) Docket # SFUND 2002 0005.

EPA, Meridian Institute and Dr. Raymond Loehr, the Subcommittee's Chair, provided an orientation to the Subcommittee Members on June 17, 2002. The meeting did not cover any substantive topics associated with Superfund and was purely administrative. The Meetings on the 18th and 19th were open to the public. Both days afforded the public opportunities to offer comments to the Subcommittee at designated times.

Monday, June 17, 2002, 1: 30 p. m.   5: 30 p. m. Pre Meeting Member Orientation and Administrative Meeting Dr. Raymond Loehr, Chairman of the Subcommittee, opened the meeting and presented welcoming remarks. He introduced Lois Gartner, the Designated Federal Officer ( DFO) for the Subcommittee and John Ehrmann, the lead facilitator of the group, from Meridian Institute. The first day focused on orienting the members to their responsibilities as members of a Subcommittee to the National Advisory Committee on Environmental Policy and Technology ( NACEPT) and the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act ( FACA).

Tim Sherer of the Office of Cooperative Environmental Management ( OCEM) discussed the Superfund Subcommittee's role relative to the overarching NACEPT Committee, reviewed the requirements for membership diversity on a NACEPT Subcommittee and explained how recommendations from the Superfund Subcommittee would be submitted to and approved by the NACEPT Committee. Wilma Subra is the designated representative from the NACEPT Committee on the Superfund Subcommittee. She will serve as a full member of the Subcommittee while also providing a key link between the NACEPT Committee and the Subcommittee.

Introduction of Subcommittee Members Dr. Loehr offered a few comments about himself and his role as the Subcommittee Chairman. Lois explained that the choice of the Chairman was the prerogative of the Administrator. Dr. Loehr asked each Subcommittee member to introduce him or herself, and provide fellow committee members with a brief summary of his or her background and relevant Superfund expertise. NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee 3 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02 FACA Orientation Marilyn Kuray from EPA's Office of General Council ( OGC) provided a brief orientation to the history of FACA and associated ethics issues. Marilyn discussed that advisory committees provide only advice and recommendations to governmental agencies. As purely advisory bodies, they are not involved in implementing or overseeing the implementation of any of the recommendations they make to a governmental agency. She also explained the FACA requirement that advisory committees must be " fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed." Marilyn emphasized that balance, in the FACA context, does not require equal numbers of representatives from different sectors, but does mean that committees must reflect a spectrum of points of view and necessary expertise. With respect to ethical considerations, Marilyn suggested that any members currently in receipt of a grant from EPA should talk to Lois to make sure there is no perceived or real conflict of interest. Lois introduced the FACA binder which serves as a key FACA and NACEPT resource including background information, regulatory requirements and relevant EPA policies.

Introduction to the Collaborative Process John Ehrmann reviewed the Operating Principles distributed to the Subcommittee members. Topics included:

Representation

Decision Making

Communications with the Press

Facilitation

Meeting Materials and Summaries

Timeline and Schedule This document summarized the key factors of the decision making framework for the Subcommittee, provided a definition of ` consensus' and explained how consensus works.

The schedule for future meetings was proposed. Subcommittee members were asked to check their schedules and notify the staff of any major conflicts. Revisions were made to the Operating Principles document at the request of the members. A revised version of the document was handed out the following day and is attached to this summary ( Attachment A).

Group Discussion The group discussed the process for developing and implementing the work of the Subcommittee. Key discussion points included the following topics:

It is not likely that EPA will add people to the Committee. However, EPA and the facilitators will work with the Subcommittee to ensure the integration of any NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee 4 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02 relevant perspectives that Members believe are needed to enhance the knowledge of the Subcommittee so it can accomplish its objectives.

While there are not any other FACA committees focused solely on Superfund, there are committees whose working groups are addressing issues related to Superfund. For example, the Finance Advisory Board has a Superfund Subcommittee and the Science Advisory Board sometimes has a subcommittee dealing with Superfund.

EPA used the NACEPT Subcommittee membership criteria to select the Members of this Subcommittee. They also considered expertise and balance in the perspectives that they expected would be relevant to the Subcommittee deliberations. There were about 150 nominations from which EPA had to choose.

The Subcommittee and Workgroups have the option to invite technical experts on specific issues relevant to their deliberations.

The participation of the public is limited to specifically designated time periods on the agenda. All public sessions will include a block of time for public comment. Public involvement is limited to offering comments at designated times and does not include interjecting comments or questions during other portions of the meeting. The working groups can integrate outside perspectives as they see fit.

EPA has made it a priority to provide the resources ( including the technical and regulatory expertise) that the Subcommittee needs to accomplish its goals and answer questions. The EPA representatives will be available to clarify any policy questions that arise.

Tuesday, June 18, 2002 The Public meeting of the Subcommittee began on the morning of June 18, 2002. The meeting was an open session and audio recorded. A written transcript will be prepared and available through the EPA Docket # SFUND 2002 0005. Interested individuals and members of the press were present as observers. The Subcommittee heard comments from the public during the designated times on the agenda.

The objectives of the June 18 and 19, 2002 meeting were:

1) Introduction of Subcommittee Members; 2) Review of EPA's Charge to the Subcommittee; 3) Discussion and agreement on Subcommittee operating procedures; 4) Discussion of Subcommittee members' expectations; 5) Review of Subcommittee structure and work planning; and 6) Public comment.

Dr. Raymond Loehr, Chairman of the Subcommittee, opened the meeting and presented welcoming remarks. He introduced Lois Gartner, the Designated Federal Officer for the Subcommittee and John Ehrmann, the lead facilitator for the Subcommittee, from Meridian Institute. Dr. Loehr referred to the Meeting Purpose document ( available as a NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee 5 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02 handout and attached to this document as Attachment B) while introducing the group and the goals for the meeting.

Dr. Loehr introduced Marianne Horinko, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response ( OSWER). Ms. Horinko welcomed and thanked the members of the Subcommittee for agreeing to serve and summarized EPA's expectations and vision for the panel. Key points made during Ms. Horinko's presentation and the discussion with the Subcommittee that followed included:

If there are additional voices/ perspectives that the Subcommittee wants considered during its deliberations, then the panel should identify individuals or organizations with those perspectives to make presentations. These individuals will serve as consultants or experts.

The Subcommittee should not hesitate to bring key issues to EPA, through the full NACEPT Committee, to help strengthen the Superfund Program in the interim  before the Subcommittee finalizes its recommendations.

It is not the Agency's intent to weaken Superfund. In the cases where alternatives to the NPL are implemented, EPA is putting into place guidance to ensure that voluntary cleanups meet the stringent standards of the NCP. EPA wants to take advantage of these efforts to maximize the opportunities available through a suite of cleanup programs.

After their discussion with Ms. Horinko, the Subcommittee Members introduced themselves and John Ehrmann reviewed the Agenda. The group agreed to a proposed modification of the Agenda by moving up the discussion of the Operating Procedures, thereby leaving the remainder of the morning to discuss the draft Charge.

Group Operating Procedures Discussion John Ehrmann led the group in a discussion of ground rules for the Subcommittee's deliberations. Comments from the Subcommittee are summarized below according to each topic area within the Operating Principles ( see Attachment A).

Representation

Some members raised concerns about their perceptions that lack of expertise or limited representation of certain perspectives in the Subcommittee's membership might impede the panel's work. Supplementary expertise and perspectives can be made available to the full Subcommittee and any working groups through the use of consultants or experts. Such consultants/ experts can be used to provide representation of a constituency represented by a Member unable to attend a given meeting or they can be used to provide expertise perceived to not be present on the standing Subcommittee. These consultants would not be " voting" members. They would, however, be able to provide perspectives/ expertise when asked to do so by the Subcommittee or a workgroup and their ideas and concerns could be integrated into a work product. NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee 6 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02

Concerns were raised about potentially making the workgroups unwieldy if Members bring in experts and consultants to participate. Each working group needs to decide collectively how it will balance its discussion, whether through the addition of outside perspectives or some other acceptable means.

The Subcommittee Members expressed no disagreement over the " representation" language in the Operating Principles.

Decision Making

The testimony of outside perspectives needs to be documented and incorporated into the deliberations of the group. The Subcommittee will be taking public comment and will be integrating the ideas from public testimony into its decisionmaking as an important part of the process.

One of the responsibilities of Meridian and the Agency will be to make sure that the perspectives of the Subcommittee and key constituents are reflected in their decisions. If one of the members is absent on a day when a key decision is being made then Meridian will make sure those perspectives are sought. Everyone shares responsibility for making sure progress is made without compromising the integrity of the process by omitting key perspectives.

If there were a deadlock then it would be the discretion of the chair to decide how to move forward. Meridian and the Agency do not mention voting in the decision making structure because this group was not organized to function as a representative democracy. There are a number of tools that can be used to encourage the breaking of an impasse. But the Subcommittee can opt to document alternative views and move on.

If members of the public would like to comment but cannot attend the meetings then they can submit written comments. In addition, Lois Gartner ( the DFO) will work with individuals who would like to offer comments but are unable to physically attend a meeting.

Communication With the Press

When contacted by the press about workgroup or Subcommittee deliberations, Subcommittee Members are encouraged to limit communication of the details of the work group or Subcommittee deliberations. The Subcommittee and Staff will explain the groups and the topics they are addressing to the Public and Press, but at any given time in the process, the thinking of the work groups as a whole may not necessarily reflect a workgroup or the Subcommittee's final recommendations.

There are judgment calls that members will have to make. Discussing personal opinions about an issue is appropriate, but to discuss your view regarding someone else's idea that was suggested in a workgroup meeting would be inappropriate.

Role of the Facilitator The Members had no comments on this section. NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee 7 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02 Meeting Materials and Summaries

The meetings will be recorded and the transcript will be made available for the public. A shorter summary will also be produced to highlight key topics of discussion and decisions.

There will be a facilitator for work groups. FACA prohibits work groups from making decisions for the Subcommittee. A transcript will not be prepared for the work group meetings. Commonly, a working draft of a document( s) becomes the rolling record of the work groups' process, but it is up to the Members to determine the most effective means of communicating with the full group. Work groups will be asked to submit documents in advance so the full Subcommittee has plenty of time to review and consider them prior to the meetings.

It is not preordained that there will be three work groups that mirror the three main topics in the Agency's charge to the Subcommittee ( i. e., role of the NPL, mega sites and program performance measures). It may be possible to organize the Subcommittee's task differently or in an iterative process. The Subcommittee agreed to develop options over the next day or so.

The deliberations of the work groups will be both in person and via facilitated conference calls. Site visits are an option that will be explored.

Regarding the time frame of " approximately 12 months", the members are appointed for an 18 month period of time. The Operating Principles document will be revised to reflect that.

Charge Discussion The Charge for the committee was introduced as drafted by the EPA. Meridian staff facilitated a group discussion about the Charge and documented additional ideas from the Subcommittee members about topics that were missing or needed clarification. Meridian staff agreed to integrate the ideas and interests expressed by the Subcommittee Members into the Charge overnight and provide a revised draft for the Subcommittee to review and discuss the following day. A copy of the revised document is attached ( Attachment C).

Remarks from Linda Fisher Linda Fischer, Deputy Administrator, offered her thoughts on the Subcommittee's purpose and what she hopes to see come from its deliberations. She also provided some clarification on key topics and questions raised by the group.

For the purpose of this group's deliberations, continuation of a current level of funding for Superfund should be assumed. EPA is employing this assumption for planning purposes.

Don't assume that EPA is going to seek legislative changes. If legislative options for a given issue seems to become important through Subcommittee deliberations, then the Subcommittee should make note. However, EPA's focus is on what can be done within the current context of the law and the Agency is not looking at changing underlying statutory frameworks. EPA is interested in having all waste cleanup programs work NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee 8 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02 together more seamlessly. Recommendations offered in this vein should be made in the context of the existing statutes. If that assumption interferes with Subcommittee deliberations   i. e. improving the consistency across waste cleanup programs cannot be considered without contemplating legislative changes, then that impediment should also be noted. In short, the Agency needs to manage some very difficult public policy issues now, and it is on those issues that EPA seeks Subcommittee advice.

A Member questioned what specific challenges EPA sees relative to mega sites. The Deputy Administrator explained that a detailed presentation would be provided to the group on the topic, but some of the factors include:

The drain on resources   the high dollar needs over a long period of time and the resulting trade offs in terms of what cannot be done if resources go to fund mega sites.

Engineering/ remedial action complexity.

Time required for clean up ( 20 30 years is an unacceptable answer in the opinions of most communities.)

Risk management complexity  the first 80% of the risk may be reduced through a fraction of the cleanup but the site is still not complete.

Getting to " complete" is unclear.

A Subcommittee Member raised another question regarding how EPA will track the implementation of the Subcommittee's recommendations. The Deputy Administrator said that a formalized feedback loop has not been typical for the NACEPT Subcommittees but she would be open to formalizing such a mechanism to report back on how recommendations have or have not been used.

Regarding federal facilities, EPA decided not to specifically include a focus on federal facilities because that would be such a significant task. However, EPA realizes their relevance and importance to the work of the Subcommittee.

EPA has formed internal committees around NPL and mega sites to funnel information into this NACEPT Subcommittee. These EPA committees are internal workgroups that include various perspectives and expertise in the agency.

EPA Presentations EPA Staff briefed the Subcommittee on Superfund and program topics germane to the Subcommittee Charge. The presenters' slides are attached ( Attachment D). Presentations were made by EPA staff as follows:

General Overview of Superfund: Larry Reed, Deputy Director, Office of Emergency Remedial Response ( OERR); Barry Breen, Director, Office of Site Remediation Enforcement ( OSRE), Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance ( OECA); and Susan Bromm, Deputy Director, OSRE/ OECA NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee 9 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02 NPL Listing: Steve Caldwell, Deputy Director of the State and Site Identification Center ( OERR); Yolanda Singer, State and Site Identification Center; Jen Griesert, State and Site Identification Center.

Public Comment Period Two Members of the public were invited to offer comments on their perspectives and concerns regarding Superfund and Subcommittee. Their testimony will be included in the transcript. The June 18th portion of the meeting adjourned at 5: 00 p. m., immediately following the public comment period Wednesday, June 19, 2002 R. Loehr called Wednesday's meeting to order at 8: 30 a. m. and reviewed the agenda for the day. The meeting began with EPA presentations as follows:

Mega Sites: Bruce Means, Senior Process Manager, OERR. Performance Measures: Melanie Hoff, Program Analysis and Resource Management, OERR, and David Cooper, Region 3/ 8 Center, OERR.

The presenters' slides are attached ( Attachment D).

Subcommittee Structure and Work Planning Discussion A revised version of the Operating Principles was circulated to the Members. Minor changes were suggested. The document was revised based on the Subcommittee's input and is included as Attachment A.

John Ehrmann facilitated a discussion about how the Subcommittee would organize itself to accomplish its work. A revised version of the draft Charge  in which Members' comments from the previous day's discussion were integrated into the questions defining each subsection of the Charge   was presented. The group asked that the relevant comments and questions from the discussion of mega sites and performance measures be integrated into the Charge. John Ehrmann suggested that the group consider using the Charge as the foundation for developing a dynamic work plan for the Subcommittee. The original Charge as drafted by EPA could stand to document the original position of EPA. The changes, clarifications and additions from the Subcommittee's discussion would provide a first step toward evolving the document into a more specific description of their scope, a statement of the problem and the questions they would attempt to answer. After further discussion, the group agreed that they did not feel comfortable with the ( proposed) work groups ( i. e. the role of the NPL, mega sites and measuring program progress) as the structure for their work in the near term. They agreed to engage in a fact finding phase in order to better educate themselves about the " problems" and the appropriate focus of their effort. The first task will be to refine the questions further and connect them to information and data needs so the group does not waste time collecting " just interesting" information. NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee 10 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02 Schedule The final schedule for the next four full Subcommittee meetings agreed to by the members of the Subcommittee present were:

September 23 24, 2002 January 7 8, 2003 March 11 12, 2003 June 18 19, 2003 Public Comment Period Two members of the public were invited to offer comments on their perspectives and concerns regarding Superfund and the Subcommittee. Their testimony will be included in the transcript.

Next Steps After lunch, John Ehrmann proposed a reorganization based on the conversation of the Group. He suggested developing ad hoc groups that would meet between now and September according to the following topics:

Information collection and assessment

Work Plan ( charge) refinement

Measuring Program Progress The goal established was to refine the policy questions around the Subcommittee's Charge. In parallel, the Subcommittee will develop a list of information needs and collect relevant information already available by the September meeting. The group agreed that every effort should be made to distribute meeting materials to Subcommittee members at least 7 days prior to Subcommittee meetings. A detailed summary of next steps was circulated to the members following the meeting and is attached ( Attachment E).

The Agency efforts to Measure Program Progress have a near term need for input from the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee will miss the opportunity to influence that internal effort if the topic is tabled for the time being. Therefore a work group will be developed to initiate work with the internal agency team.

The ideas from the Members' discussions regarding how they should divide into workgroups will be integrated into the Charge discussion and the development of a first draft of a work plan for the Subcommittee.

The Subcommittee Members agreed to the proposed re organization. NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee 11 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02 Meridian staff agreed to prepare a summary of the next steps that resulted from the discussion about group organization and circulate it as soon as possible to all Subcommittee Members ( prior to the meeting summary). They also agreed to take the next cut at revising a work plan based on the initial Charge, but integrating the Subcommittee's comments with dates and deadlines. Meridian and EPA staff assignments and communication for each group would also be clarified.

The group agreed that the focus of the next meeting Agenda would be an update and response to progress on the three efforts. Members of the Subcommittee were asked to volunteer for participation in each of the work areas.

The meeting was adjourned at 3: 00 p. m. on the afternoon of the June 19th.

A complete list of Meeting Participants and Observers will be circulated to the Subcommittee Members and available along with the transcript. NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee 12 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02 ATTACHMENTS A. Operating Principles B. Meeting Purpose Statement C. Revision of the Subcommittee's Charge D. EPA Presentations Superfund Overview Enforcement Presentation Overview of NPL NPL Background The Mega Sites Issue E. Summary of Next Steps NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee A 1 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02 Attachment A  Operating Principles NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee Operating Principles REVISED 6 18 02 Representation Direct participation of all Members is an essential element of the success of the Subcommittee. Members are expected to attend all Subcommittee meetings. Any member not able to attend a meeting may send a representative who may be asked for their opinion and expertise, however they will neither sit at the table nor take part in ongoing Subcommittee deliberations or decision making.

Decision Making The committee will operate using a collaborative problem solving approach. This approach calls for the committee to:

1) Gain a thorough understanding of the issues, interests and ideas of the Members. 2) Based on that understanding, develop goals and objectives designed to satisfy the respective interests of the Members. 3) Develop recommendations based on the consensus opinions of the Subcommittee. 4) Consensus means that everyone can " live with" the outcome, though aspects of it may not be their first choice. 5) In the absence of consensus, the divergent opinions of the Members will be documented.

Collaborative problem solving depends on mutual respect and careful listening among members. Meetings will be structured to support a respectful atmosphere and the development of trust and understanding among Members.

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, opportunity will be provided for public comment at each public meeting of the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee will carefully consider input from the public in its deliberations and will include a summary of public comments in the public record of the Subcommittee's work.

In the case where outside experts need to be consulted, an explicit effort will be made to bring accurate and trusted information, data and professional expertise into the process. NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee A 2 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02 Communications with the Press In accordance with FACA, all formal meetings of the Subcommittee will be open to the public and press. When Subcommittee Members are contacted by the press, they are expected to represent only their personal perspectives and not to characterize the views of other Members or the Subcommittee deliberations. In some cases, the Subcommittee may designate the chair or other representative to handle press contacts.

Facilitation A neutral, third party facilitator( s) will assist the Subcommittee by guiding the discussions in a balanced and fair manner that keeps the Subcommittee focused, respectful, and within time limits agreed to in agendas.

Meeting Materials and Summaries Every effort will be made to distribute meeting materials to Subcommittee members at least 7 days prior to Subcommittee meetings. Meeting summaries will be developed for each Subcommittee meeting. Summaries will be accurate and substantive accounts of the meeting, but will not be literal transcripts. Summaries will be submitted to the Subcommittee Members for their review and comment prior to making them available to the public.

Timeline and Schedule We anticipate that the Subcommittee will meet for approximately 18 months, with Subcommittee meetings quarterly and workgroups meeting more frequently in between. NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee B 1 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02 Attachment B  Meeting Purpose Statement NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee June 12, 2002 Meeting Purpose Objectives of June 18th and 19th meeting:

1. Introduction of Subcommittee members; 2. Review of Subcommittee charge; 3. Discussion and agreement on Subcommittee operating procedures; 4. Discussion of Subcommittee member expectations; 5. Review of Subcommittee structure and work planning; and 6. Public comment.

This committee is chartered as a Subcommittee of the Environmental Protection Agency's ( EPA) National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology ( NACEPT). This meeting is being held to gather information and facilitate discussion to help the Subcommittee in its task of assisting the agency in identifying the future direction of the Superfund program in the context of other federal and state waste and site cleanup programs. To this end, the Subcommittee will review the relevant resources and, to the extent possible, provide answers to the questions set forth in its Charge.

Subcommittee Members are being asked to examine the information and material obtained during this, and other public meetings, in an effort to inform its work. Interactive discussion and questioning for the purpose of probing an issue and clarifying a point will be encouraged. As such, the comments made by Subcommittee Members should neither be interpreted to reflect their current position on the subject under discussion nor their future position as it may evolve over the course of deliberation. Additionally, the comments of individual Subcommittee Members should not be interpreted as positions of the Subcommittee or the EPA.

The Subcommittee will deliberate thoroughly before developing consensus findings, conclusions or recommendations. Any report on of the opinion of the group will undergo rigorous review by all Subcommittee Members before it is considered final and transmitted to EPA.

This is an open session for public record. Interested individuals and members of the press have been invited to attend as observers. We will be entertaining questions from the floor during the designated times on the agenda. Lois Gartner, the Designated Federal Officer, will be available to assist reporters and other interested individuals who would like additional information. Her contact information is available on the Roster at the registration table. NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee C 1 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02 Attachment C  Revision of the Subcommittee's Charge Superfund Subcommittee National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology Charge REVISED 6 19 02 Following Subcommittee Discussion on 6 18 02 BACKGROUND:

In July 2001, the Deputy Administrator directed the development of an action plan to address the recommendations in the Resources for the Future ( RFF) report to Congress, Superfund's Future, What Will It Cost? Specifically, the plan called for the creation of a Superfund Subcommittee under the auspices of the Agency's National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology ( NACEPT).

In the fall of 2001, the Agency enlarged the Superfund Subcommittee's scope to reflect consideration of the Superfund program in context with other federal and state waste cleanup programs. This broader focus will consider how the Nation's waste programs can work together in a more effective and unified fashion, so that citizens can be assured that federal, state, tribal and local governments are working optimally to make sites safe for their intended uses.

STATEMENT OF TASK:

The overall intent of this effort is to assist in identifying the future direction of the Superfund program in the context of other federal and state waste and site cleanup programs. Specifically, the Superfund Subcommittee will review the relevant documentation and, to the extent possible, provide answers to the questions that are attached and that relate to: a) the role of the NPL, b) mega sites, and c) measuring program performance.

During the period of Subcommittee activity, additional issues may arise for which the Agency will seek Subcommittee input. If this occurs, EPA will identify specific issues or questions for which advice is sought and provide appropriate documentation.

LEVEL OF EFFORT:

1. The Agency shall furnish the necessary personnel, material, reports, background documents and facilities needed for the Subcommittee activities. NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee C 2 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02 2. It is expected that the Subcommittee activities will be accomplished by a series of meetings over about an 18 month period.

3. It is anticipated that one or a series of consensus reports will result. However, where consensus cannot be reached, a written discussion of the different opinions of Subcommittee members is to be provided.

4. The scope of the Subcommittee, as identified in the Statement of Task, will not change without agreement of both the Subcommittee and the Agency.

5. For additional issues for which the Agency will seek Subcommittee input, it is understood that these issues would not replace the main focus of the Subcommittee as identified in the Statement of Task. For these additional issues, the Subcommittee response may be in the form of a " consultation," i. e., dialogue, rather than a formal written report.

6. The Subcommittee may, at its discretion, make use of separate working groups to address specific issues. The Agency will support the activities of these working groups in the same manner as will be provided for the Subcommittee itself.

7. The Subcommittee will operate as and be subject to the requirements of a FACA Committee.

ROLE OF THE NPL The process to place sites on the NPL has become increasingly contentious since the Superfund program's inception. Some stakeholders support the notion that the NPL is most appropriately a " tool of last resort." Others believe the current process inappropriately emphasizes keeping sites off the list. Perceptions aside, sites placed on the NPL are typically those with either recalcitrant or no potentially responsible parties ( PRPs), those where States lack funds to perform cleanup, those considered Federal facilities, or where tribal, trustee, or affected community pressure is applied. Other cleanup avenues include the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) program, the relatively new Brownfields program, Federal agency response programs, Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program, State deferral or voluntary cleanup programs, and EPA's use of so called " NPL equivalent" cleanups and large scale removals.

Among the issues that will be addressed are the following:

1. What should the role of the NPL be in addressing waste cleanup and what does it mean to be placed on the NPL? a. What should be the relationship between the NPL and other cleanup programs? b. How to best ensure an adequate level of cleanup? c. How to integrate the NPL with other programs/ statutes ( NRD, CWA, Brownfields, etc.)? NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee C 3 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02 d. Should the NPL be a " tool of last resort?" In particular, what is the appropriate role of non NPL cleanups and States in addressing sites? e. What are the impacts/ implications of placement on the NPL ( funding, community, etc.)? f. How can EJ concerns be more effectively integrated into the implementation of the NPL ( e. g. synergistic and cumulative impacts)? g. What is the appropriate use of the NPL in the context of mega sites ( e. g. river basins)? h. What are the issues associated with the goals of remediation and economic redevelopment?

2. Who should be involved in determining what sites are listed ( e. g., states, tribes, and communities)? a. What should the nature of their involvement be? b. Should their role differ depending on the site type or risk? c. What is the role of local authorities? d. What is the role of communities ( in listing, risk assessment methodology, etc.)? e. How can the role of ATSDR ( or equivalent) be integrated at non NPL sites?

3. What kinds of sites belong on the NPL? a. Should the NPL be used for a more limited range of sites? b. How can Tribal sites be addressed more effectively through the NPL? ( How can cultural and subsistence living factors be integrated more effectively?) c. What is the role of Risk ( ecological, human health) in determining which sites should be on the NPL? d. What are the technical criteria for listing a site? e. What should the interaction be between the removal and the remedial programs? f. What are the broader issues of NPL listing ( stigma, etc.)?

Information Needs 1. Assess the relative costs of using other cleanup programs as alternatives to the NPL. 2. Determine whether EPA has used the citizen petition process to add sites to the NPL. If so, how? 3. Identify the other remedial/ cleanup alternatives and their obligations/ requirements ( RCRA ToSCA, state standards, etc.). 4. Identify other funding sources ( non EPA public sources, private funding). 5. Assess the issues behind " recalcitrant parties". 6. Understand EPA guidance on the listing process. 7. Assess the characteristics of other cleanup programs that have made them more or less successful than the NPL. What kind of sites were involved ( cost complexity etc.)? NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee C 4 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02 8. Gain a better understanding of the HRS and the application of the " magic number." 9. Assess community acceptance of NPL listing vs. voluntary cleanups. 10. Determine what types of sites are typically listed on the NPL. ( Is it true that " sites placed on the NPL are typically those with either recalcitrant or no potentially responsible parties ( PRPs), those where States lack funds to perform cleanup, those considered Federal facilities, or where tribal, trustee, or affected community pressure is applied?) 11. Assess the use of 106 Orders ( and funding to implement).

MEGA SITES The RFF Superfund cost study defined mega sites to be those NPL sites where cleanup costs ( i. e., total removal and remedial action costs) exceed $ 50 million. Mining and contaminated sediment sites are often considered synonymous with mega sites, although the majority of mining and sediment sites are not mega sites, and vice versa. RFF indicated that cleanup costs for mega sites are among the major variables driving future program costs. Mega site cleanups, especially those tied to mining and contaminated sediments, are also often difficult and time consuming.

Among the issues that will be addressed are the following:

1. Should costs be the determining factor when designating sites as mega sites or should other factors such as complexity or geographic size be considered?

2. What are the reasonable policy options for addressing mega sites? a. Are there viable alternatives to placing mega sites on the NPL and/ or ways of containing their costs ( for example, listing only the highest priority portions of the sites)?

3. What are the unique aspects of mega sites that might require a different decision making process for NPL listing? a. Large geographical distribution ( e. g. river basins) b. Slow rate of progress c. Risk management challenges d. Factors specifically relevant to Federal Facilities 4. How to integrate long term stewardship in the cleanup/ management of mega sites?

Information Needs 1. Confirm the characteristics that drive the costs of mega sites ( quantity of material, etc.). 2. Confirm the list of all sites defined as " mega sites." NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee C 5 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02 3. Bring in outside experts to help frame the discussion around issues where the committee may be missing expertise. 4. Clarify the federal budgeting process and how mega sites are funded. 5. Summary of RFF study. 6. Clarify EPA's position on liability/ cleanup responsibility for state/ private/ other ownership. 7. Determine the impact of PRPs protecting their assets.

MEASURING PROGRAM PROGRESS For approximately the last seven years of the Superfund program, construction completion has been the program's key measure of progress for sites on the NPL. However, this milestone only reflects the final outcome of years of analysis, cleanup work, and effort at NPL sites. Construction completion neither measures nor characterizes the impacts of cleanup efforts on human health and the environment. Furthermore, construction completions do not correlate as milestones for non NPL cleanups or with efforts at other hazardous waste cleanups. In the past few years, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) program developed indicators to gauge the impact of its efforts on human health and the environment. The Superfund program has capitalized on RCRA's efforts and conceptualized similar indicators for Superfund work. Nonetheless, there still are few cross program metrics to capture comprehensive outcomes for interim work. This void impedes the Agency's ability to communicate work at hazardous waste sites to the public, Congress, States, and the regulated community. The Agency expects to share new measure proposals with the panel and will seek feedback from the Subcommittee on those proposed measures.

Among the issues that will be addressed are the following:

1. What criteria should be used to measure progress? a. Should environmental indicators be established that are consistent among environmental programs? b. Review the definition of construction completion and the relationship between that and " really being done." c. Determine the role of public/ community values in determining progress ( e. g. cultural, social, subsistence lifestyles). d. How to address and respond to remedy failures?

2. Who should be involved in measuring progress and defining success? a. What is the role of communities and other parties?

3. What is the long term effectiveness of institutional controls ( particularly enforcement), containment and natural attenuation?

4. How to integrate long term stewardship into the goals of the Program? a. How to assure responsibility? b. How to fund for long term stewardship? NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee C 6 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02 Information Needs 1. Clarify how the money is used and what you get for it. 2. Determine how communities feel about the program. Is there consensus about what communities identify as success and progress? 3. Assess the impacts/ implications of economic redevelopment vs. remediation. 4. What are the timing assumptions for construction completion ( speed of cleanup)? 5. What are the institutional controls available for monitoring and long term stewardship? 6. What environmental indicators do other cleanup programs use? 7. What factors influence whether a resource is useable ( cultural factors, factors influencing subsistence lifestyles etc.)? 8. Determine the steps for communities to assess their own measures of success. 9. Determine how to measure long term treatment scenarios for those sites that do not reach construction completion. 10. Identify Congressional perspectives on success. NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee D 1 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02 Attachment D  EPA Presentations Attachment D  EPA Presentations available electronically as separate documents.

1. Superfund Overview 2. Enforcement Presentation 3. Overview of NPL 4. NPL Background 5. The Mega Sites Issue EPA Presentations available as hard copies ( see contact information below):

1. Characterization of the NPL 2. Performance Measures/ Environmental Indicators Please contact Beth Huron at bhuron@ merid. org, or 970 513 8340 ext. 204 for information on any of the EPA presentations. NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee E 1 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02 Attachment E  Summary of Next Steps NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee June, 2002 Meeting Next Steps Summary 6 25 02 The NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee agreed to follow three concurrent paths of action between its first ( June 17 19, 2002) and second ( September 23 24, 2002) meetings. The following are the three tracks:

Information Collection and Assessment

Work Plan ( Charge) Refinement

Develop a strategy for addressing " Measuring Program Performance"

Ad hoc groups established to coordinate the work of the Subcommittee prior to the September meeting will address these three tasks. At the September meeting, decisions will be made about the most appropriate way to organize the Subcommittee's work from that point forward. Members volunteered for participation in the ad hoc groups at the June, 2002 meeting. Those Members who were not present to volunteer will be asked to sign up after reviewing this document. Meridian staff will work to ensure balanced and diverse perspectives are represented in each of the ad hoc committees. Face to face meetings and/ or conference calls are anticipated for each track. Meridian and EPA will provide staff support and facilitation for each of the groups as necessary.

Additionally, Meridian will circulate a draft summary of the June, 2002 meeting highlights by June 28th. A transcript of the full meeting will be prepared and available to the Subcommittee Members and the Public by the end of July.

Information Collection and Assessment Step 1: Steering Committee Members volunteer to participate in an ad hoc work group. ( done   contact missing members and address balance of group.)

Step 2: Meridian staff will draft an initial list of information needs and data gaps identified during group discussion and contained in the revised charge distributed on the last day of the June, 2002 meeting. Comments and questions posed by the Subcommittee Members following the EPA presentations and/ or submitted by the Subcommittee Members in writing at the meeting will be included. The focus of the fact finding will be on the issues identified for the NPL and mega sites. Measuring program performance will be addressed through the third track activity. NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee E 2 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02 Step 3: Meridian staff will circulate the initial list to the Subcommittee members by July 15th. Members will be asked to respond with the following information within 2 weeks:

Refine the list of information needs.

Identify additional information needs.

Identify data and information available to address some of the needs identified to date. Include a copy of the document/ data or reference and contact information to aid staff in the collection of materials.

When responding, members will be asked to relate all data requests to a policy issue identified in the scope of the most recent version of the charge ( circulated to members on 6/ 19/ 02).

Step 4: Meridian Staff will collect responses, revise the document and develop a system for tracking all information available and efficiently making that information available to the Members ( July 2002).

Step 5: Meridian and EPA staff will support the Subcommittee Members in their efforts to collect information to fill the data gaps and information needs. EPA representatives, States and other resources will be contacted as necessary during the information gathering phase. ( July   September, 2002 and ongoing)

Step 6: Meeting( s) and/ or conference call( s) will be scheduled to discuss information and data priorities and identify topics for the September meeting. ( late August)

Step 7: Meridian Staff will circulate information to all Subcommittee Members in response to the information needs as it becomes available. ( ongoing)

Step 8: Workgroup members will present information/ data at the September Subcommittee meeting through written material and presentations as deemed appropriate.

Information Collection and Assessment Work Group Volunteers: Subcommittee Members volunteered for participation in the ad hoc groups at the June, 2002 meeting. Those Members who were not present to volunteer are asked to sign up after reviewing this document. Meridian staff will work to ensure that balanced and diverse perspectives are represented in each of the ad hoc committees. Members who have signed up to date include:

Jane Gardner ( Sediments data) Tom Newlon ( Sediments data) Sue Briggum ( other program data) Steve Elbert ( Mine cleanup data) Mel Scaggs Lindene Patton ( Comparative regulatory program analysis  primarily legally focused) Mark Giesfeldt ( State information via ASTSWMO, alternate state approach) Catherine Sharp ( as above) NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee E 3 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02 Lexi Shultz ( abandoned mine land program information for some states) Bill Adams ( Mine Cleanup data) Dick Dewling   ( alternate funding) Mike Mittelholzer   ( Survey of State Cleanup Programs)

Work Plan ( Charge) Refinement The Charge for the Subcommittee was drafted by EPA to provide a guide for the group in its focus. This ad hoc work group will use the Charge and the feedback from the Subcommittee Members to draft a Work Plan, defining the policy issues that they will address in their path forward.

Step 1: Steering Committee Members volunteer to participate in an ad hoc work group. ( done   contact missing members and address balance of group.)

Step 2: Meridian staff will revise the Charge based on feedback from the Members during the June, 2002 meeting and circulate a revised draft to the ad hoc group. ( July 8th)

Step 3: Convene a meeting and/ or conference call( s) as necessary to try to refine the policy issues that the Subcommittee will address. ( July)

Step 4: Work with Meridian Staff to revise the Charge and/ or develop a Work Plan that reflects this policy focus. ( July   August)

Step 5: Recognize the link with the information collection group and share draft revisions as appropriate.

Step 6: Circulate a revised draft of the Work Plan to the full Subcommittee for feedback and revision prior to the September meeting. ( Late August)

Step 7: Present a refined draft to the full Subcommittee 2 weeks prior to September meeting.

Work Plan ( Charge) Refinement Work Group Volunteers: Subcommittee Members volunteered for participation in the ad hoc groups at the June, 2002 meeting. Those Members who were not present to volunteer will be asked to sign up after reviewing this document. Meridian staff will work to ensure balanced and diverse perspectives are represented in each of the ad hoc committees. Members who have signed up to date include:

Grant Cope Jim Derouin Steve Elbert Glenn Hammer Ken Jock Jane Garder NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee E 4 June Meeting Summary 9/ 6/ 02 Michael Mittelholzer Vicky Peters Kate Probst Ed Putnam Catherine Sharp Mel Scaggs Lexi Shultz Wilma Subra Robin Wiener Measuring Program Progress Step 1: Steering Committee Members volunteer for an ad hoc committee to provide review and reaction to initial agency ideas on measuring the progress of the Superfund program. ( done   contact missing members)

Step 2: Collect additional information from Internal EPA agency team to clarify their needs and the focus of the feedback they would like. Contact work plan volunteers with additional information and proposed meeting time and format. ( July 15)

Step 3: Plan meetings and conference calls as necessary to support a dialogue with the internal agency team. ( July   August)

Step 4: Ad hoc group develops a draft strategy that can then be circulated more broadly for comment/ discussion. Meeting( s) and/ or conference calls will be necessary.

Step 5: Report back to the Subcommittee with strategy for addressing this topic in September. ( Circulate 2 weeks prior to September meeting)

Measuring Program Progress Work Group Volunteers: Subcommittee Members volunteered for participation in the ad hoc groups at the June, 2002 meeting. Those Members who were not present to volunteer will be asked to sign up after reviewing this document. Meridian staff will work to ensure balanced and diverse perspectives are represented in each of the ad hoc committees. Members who have signed up to date include:

Bill Adams Sue Briggum Grant Cope Steve Elbert Mark Giesfeldt Fred Kalisz Ray Loehr Jason White