[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 27, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59336-59338]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22914]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0370; FRL-9092-01-R4]

Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated
Facilities and Pollutants; Florida; Control of Emissions From Existing
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(d) plan submitted by the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on December 22,
2020. This plan was submitted to fulfill the requirements of the CAA
and is responsive to EPA's promulgation of Emissions Guidelines and
Compliance Times for municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. The Florida
plan establishes emission limits for existing MSW landfills and
provides for the implementation and enforcement of those limits.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 26,
2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2021-0370 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katy Lusky, Air Analysis and Support
Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth St. SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Lusky can also be reached via
electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On August 29, 2016, EPA finalized revised Standards of Performance
for new MSW landfills and Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for
existing MSW Landfills in 40 CFR part 60, subparts XXX and Cf,
respectively (81 FR 59331 and 81 FR 59275). These actions were taken in
accordance with section 111 of the CAA.
    Section 111(d) of the CAA requires EPA to establish a procedure for
a state to submit a plan to EPA which establishes standards of
performance for any existing source for any air pollutant: (1) For
which air quality criteria have not been issued or which is not
included on a list published under CAA section 108 or emitted from a
source category which is regulated under CAA section 112, but (2) to
which a standard of performance under CAA section 111 would apply if
such existing source were a new source. EPA established these
requirements for state plan submittals in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B.
State submittals under CAA sections 111(d) must be consistent with the
relevant emission guidelines, in this instance 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Cf, and the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, and 40 CFR part
62, subpart A. If the state plan is complete and approvable with
reference to these requirements, EPA notifies the public, promulgates
the plan pursuant to 40 CFR part 62, and delegates implementation and
enforcement of the standards and requirements of the emission
guidelines to the state under

the terms of the state plan as published in the CFR.
    On December 22, 2020, the FDEP submitted to EPA a formal section
111(d) plan for existing MSW landfills. The section 111(d) plan was
submitted in response to the August 29, 2016, promulgation of Federal
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and emission guidelines
requirements for MSW landfills, 40 CFR part 60, subparts XXX and Cf,
respectively (81 FR 59331 and 81 FR 59275).
    On July 7, 2021, the FDEP sent EPA a letter modifying its original
plan. The modifications identified in the letter involve withdrawing
the initial design capacity reporting requirement in 40 CFR 60.38f(a)
and the initial nonmethane organic compound emission rate reporting
requirement in 40 CFR 60.38f(c). The basis for withdrawing these
reporting requirements is that, prior to the effective date of the
Florida plan, owners and operators of existing municipal solid waste
landfills in Florida, will have already satisfied these reporting
requirements under provisions in the Federal plan for existing
municipal solid waste landfills. Under the Federal plan in 40 CFR part
62, subpart OOO, the deadline for submitting initial design capacity
and nonmethane organic emission rate reports is September 20, 2021.

II. Summary and Analysis of the Plan Submittal

    EPA has reviewed the Florida section 111(d) plan submittal in the
context of the plan completeness and approvability requirements of 40
CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf, and part 62, subpart A. EPA is
proposing to determine that the submitted section 111(d) plan meets the
above cited requirements. The Florida state plan submittal package
includes all materials necessary to be deemed administratively and
technically complete according to the criteria of 40 CFR 60.27.
Included within the section 111(d) plan are regulations under the
Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) specifically, F.A.C. 62-
204.800(9)(h)--``Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Cf, Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills that Commenced Construction, Reconstruction, or
Modification on or Before July 17, 2014.'' Florida houses its
implementation and enforcement authority for the state plan
requirements in these regulations. In this action, EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference F.A.C. 62-204.800(9)(h), which became
effective in the State of Florida on June 15, 2020. A detailed
explanation of the rationale behind this proposed approval is available
in the Technical Support Document (TSD) included in the docket for this
action.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Florida section 111(d) plan for MSW
landfills pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf. Therefore, EPA
is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 62, subpart K, to reflect this
action. This approval is based on the rationale previously discussed
and in further detail in the TSD associated with this action.
    The EPA Administrator continues to retain authority for approval of
alternative methods to determine the nonmethane organic compound
concentration or a site-specific methane generation rate constant (k),
as stipulated in 40 CFR 60.30f(c).

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include regulatory text that
incorporates by reference the state plan. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference F.A.C. 62-204.800(9)(h), which became effective in the State
of Florida on June 15, 2020. F.A.C. 62-204.800(9)(h) provides details
regarding Florida's adoption of the applicability provisions,
compliance times, emission guidelines, operational standards, test
methods, compliance provisions, monitoring requirements, reporting
guidelines, recordkeeping guidelines, specifications for active
landfill gas collection systems and definitions contained in EPA's
emission guidelines for existing municipal solid waste landfills (40
CFR part 60, subpart Cf). EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these materials generally available through the docket for this action,
EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0370, at https://www.regulations.gov and at EPA Region
4 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In reviewing state plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed approval of Florida's State plan
submittal for existing MSW landfills does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the State plan is not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Landfills,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Methane,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: October 13, 2021.
John Blevins,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2021-22914 Filed 10-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 58759]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23243]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2926-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Amended
LGIA with El Segundo Energy Center II LLC to be effective 11/23/2014.
    Filed Date: 9/23/14.
    Accession Number: 20140923-5068.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/14/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2927-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 1148R19
American Electric Power NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 9/23/14.
    Accession Number: 20140923-5069.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/14/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2928-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): OATT
Non-Substantive Revisions to be effective 11/23/2014.
    Filed Date: 9/23/14.
    Accession Number: 20140923-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/14/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2929-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Rev. to
Provision Reg. Auto Fuel Price Adjustments in App A to be effective 12/
3/2014.
    Filed Date: 9/23/14.
    Accession Number: 20140923-5099.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/14/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2930-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): FPL and
FKEC First Amendment to FPL Rate Schedule FERC No. 322 to be effective
1/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/23/14.
    Accession Number: 20140923-5123.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/14/14.

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

    Dated: September 23, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-23243 Filed 9-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 227 (Monday, November 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70382-70386]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28160]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70900; File No. SR-ISE-2013-58]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Change the Expiration Date for Most Options Contracts to the
Third Friday of the Expiration Month Instead of the Saturday Following
the Third Friday

November 19, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on November 7, 2013, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') 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 is proposing to amend its rules to change the
expiration date for most option contracts to the third Friday of the
expiration month instead

of the Saturday following the third Friday, and to make other
amendments to its rules consistent with the industry-wide change to
Friday expiration. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://www.ise.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 self-regulatory organization 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 Exchange is proposing to amend its rules to change the
expiration date for most option contracts to the third Friday of the
expiration month instead of the Saturday following the third Friday.
More specifically, the Exchange is proposing to amend rule text
referencing Saturday expirations. The Exchange notes, however, that
this change will apply to all standard expiration contracts including
those in which the rules are silent on the expiration date.\3\ The
Exchange is making this filing to harmonize its rules in connection
with a recently approved rule filing made by The Options Clearing
Corporation (``OCC'') which made substantially similar changes.\4\ The
Exchange believes that the industry must remain consistent in
expiration dates, and, thus, is proposing to update its rules to remain
consistent with those of OCC. In addition, the Exchange understands
that other exchanges have or will be filing similar rules to effect
this industry-wide initiative.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Mini Options expirations are the same as those for Standard
Options and would be amended as specified in this proposal.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69772 (June 17,
2013), 78 FR 37645 (June 21, 2013) (order approving SR-OCC-2013-004
[sic]).
    \5\ See e.g. Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70372
(September 11, 2013) 78 FR 57186 (September 17, 2013) (SR-NYSEARCA-
2013-88); 70259 (August 26, 2013), 78 FR 53809 (August 30, 2013)
(SR-PHLX-2013-89); 70091 (August 1, 2013), 78 FR 48212 (August 7,
2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-073).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most option contracts (``standard expiration contracts'') currently
expire at the ``expiration time'' (11:59 p.m. Eastern Time) on the
Saturday following the third Friday of the specified expiration month
(the ``expiration date''). As a result of this proposed rule change,
the expiration date for standard expiration contracts would be changed
to the third Friday of the expiration month. The expiration time would
continue to be 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the expiration date. This
change would apply only to standard expiration contracts expiring after
February 1, 2015, and the Exchange, similar to OCC, does not propose to
change the expiration date for any outstanding option contracts already
listed with a Saturday expiration date. Option contracts having non-
standard expiration dates (``non-standard expiration contracts'') will
be unaffected by this proposed rule change.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Options with non-standard expiration contracts include
Quarterly Option Series (Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 504, and
Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 2009), and Short Term Option
Series (Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 504, and Supplementary
Material .01 to Rule 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to provide a smooth transition to Friday expiration OCC
has moved the expiration exercise procedures to Friday for all standard
expiration contracts even though the contracts would continue to expire
on Saturday.\7\ After February 1, 2015, virtually all standard
expiration contracts will actually expire on Friday. The only standard
expiration contracts that will expire on a Saturday after February 1,
2015 are certain options that had been listed prior to the
effectiveness of the OCC rule change and the completion of systems
changes to support Friday expiration. The Exchange will not list any
additional options with Saturday expiration dates falling after
February 1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See SR-OCC-2013-04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain option contracts have already been listed with Saturday
expiration dates as distant as December 2016. For these contracts,
transitioning to Friday expiration for newly listed option contracts
expiring after February 1, 2015 would create a situation under which
certain options with open interest would expire on a Saturday while
other options with open interest would expire on a Friday in the same
expiration month. Clearing members have expressed a clear preference to
not have a mix of options with open interest that expire on different
days in a single month.\8\ Accordingly, OCC represented in its recently
approved filing that it will not issue and clear any new option
contract with a Friday expiration if existing option contracts of the
same options class expire on the Saturday following the third Friday of
the same month. However, Friday expiration processing will be in effect
for these Saturday expiration contracts. As with standard expiration
options during the transition period, exercise requests received after
Friday expiration processing is complete but before the Saturday
contract expiration time will continue to be processed without fines or
penalties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the OCC filing, the Exchange is proposing to adopt
a definition of expiration date and add language to its rules that
reflects a Saturday expiration date for series expiring prior to
February 1, 2015 and a Friday expiration date for series expiring on or
after February 1, 2015.\9\ In particular, the Exchange proposes to
amend its rules as described in the paragraphs below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ With the exception of expirations that were listed prior to
the effective date of the OCC filing and have open interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 100 (Definitions) to adopt a
definition of expiration date, as described above, and to modify the
definition of the term ``outstanding'' to mean an option contract which
has been issued by the Clearing Corporation and has neither been the
subject of a closing writing transaction nor has expired.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 418 (Other Restrictions on
Option Transactions and Exercises) with respect to certain timing for
restrictions on the exercise of option contracts. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to specify that the 10-business day period referenced
in Rule 418(a)(2) includes the expiration date for an option contract
that expires on a business day. The Exchange also proposes to specify
that, with respect to index options, restrictions on exercise may be in
effect until the opening of business on the business day of their
expiration (i.e., for Friday expirations), or, in the case of an option
contract expiring on a day that is not a business day, and as is
currently the case for Saturday expirations, on the last business day
before the expiration date. Finally, the Exchange proposes to specify
in Rule 418(a)(3)(ii) that exercises of expiring American-style, cash-
settled index options are not prohibited on the business day of their
expiration (i.e., for Friday expirations), or, in the case of an option
contract

expiring on a day that is not a business day, and as is currently the
case for Saturday expirations, on the last business day prior to their
expiration.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 504 (Series of Options
Contracts Open for Trading) to differentiate between Friday and
Saturday expirations. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to specify
that additional series of individual stock options may be added in
unusual market conditions until the close of trading on the business
day prior to expiration in the case of an option contract expiring on a
business day (i.e., Thursday for Friday expirations), or, in the case
of an option contract expiring on a day that is not a business day, and
as is currently the case for Saturday expirations, until the close of
trading on the second business day prior to expiration (i.e., Thursday
for Saturday expirations). In addition, the Exchange proposes to make a
related technical correction to Rule 504. Currently Rule 504 states, in
part, that new series of FLEX Equity Options may be added on any
business day prior to the expiration date. As the ISE does not list
FLEX Equity Options, the Exchange proposes to remove this reference.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 720 (Obvious and Catastrophic
Errors) to add greater specificity regarding the timing surrounding
notifying the Exchange of a ``Catastrophic Error.'' Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to specify that, for such transactions in an expiring
options series that take place on an expiration date that is a business
day (i.e., for Friday expirations), a member must notify the Exchange
by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time that same day. For such transactions in an
options series that take place on the business day immediately prior to
an expiration date that is not a business day (i.e., for Saturday
expirations), a member must notify the Exchange by 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Time on such business day (i.e., on Friday).
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1100 (Exercise of Options
Contracts) in several areas, each of which is designed to differentiate
between Friday and Saturday expirations. First, the Exchange proposes
to specify in Rule 1100(b) that special procedures apply to the
exercise of equity options on the business day of their expiration
(i.e., for Friday expirations), or, in the case of an option contract
expiring on a day that is not a business day, and as is currently the
case for Saturday expirations, on the last business day before their
expiration. Second, the Exchange proposes to specify in Rule 1100(c)
that, regarding exercise cut-off times, option holders have until 5:30
p.m. Eastern Time on the business day of their expiration (i.e., for
Friday expirations), or, in the case of an option contract expiring on
a day that is not a business day, and as is currently the case for
Saturday expirations, on the business day immediately prior to the
expiration date. Third, the Exchange proposes to specify in Rule
1100(h) that the advance notice described therein is applicable if
provided by the Exchange on or before 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time on the
business day immediately prior to the business day of expiration (i.e.,
Thursday for Friday expirations), or, in the case of an option contract
expiring on a day that is not a business day, and as is currently the
case for Saturday expirations, the business day immediately prior to
the last business day before the expiration date (i.e., Thursday for
Saturday expirations). Fourth, the Exchange proposes to specify in Rule
1100(i)(2) that the reference therein to ``unusual circumstances''
includes, but is not limited to, a significant news announcement
concerning the underlying security of an option contract that is
scheduled to be released just after the close on the business day the
option contract expires (i.e., for Friday expirations), or, in the case
of an option contract expiring on a day that is not a business day, and
as is currently the case for Saturday expirations, the business day
immediately prior to expiration. Fifth, the Exchange proposes to
specify in Rule 1100(h)(8)(ii) that exercises of expiring American-
style, cash-settled index options are not prohibited on the business
day of their expiration (i.e., for Friday expirations), or, in the case
of an option contract expiring on a day that is not a business day, and
as is currently the case for Saturday expirations, on the last business
day prior to their expiration. The Exchange notes that due to an error
in its rulebook it currently has two rules labeled as Rule 1100(h), the
Exchange therefore also proposes to move one of these subsections,
which deals with procedures for exercise of American-style cash-settled
index options contracts, to Rule 1100(l).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ New Rule 1100(l), previously Rule 1100(h), has been
mistakenly referenced in the Exchange's rulebook as Rule 1102(h).
With this filing the Exchange will move the rule back to Rule 1100
as approved in SR-ISE-2003-05 but will move it to subsection (l) to
avoid conflicting with another rule currently labeled as Rule
1100(h). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48405 (August 25,
2003), 68 FR 52257 (September 2, 2003) (SR-ISE-2003-05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 2001 (Definitions) to clarify
the definition of the term ``American-style index option'' to mean an
option on an industry or market index that can be exercised on any
business day prior to expiration, including the business day of
expiration in the case of an option contract expiring on a business day
(i.e., for Friday expirations), and the term ``European-style index
option'' to mean an option on an industry or market index that can be
exercised only on the business day of its expiration (i.e., for Friday
expirations), or, in the case of an option contract expiring on a day
that is not a business day, and as is currently the case for Saturday
expirations, on the last business day prior to the day it expires.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 2009 (Terms of Index Option
Contracts) with respect to the permitted timing for adding new series
of index option contracts so as to differentiate between Friday and
Saturday expirations. First, the Exchange proposes to specify in Rule
2009(a)(5) that the last day of trading for A.M.-settled index options
is the business day preceding the business day of expiration (i.e., for
Friday expirations), or, in the case of an option contract expiring on
a day that is not a business day, and as is currently the case for
Saturday expirations, the business day preceding the last day of
trading in the underlying securities prior to the expiration date.
Second, the Exchange proposes to specify in Rule 2009(c)(2) that new
series of index option contracts may be added up to, but not on or
after, the fourth business day prior to expiration for an option
contract expiring on a business day (i.e., up to, but not on or after,
the opening of trading on Monday morning for Friday expirations), or,
in the case of an option contract expiring on a day that is not a
business day, and as is currently the case for Saturday expirations,
the fifth business day prior to expiration. Third, the Exchange
proposes to specify in Rule 2009(d) that the reported level of the
underlying index that is calculated by the reporting authority on the
business day of expiration (i.e., for Friday expirations), or, in the
case of an option contract expiring on a day that is not a business
day, and as is currently the case for Saturday expirations, the last
day of trading in the underlying securities prior to the expiration
date for purposes of determining the current index value at the
expiration of an A.M.-settled index option may differ from the level of
the index that is separately calculated and reported by the reporting
authority and that reflects trading activity

subsequent to the opening of trading in any of the underlying
securities.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 2206 (Terms of Foreign
Currency Options Contracts) to specify that foreign currency options
shall be European-style, which means that they may be exercised only on
the business day of expiration (i.e., for Friday expirations), or, in
the case of an option contract expiring on a day that is not a business
day, and as is currently the case for Saturday expirations, the last
business day prior to the expiration date (normally a Friday).
    To the extent applicable to the timeframes herein, the Exchange is
also proposing, with this filing, to replace any reference in the
purpose section of any past Exchange rule filings or notices to any
expiration date other than Friday for a standard options contract with
the new Friday standard. Essentially, the Exchange is now proposing to
replace any relevant historic references to expiration dates to be
replaced with the proposed Friday expiration. As stated above, the
Exchange believes the proposed change will keep the Exchange consistent
with the processing at OCC and will enable the Exchange to give effect
to the industry-wide initiative. In addition, the Exchange understands
that other exchanges have filed or will be filing similar rules, thus
creating a uniform expiration date for standard options on listed
classes.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that OCC, industry groups, clearing members and
the other exchanges have been active participants in planning for the
transition to the Friday expiration.\12\ In March 2012, OCC began to
discuss moving standard contract expirations to Friday expiration dates
with industry groups, including two Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association (``SIFMA'') committees, the Operations and
Technology Steering Committee and the Options Committee, and at two
major industry conferences, the SIFMA Operations Conference and the
Options Industry Conference.\13\ OCC also discussed the project with
the Intermarket Surveillance Group and at an OCC Operations Roundtable.
In each case, there was broad support for the initiative.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\15\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \16\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \17\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that keeping its rules
consistent with those of the industry will protect all participants in
the market by eliminating confusion. The proposed changes thus allow
for a more orderly market by allowing all options markets, including
the clearing agencies, to have the same expiration date for standard
options. In addition, the proposed changes will foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities by aligning a pivotal part of the options processing to
be consistent industry-wide. If the industry were to differ, investors
would suffer from confusion and be more vulnerable to violate different
exchange rules. The proposed changes do not permit unfair
discrimination between any members because they are applied to all
members equally. Moreover, the Exchange believes that it helps all
members by keeping the Exchange consistent with OCC practices and those
of other exchanges.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Specifically, the Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change
will impose a burden on intramarket competition because it will be
applied to all members equally. In addition, the Exchange does not
believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden to intermarket
competition because it will be applied industry-wide and apply to all
market participants. The proposed rule change is structured to enhance
competition because the shift from an expiration date of the Saturday
following the third Friday to the third Friday is anticipated to be
adopted industry-wide and will apply to all option classes listed on
the Exchange. This in turn will allow the Exchange to compete more
effectively with other exchanges making similar rule changes.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \18\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\19\
Because the 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, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's 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.
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \21\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\22\ 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 so that the proposal may
become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange stated that
waiver of this requirement will allow the Exchange to more quickly
align its rules with an industry-wide initiative. The Exchange noted
that the transition to Friday expiration has already begun, and that
certain option series expiring after February 1, 2015 have already been
listed with a Friday expiration date. The Exchange also stated that the
proposal will provide greater clarity to members and investors
regarding how ISE rules will apply to the expiration of those
contracts. Finally, the Exchange noted that none of the options
contracts expiring within the next 30-days would be affected by the
proposed changes. Based on the Exchange representations above, and
since the proposal is based, in part, on a proposal submitted by the
OCC and approved by the Commission,\23\ the Commission waives the 30-
day operative delay requirement and designates the proposed rule change
as operative upon filing.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \23\ See supra note 4.
    \24\ 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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) \25\
of the Act to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-ISE-2013-58 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2013-58. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2013-58 and should be
submitted on or before December 16, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-28160 Filed 11-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Comparison of All Appropriate Inquiries Regulation, the ASTM E1527-13
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process

and

ASTM E2247-16 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for
Forestland or Rural Property Standard

Introduction

On November 1, 2005 EPA issued a Final Rule establishing standards and
practices for conducting all appropriate inquiries (AAI) as required
under sections 101(35)(B)(ii) and (iii) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as
amended. Section 312.11 of the Final Rule stated that ASTM Standard
E1527-05, “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase
I Environmental Site Assessment Process” may be used to comply with
the AAI requirements.  In December 2013, EPA amended the AAI regulation
to add a reference in section 312.11 to the updated ASTM E1527-13
Standard.  The 2013 amendment established that EPA finds the ASTM
E1527-13 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase
I Environmental Site Assessment Process” to be compliant with the AAI
regulation.

In December 2008, ASTM International revised a similar Phase I
environmental assessment standard, specifically ASTM E2247-08,
“Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural
Property.” The ASTM E2247-08 standard was quite similar to the ASTM
E1527-05 standard in format, process, and areas of coverage. In fact,
many of the sections in ASTM E2247-08 are taken verbatim from the ASTM
E1527-05 text. The revised standard, although essentially congruent to
the ASTM E1527-05 Phase I Environmental Assessment Standard, provided
additional guidance for the assessment of large tracts of land that are
undeveloped or used primarily for forest and agricultural purposes.

ASTM International recently revised the ASTM E2247-08, “Standard
Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Property.”  The revised
standard, ASTM E2247-16 was published in December 2016 primarily to
reflect revisions and improvements made to the ASTM E1527-05 “Standard
Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment Process.”

This document presents a comparison of the AAI regulatory requirements
and the requirements of both the ASTM E2247-16 standard and the ASTM
E1527-13 standard.

Exhibit 1 presents a summary of the regulatory sections in the AAI
regulation and the relevant or corresponding sections of both the ASTM
E2247-16 standard and the ASTM E1527-13 standard. The first column in
Exhibit 1 provides a list of the major activities required by the AAI
final rule. The second column provides citations to the applicable
sections of the regulation where the requirements are discussed. The
third column in Exhibit 1 presents the corresponding sections of the
ASTM E2247-16 standard. The fourth column presents the corresponding
sections of the ASTM E1527-13 standard. The fifth column provides a
brief description of any differences between the two standards. As shown
throughout the exhibit, the differences between the regulatory
requirements and the newly revised ASTM E2247-16 standard are minor in
nature, and generally reflect the applicability of the newly revised
standard to specific property types.

Summary of Differences

ASTM E2247-16 is quite similar to ASTM E1527-13, and consistent with the
AAI regulation. There are a few minor differences, mostly related to the
scope and applicability of the ASTM E2247-16 standard. Exhibit 1
identifies these minor differences between the AAI regulation, the ASTM
E1527-13 standard and the ASTM E2247-16 standard. None of these
differences are of a nature that cause the ASTM E2247-16 and the ASTM
E1527-13 standards to be non-compliant with the AAI requirements.

ASTM E2247-16 was specifically developed for use in conducting a Phase I
environmental assessment on undeveloped rural properties and
forestlands. The standard allows isolated areas of other land uses to be
contained within the property. The standard does not provide a maximum
or minimum size limit for the isolated areas, and no restrictions on the
environmental intensity of the activities on the isolated areas. The AAI
regulation is applicable to all land use types. The specific land use
focus of the ASTM E2247-16 standard reflects a narrower scope than the
AAI regulation, but it still is compliant with AAI for the types of
properties for which it is applicable.

The ASTM E2247-16 standard recognizes that the level of inquiry of
commercial real estate contained in isolated areas within forestland or
rural tracts may be satisfied by different means than those generally
applicable to the assessment of urban properties while remaining within
the standard of reasonable time and cost constraints contained within
the AAI regulation (Section 4.5.3 – Level of Inquiry is Variable).

Section 312.24 of the AAI regulation requires review of historical
documents to cover a period of time from when it can be shown the
property contained structures or when the property was first used for
“residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial or governmental
purposes.” ASTM E2247-16 (as well as the ASTM E1527-13 standard)
requires historical record review back to 1940 or first developed use,
later defining developed use to include “agricultural or forestry uses
and placement of fill.” While it could reasonably be assumed that the
AAI definition includes forestry uses under agricultural or commercial
purposes, ASTM E2247-16 clearly states that forestry is considered a
developed use. The recognition of forestry use as a “developed use”
is consistent with the provisions and standards of AAI.

Conclusion

Based on the analysis provided above and Exhibit 1, ASTM E2247-16,
“Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural
Property” is compliant with the AAI regulation.  It is EPA’s
determination that parties who want to claim protection from liability
under CERCLA may follow the regulatory requirements of the All
Appropriate Inquiries Rule at 40 CFR 312, use the ASTM E1527-13
“Standard Practice for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments” to
comply with the all appropriate inquiries provision of CERCLA, or use
the ASTM E2247-16 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for
Forestland or Rural Property,” as applicable.

Exhibit 1

Definitions and Requirements	Final AAI Regulation	ASTM

E2247-16	ASTM

E1527-13	Description of Notable Differences

Section 312.1    Purpose, applicability, scope and disclosure
obligations.

Purpose	312.1(a)	1.1, 7.1	1.1, 7.1	The AAI regulation provides a
standard specifically related to the requirements of CERCLA §§
101(35)(B)(i)(I) and 101(35)(B)(ii) and (iii).

ASTM E2247-16 provides a standard for conducting a Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment of forestland or rural property when some of the
methodologies of ASTM E1527 are deemed to be impractical or unnecessary
due to the size or nature of the property. The property need not be
contiguous; however, the non-contiguous areas should have substantially
the same general land use. The property may contain isolated areas of
non-forestland and non-rural property.

Applicability	312.1(b)	1.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.5.3	1.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.5.3	The AAI
regulation applies if the owner wants to qualify for CERCLA liability
protections or those conducting site characterization and assessments
with the use of a grant awarded under CERCLA § 104(k)(2)(B), without
limit to a particular land use.

The ASTM standard states that the practice has utility for a wide range
of uses outside of potential CERCLA liability. Although its use is not
limited to CERCLA purposes only, ASTM E2247-16 applies specifically to
identifying environmental conditions on forestland or rural properties
that are generally uniform in use. The property need not be contiguous
and can have isolated areas of non-forestland and non-rural property.

Scope	312.1(c)	1, 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2	1, 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2	In addition to
CERCLA-defined hazardous substances, AAI includes Petroleum Products and
Controlled Substances within its scope for persons conducting AAI with
grants awarded under the authorities of CERCLA 104(k)(2)(B).

ASTM E2247-16 includes petroleum products in its scope because they may
be of concern in, on, or at parcels of forestland or rural property, not
because of any potential CERCLA applicability to petroleum. Controlled
substances are specifically defined as "not within the scope of" ASTM
E2247-16, but ASTM E2247-16 notes that controlled substances must be
included if the assessment is conducted under an EPA Brownfields
Assessment and Characterization Grant to the extent directed by the
terms and conditions of the grant.

Disclosure Obligations	312.1(d)	Appendix X5.9.1	Appendix X5.9.1	ASTM
E2247-16 does not specifically address disclosure obligations for either
the user or environmental professional. This lack of disclosure
obligations is not significant because the AAI regulation does not
include any disclosure requirements, but merely notes that it does not
limit or expand any disclosure requirements otherwise required under
CERCLA.

Appendix X5 in ASTM E2247-16 (Common Non-Scope Considerations) briefly
discusses the potential for OSHA and real estate transaction disclosure
requirements relating to mold hazards.

Section 312.10     Definitions

Definition of Abandoned Property	312.10(b)	3.2.1	3.2.1	None

Definition of Adjoining Properties	312.10(b)	3.2.4	3.2.4	None

Definition of Data Gap	312.10(b)	3.2.22

12.7	3.2.21	The AAI regulation indicates that the data gap applies to
efforts by the environmental professional and to the efforts of any
person listed in 312.1(b) to gather the specific information required by
§§ 312.20(e)(1) and (e)(2).

The E2247-16 standard indicates that a data gap includes any missing
information that “affect[s] the ability of the environmental
professional to identify recognized environmental conditions,”
including missing information resulting from the inability of the user
(prospective property owner) to provide information to the environmental
professional.

Definition of Date of Acquisition or Purchase Date	312.10(b)	4.6,
Footnote 6	4.6, Footnote 5	None

Definition of Environmental Professional 	312.10(b)	3.2.33, Appendix
X2.1	3.2.32,

Appendix X2.1	ASTM E2247-16 specifically refers to the definition
provided in the AAI regulation, and adds that the person may be an
independent contractor or an employee of the user.

Definition of Relevant Experience	312.10(b)	Appendix X2.2	Appendix X2.2
None

Definition of Good Faith	312.10(b)	3.2.39	3.2.38	None

Definition of Institutional Controls	312.10(b)	3.2.46	3.2.45	None

Section 312.11     References

References	312.11	2	2	The AAI and ASTM reference sections serve
different purposes. The AAI reference section lists the ASTM E1527 and
E2247 standards as alternative means of complying with the AAI rule.

The E2247-16 standard lists other ASTM standards (E1527, E2091, E2600),
Federal Statutes, EPA documents, and other Federal agency documents that
may be of use or of interest to persons using the E2247-16 standard.

Section 312.20      All appropriate inquiries

List of Components in All Appropriate Inquiries	312.20(a)	4.6, 6, 7, 10
4.6, 6, 7, 10	None

Shelf Life of the Written Report 	312.20(b)	4.6	4.6	None

Use of Previous Reports Prepared by Others	312.20 (c)-(d)	4.7	4.7	The
AAI regulation and the ASTM E2247-16 standard both recognize that
environmental site assessments include information that is relevant to
subsequent users and should be considered to avoid duplicating efforts
in the future. ASTM E2247-16 also addresses the contractual and legal
obligations to subsequent users of the site assessments, only in stating
that they are beyond the scope of the practice.

The AAI regulation states that AAI may include the results and
information contained in a previous inquiry so long as the prior AAI was
done in compliance with the requirements of CERCLA §§ 101(35)(B),
101(40)(B) and 107(q)(A)(viii); the information was collected or updated
within one year prior to the date of acquisition of the subject property
(except certain items below); previously collected information is
updated to include relevant changes in the conditions of the property
and specialized knowledge; and the following were conducted within 180
days prior to that acquisition:

Interviews with past and present owners, operators, and occupants

Searches for recorded environmental cleanup liens

Reviews of federal, tribal, state, and local government records

Visual inspections of the facility and of adjoining properties

The declaration by the environmental professional;

ASTM E2247-16 states that prior environmental site assessments may be
used so long as the information was generated as a result of procedures
that meet or exceed the requirements of ASTM E2247-16 and there is a
current investigation of conditions likely to affect recognized
environmental conditions in connection with the property.  This standard
also states generally that additional tasks may be necessary to document
conditions that may have changed materially since the prior assessment
was done.  In addition, this standard applies the same 1 year / 180 day
limits as the AAI regulation.

Objectives	312.20(e)	1.2, 7.1	1.2, 7.1	The objectives of the AAI
regulation are to set forth the standards and practices that are
intended to result in the identification of conditions indicative of
releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances on, at, in, or
to the subject property in order to satisfy CERCLA liability protection
or Brownfield Assessment grants.

The objectives of ASTM E2247-16 are to set a practical and reasonable
standard practice for environmental site assessments for forestland or
rural property to identify recognized environmental conditions for
commercial property transactions.

Contaminants of Concern 	312.20(e)(2)

312.1(c)	1.1	1.1	The AAI regulation applies to hazardous substances (and
if conducted under 312.1(b)(2) adds pollutants, contaminants, petroleum
and petroleum products, and controlled substances). The ASTM E2247-16
applies to the broad range of contaminants within the scope of CERCLA
and petroleum products. As noted above, the scope for ASTM E2247-16
generally does not include Controlled Substances, but recognizes their
applicability under EPA Brownfields Assessment and Characterization
Grants.

Performance Factors	312.20(f)	8.1.3, 8.1.4, 8.1.5	8.1.3, 8.1.4, 8.1.5
None

Data Gaps 	312.20(g)	12.7	12.7	None. The ASTM E2247-16 standard states
that a data gap by itself is not inherently significant. It is only
significant if other information and/or professional experience raises
reasonable concerns involving the data gap. This same concept with
regard to data gaps is addressed in the AAI rule.

Section 312.21     Results of inquiry by an environmental professional

Requirements for Inquiries of the Environmental Professional	312.21(b)
7.2, 6	7.2, 6	The ASTM E2247-16 standard fully addresses the provisions
required in the AAI regulation. Both the AAI rule and the ASTM E2247-16
standard require that the investigation include a review of records,
interviews, and a site visit.

The AAI regulation requires that prospective property owners and the
environmental professional conduct interviews with past and present
owners and visual inspections; review government records, historical
sources, commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information, and the
degree of obviousness of the presence and the ability to detect the
contamination and take into account commonly known or reasonably
ascertainable information, the degree of obviousness and ability to
detect contamination.

The ASTM E2247-16 standard requires the environmental site assessment to
include: records review; site reconnaissance; interviews with present
and past owners, operators, and occupants of the property and local
government officials; and an evaluation and report. In addition, the
user must review title and judicial records for environmental liens and
activity and use limitations, report specialized or actual knowledge or
experience of the user, purchase price, any commonly known or reasonably
ascertainable information, and maps of the property.

Both the AAI regulation and the ASTM E2247-16 standard require that the
final report include an opinion regarding additional appropriate
investigation, if the environmental professional holds such an opinion.

Report Requirements	312.21(c)	12, Appendix X4	12, Appendix X4	Both
require the report to contain opinions as to whether there are
conditions indicative of release and identification of data gaps. Both
the AAI regulation and the ASTM E2247-16 standard require that the final
report include a statement that the person signing the report meets the
definition of an environmental professional provided in section 312.10
of the AAI regulation.

Signed Declarations to Be Included in the Written Report	312.21(d)	12.8,
12.12, 12.13	12.8, 12.12, 12.13	The declaration required of the
environmental professional is more specific in ASTM E2247-16 than in the
AAI regulation. Both require a declaration that the environmental
professional meets the definition defined in §312.10 and that the AAI
investigation was performed in conformance with 40 CFR Part 312.

ASTM E2247-16 requires an additional statement that the Phase I
assessment was performed in conformance with ASTM E2247-16.

Section 312.22     Additional inquiries

Additional Inquiries	312.22(a)	6.2, 6.3, 6.4 6.5, 6.6	6.2, 6.3, 6.4,
6.5, 6.6	The AAI regulation assigns the task of developing information
on environmental cleanup liens, specialized knowledge, relationship of
purchase price to fair market value, and commonly known information to
the person seeking liability protection or conducting assessments with
Brownfields grants. The AAI regulation states that this data may be
provided to the environmental professional by the user.

The ASTM E2247-16 standard goes further and states that it is the
user’s responsibility to collect the information and the user should
report environmental cleanup liens information to the environmental
professional.

Section 312.23     Interviews with past and present owners, operators,
and occupants

Interviews with the Subject Property Current and Past Owners and
Occupants 	312.23(b), 312.23(c)	10	10	The AAI regulation requires that
reasonable efforts be made to interview the current owner or occupants.
Additionally, at least one of the following groups must be interviewed,
to the extent necessary to achieve the objectives and performance
factors: current or past facility managers; past owners, occupants, or
operators; or employees of current or past occupants.

ASTM E2247-16 states that the key site manager or someone with knowledge
of the property should be interviewed. Additionally, a reasonable
attempt to interview current occupants must be made. ASTM E2247-16 also
states that interviews with past owners, operators, and occupants of the
property shall be conducted to the extent that they have been identified
and that the information likely to be obtained is not duplicative of
information already obtained from other sources.

Interviews Conducted at Abandoned Properties	312.23(d)	10.5.5	10.5.5
None.

Section 312.24     Reviews of historical sources of information

Review of Historical Sources: Suggested Sources	312.24(a)	8.3.4	8.3.4
The ASTM E2247-16 standard provides a more detailed list of documents to
be used in historical review including activities likely to be found on
large tracts of rural or forested land (oil/mineral development,
livestock dipping vat records). In addition, some examples listed in the
AAI regulation are found in other sections of the ASTM standard (e.g.,
fire insurance maps are mentioned in <IP_ADDRESS>).

Review of Historical Sources: Period to Be Covered 	312.24(b)	8.3.2
8.3.2	The AAI regulation requires that the historical record review must
cover a period of time as far back in the history of the subject
property as it can be shown that the property contained structures or
from the time the property was first used for residential, agricultural,
commercial, industrial or governmental purposes.

ASTM E2247-16 indicates that all records back to 1940, or back to the
property's first developed use, whichever is earlier, should be used.
"Developed use" specifically includes forestry use. The ASTM E2247-16
standard is more stringent than the AAI final regulation.

Section 312.25     Searches for recorded environmental cleanup liens

Searches for Recorded Environmental Cleanup Liens	312.25	6.2, 6.4,
<IP_ADDRESS>	6.2, 6.4, <IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS>	Both the AAI regulation and the
ASTM E2247-16 standard require a search for liens; however, AAI allows
the user to retain the information or share it with the environmental
professional, whereas ASTM E2247-16 states that the information should
be provided to the environmental professional.

Section 312.26     Reviews of Federal, State, Tribal, and local
government records

Government Records Review: List of Records 	312.26(a), 312.26(b)	8.2.1,
8.2.2, 8.2.3, 8.3.4	8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.2.3, 8.3.4	The ASTM E2247-16
standard provides a more expansive list of additional secondary
environmental records sources than the AAI regulation (8.2.3). These
secondary sources include records related to forestry, geologic, and
mineral and mining reports; as well as sources related to departments of
natural resources, land management, forestry, and minerals/mining.

Government Records Review: Search Distance	312.26(c), 312.26(d)	8.1.2,
8.2.1	8.1.2, 8.2.1	The AAI rule includes a 0.5-mile distance for
engineering controls, but allows for the distance to be adjusted, based
upon engineering judgement.  The ASTM E2247-16 standard sets the
distance as “property only.”  Given the significant size of most
properties assessed using the ASTM E2247-16 standard the 0.5 distance
for engineer controls would be much less likely to be significant than
in an urban environment.  The ASTM E2247-16 standard allows the
environmental professional to adjust the search distances based upon
engineering judgement.

Section 312.27     Visual inspections of the facility and of adjoining
properties

Site Visit: Requirements 	312.27(a), 312.27(b)	9	9	The AAI regulation
requires that a visual on-site inspection of the subject property and
facilities be conducted, and a visual inspection of adjoining properties
be conducted from the subject property line, public rights-of-way, or
other vantage point.

ASTM E2247-16 indicates that prior to visiting the property, areas of
environmental interest should be identified through the use of aerial
photographs and/or remote sensing imagery, the records review, and
interviews. ASTM E2247-16 standard also states that a prior
environmental site assessment may be used for the purposes of guidance
(without time limitation), but shall not be relied upon without new site
reconnaissance.  This is similar to the AAI regulation.

Sections <IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS>, and <IP_ADDRESS> of ASTM E2247-16 require that
current and past uses of adjoining and surrounding properties be noted,
when such conditions are observed or when such information is
ascertained during interviews or during records reviews.  If such uses
indicate the potential presence of recognized environmental conditions,
they should be noted in the final report. The requirements in the ASTM
E2247-16 standard allow for the fact that many properties may be too
large to walk the perimeter of the property to observe conditions at
adjoining properties.  In addition, given the size and location of any
property it may not be possible to observe the potential conditions of
adjoining properties from the vantage point of the subject property or a
public right-a-way, if one is available.

Site Visit: Limitations	312.27(c)	9.3.4, 12.7	9.2.4	None

Section 312.28     Specialized knowledge or experience on the part of
the defendant

Specialized Knowledge or Experience	312.28	6.3	6.3	The AAI regulation
requires the user to take into account any specialized knowledge of the
area around the property and the conditions of adjoining properties.

ASTM E2247-16 requires the user to take into account their specialized
knowledge about releases or threatened releases.  However, both the AAI
regulation and the ASTM E2247-16 standard state that the goal is to use
specialized knowledge that is relevant to property conditions in order
to identify conditions indicative of releases or to identify Recognized
Environmental Conditions (RECs). Therefore, if there is relevant
specialized knowledge, the user (or prospective property owner) is
required to take the information into account.

Section 312.29     The relationship of the purchase price to the value
of the property, if the property was not contaminated

The Relationship of the Purchase Price to the Value of the Property
312.29	6.5	6.5	ASTM E2247-16 goes further than the AAI regulation by
suggesting the user inform the environmental professional if the
purchase price is lower than the fair market value due to contamination.
However, the user is not required to disclose the purchase price to the
environmental professional.

Section 312.30     Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable
information about the property

Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information about the
Property	312.30	6.6	6.6	The AAI rule requires that commonly known or
reasonably ascertainable information about the property be included in
the investigation and provides a list of typical sources of such
information. The ASTM E2247-16 standard adds that the user should notify
the environmental professional of this knowledge prior to site
reconnaissance.

Section 312.31     The degree of obviousness of the presence or likely
presence of contamination at the property, and the ability to detect the
contamination by appropriate investigation

The Degree of Obviousness of the Presence or Likely Presence of
Contamination	312.31	6.7, 12.6, 12.8, Appendix X3	6.7, 12.6, 12.8,
Appendix X3	The ASTM E2247-16 standard is more specific with the items
to be addressed, such as "items initially suspected to be a recognized
environmental condition are subsequently determined, upon further
evaluation, to not be considered a recognized environmental condition."

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register: November 15, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 219)]
[Notices]
[Page 69328]
[DOCID:fr15no05-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER02-2458-004]

Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; Notice of
Compliance Filing

November 8, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 31, 2005, the Midwest Independent
transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) tendered for filing
proposed revisions to Schedules 7, 8 and 9 of the Open Access
Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Third
Revised Volume No. 1.
    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, 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.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    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: CP06-14-000 on November 21, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6292 Filed 11-14-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33250-33251]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12361]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0138; FRL-9946-91-OW]

Lifetime Health Advisories and Health Effects Support Documents
for Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the
release of lifetime health advisories (HAs) and health effects support
documents for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane
Sulfonate (PFOS). EPA developed the HAs to assist federal, state,
tribal and local officials, and managers of drinking water systems in
protecting public health when these chemicals are present in drinking
water. EPA's HAs, which identify the concentration of PFOA and PFOS in
drinking water at or below which adverse health effects are not
anticipated to occur over a lifetime of exposure, are: 0.07 parts per
billion (70 parts per trillion) for PFOA and PFOS. HAs are non-
regulatory and reflect EPA's assessment of the best available peer-
reviewed science. These HAs supersede EPA's 2009 provisional HAs for
PFOA and PFOS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamie Strong, Health and Ecological
Criteria Division, Office of Water (Mail Code 4304T), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0138. Publicly available docket materials
are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in
hard copy at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically from the Government Printing Office under the ``Federal
Register'' listings FDSys (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=FR).

II. What are perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonate and
why is EPA concerned about them?

    PFOA and PFOS are fluorinated organic chemicals that are part of a
larger group of chemicals referred to as perfluoroalkyl substances.
They were used to make carpets, clothing, fabrics for furniture, paper
packaging for food and other materials (e.g., cookware) that are
resistant to water, grease or stains. They are also used for
firefighting at airfields and in a number of industrial processes. Both
PFOA and PFOS are persistent in the environment and in the human body.
Over time both chemicals have become widely distributed in the
environment and have accumulated in the blood of humans, wildlife, and
fish. Studies indicate that exposure to PFOA and PFOS over certain
levels may result in adverse health effects, including developmental
effects to fetuses during pregnancy or to breast-fed infants (e.g., low
birth weight, accelerated puberty, skeletal variations), cancer (e.g.,
testicular, kidney), liver effects (e.g., tissue damage), immune
effects (e.g., antibody production and immunity), and other effects
(e.g., cholesterol changes).

III. What are health advisories?

    Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA may publish HAs for
contaminants that are not subject to any national primary drinking
water regulation. SDWA section 1412(b)(1)(F). EPA develops HAs to
provide information on the chemical and physical properties, occurrence
and exposure, health effects, quantification of toxicological effects,
other regulatory standards, analytical methods, and treatment
technology for drinking water contaminants. HAs describe concentrations
of drinking water contaminants at which adverse health effects are not
anticipated to occur over specific exposure durations (e.g., one-day,
ten-days, and a lifetime). HAs serve as informal technical guidance to
assist federal, state and local officials, as well as managers of
public or community water systems in protecting public health. They are
not regulations and should not be construed as legally enforceable
federal standards. HAs may change as new information becomes available.

IV. Information on the Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFOA and
PFOS

    EPA's HA levels, which identify the concentration of PFOA and PFOS
in drinking water at or below which adverse health effects are not
anticipated to occur over a lifetime of exposure, are: 0.07 parts per
billion (70 parts per trillion) for PFOA and PFOS. Because these two
chemicals cause similar types of adverse health effects, EPA recommends
that when both PFOA and PFOS are found in drinking water the combined
concentrations of PFOA and PFOS be compared with the 0.07 part per
billion HA level.
    EPA's lifetime HAs are based on peer-reviewed toxicological studies
of exposure of animals to PFOA and PFOS, applying scientifically
appropriate uncertainty factors. The development of the HAs was also
informed by epidemiological studies of human populations that have been
exposed to PFOA and PFOS. The HAs are set at levels that EPA concluded
will not result in adverse developmental effects to fetuses during
pregnancy or to breast-fed infants, who are the groups most sensitive
to the potential harmful effects of PFOA and PFOS. EPA's analysis
indicates that exposure to these same levels will not result in adverse
health effects (including cancer and non-cancer) to the general
population over a lifetime (or any shorter period) of exposure to these
chemicals.
    EPA's HAs for PFOA and PFOS are supported by peer-reviewed health
effects support documents that summarize and analyze available peer-
reviewed studies on toxicokinetics, human epidemiology, animal
toxicity, and provide a cancer classification and a dose response
assessment for noncancer effects. On February 28, 2014, EPA released
draft versions of these health effects support documents for a 60-day
public comment period and initiated a contractor-led, independent
public panel peer review process (79 FR 11429). The peer review panel
meeting occurred on August 21-22, 2014, and included seven experts in
the following areas: Epidemiology, toxicology (liver, immune,
neurological and reproductive and developmental effects), membrane
transport, risk assessment, pharmacokinetic models, and mode-of-action
for cancer and noncancer effects (79 FR 39386). Comments submitted to
EPA's public docket during the 60-day public comment period were
provided to the peer reviewers ahead of the meeting for their
consideration. A peer review summary report and other supporting
documents may be found at: http://www.regulations.gov under the docket
EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0138.

    Dated: May 19, 2016.
Joel Beauvais,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 2016-12361 Filed 5-24-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P