[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23322-23323]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09169]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022]

Technical Mapping Advisory Council

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee
Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Technical
Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) will meet in person on May 9-10, 2016
in Reston, VA. The meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The TMAC will meet on Monday, May 9, 2016 from 8:00 a.m.-5:30
p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), and Tuesday, May 10, 2016 from 8:00
a.m.-5:00 p.m. EDT. Please note that the meeting will close early if
the TMAC has completed its business.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the auditorium of the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) headquarters building located at 12201
Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20192. Members of the public who wish
to attend the meeting must register in advance by sending an email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(Attention: Kathleen Boyer) by 11:00 p.m. EDT on
Tuesday, May 3, 2016. Members of the public must check in at the USGS
Visitor's entrance security desk; photo identification is required.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request remote dial in or special assistance at the
meeting, contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
below as soon as possible.
    To facilitate public participation, members of the public are
invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered by
the TMAC, as listed in the ``Supplementary Information'' section below.
Associated meeting materials will be available at www.fema.gov/TMAC for
review by Monday, May 2, 2016. Written comments to be considered by the
committee at the time of the meeting must be submitted and received by
Tuesday, May 3, 2016, identified by Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022, and
submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: Address the email TO<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and
CC<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include the docket number in the subject
line of the message. Include name and contact detail in the body of the
email.
     Mail: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief
Counsel, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-3100.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Federal Emergency Management Agency'' and the docket number for this
action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Docket: For docket access to read background documents or comments
received by the TMAC, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for
the Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022.
    Public comment periods will be held on Monday, May 9, 2016, from
4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. EDT and Tuesday, May 10, 2016, from 3:00 to 3:30
p.m. EDT. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to no more
than three minutes. The public comment period will not exceed 30
minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the
time indicated, following the last call for comments. Contact the
individual listed below to register as a speaker by close of business
on Thursday, May 5, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Boyer, Designated Federal
Officer for the TMAC, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20024,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The
TMAC Web site is: http://www.fema.gov/TMAC.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.
    As required by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of
2012, the TMAC makes recommendations to the FEMA Administrator on: (1)
How to improve, in a cost-effective manner, the (a) accuracy, general
quality, ease of use, and distribution and dissemination of flood
insurance rate maps and risk data; and (b) performance metrics and
milestones required to effectively and efficiently map flood risk areas
in the

United States; (2) mapping standards and guidelines for (a) flood
insurance rate maps, and (b) data accuracy, data quality, data
currency, and data eligibility; (3) how to maintain, on an ongoing
basis, flood insurance rate maps and flood risk identification; (4)
procedures for delegating mapping activities to State and local mapping
partners; and (5) (a) methods for improving interagency and
intergovernmental coordination on flood mapping and flood risk
determination, and (b) a funding strategy to leverage and coordinate
budgets and expenditures across Federal agencies. Furthermore, the TMAC
is required to submit an annual report to the FEMA Administrator that
contains: (1) A description of the activities of the Council; (2) an
evaluation of the status and performance of flood insurance rate maps
and mapping activities to revise and update Flood Insurance Rate Maps;
and (3) a summary of recommendations made by the Council to the FEMA
Administrator.
    Further, in accordance with the Homeowner Flood Insurance
Affordability Act of 2014, the TMAC must develop a review report
related to flood mapping in support of the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP).
    Agenda: On May 9 and 10, 2016, TMAC members will receive briefings
from subject matter experts, and will present and deliberate on the
draft content and potential recommendations to be incorporated in the
2016 Review Report and the 2016 Annual Report. A brief public comment
period will take place each day during the meeting. In addition, the
TMAC members will identify and coordinate on the TMAC's next steps for
Review Report and Annual Report production. A brief public comment
period will take place during the meeting prior to any vote. The full
agenda and related briefing materials will be posted for review by May
2, 2016 at http://www.fema.gov/TMAC.

    Dated: April 12, 2016.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-09169 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 92 (Friday, May 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26525-26526]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10179]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-N-0347]

Evaluating the Clinical Pharmacology of Peptides; Establishment
of a Public Docket; Request for Information and Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for
information and comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is
establishing a public docket to collect comments on evaluating the
clinical pharmacology of peptides. For the purpose of this request, FDA
is specifically interested in comments regarding the characterization
of the effects of hepatic impairment, drug-drug interactions, and
immunogenicity on the pharmacokinetics of peptides, as well as the
effects of peptides on cardiac electrophysiology. However, there may be
other clinical pharmacology considerations concerning the development
of peptides. Public comments will help FDA develop recommendations for
the design and conduct of studies important to the safe and effective
use of peptides and facilitate the regulatory assessment of such
studies.

DATES: Although you can comment at any time, to ensure that the Agency
considers your comment in our development of recommendations, submit
either electronic or written information and comments by July 13, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and information at any time as
follows:

Electronic Submissions

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

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2021-N-0347 for ``Evaluating the Clinical Pharmacology of Peptides;
Request for Comments.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket
and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 240-
402-7500.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jagan Parepally, Office of Clinical
Pharmacology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
301-796-1688.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA uses the term ``peptide'' to refer to polymers composed of 40
or fewer amino acids.\1\ Peptides can be isolated

from whole animal tissue, or produced in vitro, synthetically or
through recombinant expression, and often serve as signaling molecules
for many physiologic functions that are regulated by endogenous
proteins. Peptides can exhibit distinct combinations of characteristics
regarding their chemistry, pharmacology, sites of action,
pharmacokinetic disposition, and pharmacodynamics. Although FDA has
been regulating peptides for decades, there is a growing appreciation
for specific considerations for the design and conduct of clinical
pharmacology studies to assess peptides, such as those designed to
evaluate the effects of organ impairment or drug interactions.
Currently, there are no FDA-published guidance documents on clinical
pharmacology assessments that contain specific recommendations for
peptides.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FDA Proposed Rule ``Definition of the Term `Biological
Product' '' (83 FR 63817 at 63821, December 12, 2018).
    \2\ There is an FDA draft guidance entitled ``ANDAs for Certain
Highly Purified Synthetic Peptide Drug Products That Refer to Listed
Drugs of rDNA Origin'' (October 2017) that is specific for ANDA
applications for chemically synthetized peptides that refers to
listed drugs of rDNA origin; available at https://www.fda.gov/media/107622/download.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Request for Information and Comments

    Interested persons are invited to provide detailed information and
comments on certain aspects of evaluating the clinical pharmacology of
peptides. For all questions, organize any discussion by the type of
peptide (e.g., isolated from animal source, or produced in vitro,
synthetically or through recombinant expression) and route of
administration. Please provide the rationale for your suggestions and
include supporting data if available. FDA is particularly interested in
responses to the following overarching questions:
    (1) Under what circumstances should the following assessments be
warranted or not warranted for peptides?

(a) Evaluating pharmacokinetics-based drug-drug interactions (DDIs)
(b) Evaluating the pharmacokinetics in hepatic impairment
(c) Evaluating immunogenicity and its impact on pharmacokinetics,
safety, and efficacy
(d) Evaluating QT prolongation

    (2) In circumstances where the assessments above are warranted,
what types of assessments are suitable and why? What are the study
design considerations (e.g., in vitro test systems, population,
analytes, immunogenicity risk assessment, immunogenicity assay
development and validation) for the types of assessments discussed in
the following items? Please describe the rationale for any design
considerations proposed.
    (a) For evaluating pharmacokinetics-based DDIs (e.g., in vitro
studies, dedicated clinical studies, including cocktail studies,
population pharmacokinetic analyses), please discuss the advantages,
challenges, and limitations for these assessments.
    (b) For evaluating pharmacokinetics in hepatic impairment (e.g.,
dedicated clinical studies, population pharmacokinetic analyses),
please discuss the advantages, challenges, and limitations for these
assessments.
    (c) For evaluating immunogenicity and its impact on
pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy (e.g., antibodies against the
active ingredient peptide, peptide-related impurities, or endogenous
counterpart, if present, neutralizing activity and antibody titers,
cytokine measurements), please discuss the advantages, challenges, and
limitations for these assessments.
    (d) For evaluating cardiac electrophysiology (e.g., hERG inhibition
assay, thorough QT assessment) in nonclinical or clinical studies,
please discuss the advantages, challenges, and limitations for these
assessments.
    (3) Are there other clinical pharmacology considerations for
peptides not covered in the questions above, such as use of
pharmacodynamic biomarkers and/or pharmacokinetic assessments for dose
selection? If yes, provide a description and rationale for any proposed
considerations, as well as approaches, advantages, challenges, and
limitations for the assessment.
    The public comments collected will help FDA develop recommendations
for the design and conduct of clinical pharmacology studies important
to the understanding of the safe and effective use of peptides and
facilitate the regulatory assessment of such studies.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain relevant clinical
pharmacology guidances at https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents.

    Dated: May 7, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-10179 Filed 5-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 77 (Friday, April 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21729-21730]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08461]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0196; FRL-10021-75]

Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Pesticide Programs
is announcing a virtual public meeting of the Pesticide Program
Dialogue Committee (PPDC) on May 12 and 13, 2021, with participation by
webcast only. There will be no in-person gathering for this meeting.

DATES: Virtual meeting: The virtual meeting will be held on Wednesday,
May 12, 2021, from 11:00 a.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m., and Thursday,
May 13, 2021, from 11:00 a.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m. To make oral
comments during the virtual meeting, please email Shannon Jewell by
noon on Tuesday, May 4, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Virtual meeting: Please visit https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-advisory-committees-and-regulatory-partners/pesticide-program-dialogue-committee-ppdc to find a link to register for the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Jewell, Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
(7501P), Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you work in in
agricultural settings or if you are concerned about implementation of
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7
U.S.C. 136 et seq.); the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
(21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.); the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act
(PRIA) (which amends FIFRA section 33); and the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Potentially affected entities may
include, but are not limited to: Agricultural workers and farmers;
pesticide industry and trade associations; environmental, consumer, and
farm worker groups; pesticide users and growers; animal rights groups;
pest consultants; state, local, and tribal

governments; academia; public health organizations; and the public. If
you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0196, is available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Once the EPA/DC is reopened to the public, the docket will also be
available in-person at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the EPA/DC, West William Jefferson
Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001. The 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 OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background

    The PPDC is a federal advisory committee chartered under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463. EPA
established the PPDC in September 1995 to provide advice and
recommendations to the EPA Administrator on issues associated with
pesticide regulatory development and reform initiatives, evolving
public policy and program implementation issues, and policy issues
associated with evaluating and reducing risks from use of pesticides.
The following sectors are represented on the current PPDC:
Environmental/public interest and animal rights groups; farm worker
organizations; pesticide industry and trade associations; pesticide
user, grower, and commodity groups; federal and state/local/tribal
governments; the general public; academia; and public health
organizations.

III. How do I participate in the virtual public meeting?

    A. Virtual meeting. The virtual meeting will be conducted via
webcast. Please visit https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-advisory-committees-and-regulatory-partners/pesticide-program-dialogue-committee-ppdc to find a link to register for the meeting.
    B. Oral comments. Requests to make brief oral comments to the PPDC
during the virtual meeting should be submitted to the DFO listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on or before noon on the date set in
the DATES section.

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2 et seq. and 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: April 8, 2021.
Edward Messina,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2021-08461 Filed 4-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Schueler, T. R. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban Best Management Practices. Publication No. 87703. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, DC. 272 pp. http:// www. mwcog. org Schueler, T. R. 1994. The Importance of Imperviousness. Article No. 1 in The Practice of Watershed Protection. 2000. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. http:// www. stormwatercenter. net Schueler, T. R. 1999. Microbes and Urban Watersheds. Article No. 31 in The Practice of Watershed Protection. 2000. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. http:// www. stormwatercenter. net Schueler, T. R. and J. Lugbill, 1990. "Performance of Current Sediment Control Measures at Maryland Construction Sites." Publication No. 89705. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC. 89 pp. http:// www. mwcog. org Schueler, T. R. and D. Shepp. 1993. "The Quantity of Trapped Sediments in Pool Water Within Oil Grit Separators in Suburban Maryland." Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC.

Scott, J., C. Steward and Q. Stober. 1986. Effects of Urban Development on Fish Population Dynamics in Kelsey Creek, Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 5 7 Short, F. T. and S. Wyllie Echeverria. 1996. A Review of Natural and Human induced Disturbance of Seagrasses. Environmental Conservation 23( 1): 17 27.

SMBRP. 1996. An Epidemiological Study of Possible Adverse Health Effects of Swimming in Santa Monica Bay. R. Haile, J. Alamillo, K. Barrett, R. Cressey, J. Dermond, C. Ervin, A. Glasser, N. Harawa, P. Harmon, J. Harper, C. McGee, R. Millikan, M. Nides, J. White. Monterey Park, CA.

Sonzogni, W., C. Chesters, D. R. Coote, D. N. Jeffs, J. C. Konrad, R. C. Ushy, and J. B. Robinson. 1980. Pollution from Land Runoff. Environmental Science and Technology. Vol 14( 2): 148 153.

Spence, B., G. Lomnicky, R. Hughes, and R. Novitzki. 1996. An Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation. TR 401 96 6057. ManTech Environmental Research Services Corporation, Corvallis, OR. (Available on the NMFS NWR website: http:// www. nwr. noaa. gov)

Spinello, A. G., and D. L. Simmons. 1992. "Base Flow of 10 South Shore Streams, Long Island, New York, 1976 85, and the Effects of Urbanization on Base Flow and Flow Duration." USGS. Water Resour. Invest. Report 90 4205.

Stern, D. 1996. Initial Investigation of the Sources and Sinks of Cryptosporidium and Giardia Within the Watersheds of the New York City Water Supply System. In Proceedings of a Symposium on New York City Water Supply Studies. Eds. McDonnel et al. TPS 96 2 184pp. American Water Resources Association. Herndon, VA.

Steuer, Jeffrey, William Selbig, Nancy Hornewer, and Jeffrey Prey. 1997. Sources of Contamination in an Urban Basin in Marquette, Michigan and an Analysis of Concentrations, Loads, and Data Quality. U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 97 4242.

Stevenson, J., L. Staver and K. Staver. 1993. Water Quality Associated with Submersed Aquatic Vegetation along an Estuarine Gradient. Estuaries 16( 2): 346 361.

Sturm, Terry W. and Ronald E. Kirby, Jr. 1991. Sediment Reduction in Urban Stormwater Runoff from Construction Sites. Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta, GA, 104 pp.

Trimble, S. 1997. Contribution of Stream Channel Erosion to Sediment Yield from an Urbanizing Watershed. Science. 278: 1442 1444. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 5 8 USDA. 2002. Technical Release No. 20: Computer Program for Project Formulation Hydrology (TR 20). Technical Release No. 55: Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds (TR 55). U. S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Water and Climate Center. Portland, OR. http:// www. wcc. nrcs. usda. gov/ water/ quality/ hydro/

USDA, 2000. 1997 National Resources Inventory. (Revised December 2000). U. S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Washington, DC. http:// www. nrcs. usda. gov/ technical/ NRI/

USEPA. 2002. Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Construction and Development Category; May 2002. EPA 821 R 02 008. http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ guide/ construction/

USEPA. 2002a. Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Construction and Development Category; May 2002. EPA 821 R 02 007. http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ guide/ construction/

USEPA. 1999. Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1998a. "The Quality of Our Nation's Water: 1996 Report to Congress." EPA 841 S97 001. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. http:// www. epa. gov/ 305b/

USEPA. 1998b. EPA Beach Watch web site. http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ beaches . U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1996. Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996: General guide to provisions. PB810 S 96 001. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1993. Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention and Control Planning. EPA 625 R 93 004. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.

USGS. 2000. National Hydrography Dataset. U. S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC. http:// nhd. usgs. gov Walling, D. and J Woodward. 1995. "Tracing Sources of Suspended Sediment in River Basins: A Case Study of the River Culm, Devon, UK" Marine and Freshwater Research. 46: 324 226. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 5 9 Waschbusch et al. 2000. "Sources of Phosphorus in Stormwater and Street Dirt from Two Urban Residential Basins in Madison, Wisconsin, 1994 1995." In: National Conference on Tools for Urban Water Resource Management and Protection. US EPA February 2000: pp. 15 55.

Woodward Clyde Consultants. 1992. Source Identification and Control Report. Prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Control Program. Oakland, California.

York J. H. and W. J. Herb. 1978. Effects of Urbanization and Streamflow Sediment Transport in Rock Creek and Anacostia River Basins. Montgomery County, MD, 1972 1974. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper No. 1003. 72 pp. Appendix A Evaluating Pollutant Loadings from Construction Activities that Potentially Impact the Environment Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 A 1 Appendix A Evaluating Pollutant Loadings from Construction Activities that Potentially Impact the Environment This appendix details aspects of the methodologies described in Section 3 to pollutant discharges that result from construction activities under two options. Specifically, it expands on the discussion presented in Section 3, providing additional information on the assumptions used by EPA in its assessment.

Estimates of Affected Area The Phase II NPDES storm water rule economic analysis (USEPA, 1999) presented information on the size and nature of construction activities under the Phase I and II storm water programs. In addition, the Phase II economic analysis (EA) detailed an extensive analysis of pollutant loadings for a range of site sizes, soil types, land slopes, and locations. EPA's current evaluation uses the results presented in the Phase II report to update its overall estimate of national construction site loadings. EPA expects that new regulation of the construction and development (C& D) category will augment the existing state and Phase I NPDES storm water programs. In addition, new regulations will shape future development of construction programs expected under the Phase II NPDES storm water program.

EPA identified the array of potentially affected construction sites in the nation. EPA's assessment of construction site loadings is based on regulation of approximately 2.17 million acres per year. This regulated acreage estimate was calculated based on estimated national development rates from the 1997 National Resources Inventory (USDA, 2000), less the estimated acreage either occupied by sites less than 1 acre in size (not regulated) or sites which receive Phase II "R" waivers. "R" waivers are those applied for and granted under the construction general permit for sites with very low erosivity. The Phase II EA estimated the total acreage granted "R" waivers to be approximately 33 thousand acres (approximately 1.8 percent of the total constructed acreage). Based on its assessment of probable construction site size distribution, EPA estimates that another 1.7 percent of the annual constructed acreage will be on sites less than 1 acre. In addition, under Option 1, EPA is considering removing sites smaller than 5 acres. EPA estimates that approximately 18 percent of construction occurs on sites less than 5 acres in area.

EPA's Analysis of State Programs Table A 1 presents the results of EPA's analysis of state construction programs. EPA focused on the states with the largest annual construction footprint to estimate the level of current control (i. e., not all state regulations were reviewed). As a result, the absence of a "Yes" value in Table A 1 may indicate that a construction program was not evaluated by EPA. Overall, the results in Table A 1 were converted into a ecoregion "score" or the percent of developed acreage that Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 A 2 would gain greater management under EPA's options. Table A 2 indicates the resulting percentage of construction acreage affected by the potential effluent guidelines in each ecoregion. As expected, new BMPs required under the options (e. g., certification of sediment basins) were not found in existing state regulations, and overall, existing state requirements require optionlevel BMPs for approximately 30 35 percent of the acreage developed annually. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 A 3 Table A 1. Assessment of State Construction Control Programs State/ Territory Minimum of 3600 Cubic Feet per Acre Storage Requirement for Larger Sites 14 Day or More Inspection Frequency 14 Day Cover Required States with Less than 20 Inches of Precipitation Per Year Alabama Alaska Yes Yes Yes Arizona Yes Yes Yes Yes Arkansas California Yes Yes Yes Colorado Yes Connecticut Yes Yes Yes Delaware Yes Yes Yes District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Yes Illinois Yes Indiana Iowa Yes Yes Yes Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Yes Yes Yes Michigan Minnesota Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines State/ Territory Minimum of 3600 Cubic Feet per Acre Storage Requirement for Larger Sites 14 Day or More Inspection Frequency 14 Day Cover Required States with Less than 20 Inches of Precipitation Per Year June 2002 A 4 Mississippi Missouri Montana Yes Yes Nebraska Nevada Yes New Hampshire Yes Yes Yes New Jersey New Mexico Yes Yes Yes Yes New York North Carolina North Dakota Yes Ohio Yes Yes Oklahoma Yes Oregon Pennsylvania Yes Yes Yes Rhode Island South Carolina Yes Yes Yes South Dakota Yes Yes Yes Yes Tennessee Yes Yes Yes Texas Yes Yes Yes Utah Yes Yes Yes Yes Vermont Virginia Yes Yes Yes Washington West Virginia Yes Yes Wisconsin Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines State/ Territory Minimum of 3600 Cubic Feet per Acre Storage Requirement for Larger Sites 14 Day or More Inspection Frequency 14 Day Cover Required States with Less than 20 Inches of Precipitation Per Year June 2002 A 5 Wyoming Yes Yes Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 A 6 Table A 2. Percentage of Acreage Developed Without Option Equivalent Requirements Ecoregion 3600 Cubic Feet per Acre Storage in Sedimentation Basins for Larger Sites (Criterion 1) Certification of Sediment Basins (Criterion 2) 14 Day or more frequent inspection (Criterion 3) 14 Day Cover For Wet States, or none required for dry states (Criterion 4) Overall Weighted Percentage of Acres Without Coverage ER 1 28.96% 0.00% 28.25% 30.72% 24.7%

ER 2 39.16% 0.00% 57.61% 57.61% 47.1%

ER 3 0.00% 0.00% 10.66% 10.66% 8.0%

ER 4 77.06% 0.00% 77.06% 77.06% 65.5%

ER 5 65.74% 0.00% 65.74% 65.74% 55.9%

ER 6 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 85.0%

ER 7 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 85.0%

ER 8 64.45% 0.00% 68.16% 64.45% 56.6%

ER 9 50.16% 0.00% 55.30% 42.80% 43.4%

ER 10 74.51% 0.00% 81.79% 81.79% 68.8%

ER 11 71.53% 0.00% 71.70% 71.70% 60.9%

ER 12 51.80% 0.00% 65.17% 65.17% 54.1%

ER 13 89.38% 0.00% 32.32% 89.38% 47.4%

ER 14 67.34% 0.00% 53.83% 71.01% 51.4%

ER 15 62.15% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 81.2%

ER 16 5.65% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 75.6%

ER 17 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 85.0%

ER 18 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 85.0%

ER 19 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 85.0%

National Average Weighted by Land Developed 64% 0% 70% 69% 58.9% Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 A 7 Information in Table A 2 was converted into an overall national "score," to discount estimated TSS loadings reductions by accounting for acres covered by equivalent programs. To combine the four analyzed criteria, EPA assumed that the individual contributions to reductions were 10, 15, 50, 25 percent, respectively. For example, sedimentation basins based on 3,600 cubic feet contribute 10 percent of the estimated reduction between baseline and option loadings. On a national basis, EPA estimated that approximately 41 percent of land is served by equivalent programs, and would not be affected by Option 1 or 2 requirements. Appendix B Inventorying of Streams Potentially Impacted By Construction Activities Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 B 1 Appendix B Inventorying of Streams Potentially Impacted By Construction Activities Overview This appendix describes EPA's effort to inventory and assess environmental impacts of construction activities. Specifically, the appendix describes, in detail, the analytical steps performed to inventory the nation's stream system and provides general background information on the rationale used to develop the inventory approach. Delineation of impacted stream environments forms the basis for assessing the future benefits of regulatory controls on construction and activities.

The objectives of this appendix are as follows:

° To describe a method to characterize streams by their hydrologic function based on regional differences ° To establish the appropriate map scale for inventorying streams based on their size and geometry (e. g., length, slope, dimensions).

Stream Characterization Many of the impacts on streams are a function of drainage area and hydrologic regime. Producing a national summary of potentially impacted stream networks is challenging because the nature and size of streams vary significantly throughout the country. For example, watersheds that produce a minimum base flow of 1 cubic foot per second (cfs) occupy 1 square mile in the eastern United States but require 100 square miles in the arid southwest. To account for this variation, EPA divided the country into 19 large hydrologic regions and then further inventoried the streams in each region separately, based on approximate stream size categories (i. e., stream orders). Representative watersheds in each of the 19 large ecoregions in the contiguous U. S. (see Figure B 1) were inventoried to determine the average stream density for the stream orders that are the most likely impacted in each ecoregion.

EPA developed the boundaries for the 19 ecoregions based on a stream density assessment that used EPA's Reach File 1 (RF1) stream network and the 76 ecoregions developed by Omernik (1987). Figure B 2 shows the RF1 densities in terms of acres per stream mile for each of the 76 ecoregions. Combining the 76 ecoregions into the 19 ecoregions shown in Figure B 1 helps simplify the analysis while still capturing a reasonable number of regions with similar stream densities and accounts for gross changes in hydrology, land forms, soil types, and potential natural vegetation. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 B 2 In general, the literature indicates that environmental sensitivity (e. g., geomorphologic changes, pollutant toxicity) is greater on smaller stream orders, from the intermittent headwater streams to small perennial streams. For most environmental impacts (except perhaps nutrient loadings), the impacts of the construction and land development industry tend to decrease with increased stream size, and the impacts tend to become confounded with other influences (e. g., other point and nonpoint source pollutant loads). For this reason, the inventory focused on relatively small watersheds (between 2 and 7 square miles) to better assess the impacts of hydrologic changes on small streams.

      Figure B 1. Regions for Stream Inventorying Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 B 3

 Region 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Ecoregion Boundary Figure B 2. Stream Densities for Omernik Ecoregions (in units of acres per stream mile)

Because EPA focused on small streams, it was necessary to select a method by which to characterize streams by size. Historically, various schemes have been created to characterize and count streams within a drainage network, including the following:

° Stream order is determined by counting stream segments starting with the smallest stream channels found on a selected map scale.

° Stream level is determined by counting stream segments starting from the most downstream discharge point (ocean or estuary) on a selected map scale. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 B 4 ° Streams are characterized by physical descriptions including flow frequency (perennial or intermittent streams), size (large, medium, or small), and/ or terms such as swales, creeks, and rivers.

° Watershed size is based on the scale of the map on which the watersheds are just visible.

EPA selected the first method, stream order characterization, for use in this assessment.

Map Scale Selection Because any network of "streams" identified at the outset of a hydrologic inventory is highly dependent on the scale of the map used, selecting the appropriate scale is a critical step. Rills and swales that are obvious and identifiable on a 1: 2,400 scale map are completely absent on a 1: 250,000 scale map. Figure B 3 shows the streams visible on the following three scales of maps for a typical watershed (10 square miles) in northeastern Maryland:

° U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1: 250,000 scale map or streams found in EPA's RF1 stream network ° USGS 1: 100,000 scale map or streams found in EPA's Reach File V. 3 (RF3) and National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (USGS, 2000) stream networks ° USGS 1: 24,000 scale map.

The three map scales, respectively, permit successively finer viewing of stream sizes: (1) large perennial streams, (2) medium perennial to intermittent streams, and (3) larger swales and intermittent streams. Although not shown in Figure B 3, an even finer detail stream network— one based on 1: 2,400 scale maps (a scale commonly used by local governments) that includes the smallest swales— can be visualized by increasing the number of 1: 24,000 scale streams threefold (i. e., delineation of watersheds as small as 2 acres). Figure B 3 illustrates the importance of map scale selection:

° Inventorying stream networks based on 1: 24,000 scale will include many more streams than a 1: 250,000 scale inventory;

° The stream order assigned to any stream will be different based on the map scale; and ° Direct evaluation using only EPA's RF1 and RF3 hydrologic stream coverages would grossly undercount the number of streams potentially impacted. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 B 5 0. 9 0 0. 9 1. 8 2. 7 Miles S N E W Swal e = 1: 24, 0 00 EPA R F3 = 1: 100, 000 Stream Network Scale EPA R F1 = 1: 250, 000 Figure B 3. Stream Networks for 1: 250,000, 1: 100,000, and 1: 24,000 Scale Maps Note: The 1: 24,000 stream network shown contains more streams than the USGS identified on its 7.5 minute quadrangle maps using typical blue or dashed blue lines. This figure includes all swales that can be drawn based on contour lines given on the 1: 24,000 map, resulting in an enhancement that shows two to three times more "streams" than are shown on the original map (down to watersheds approximately 10 acres in size).

Interpretation of contour lines defines a stream network based on land forms as the contours are present because streams/ swales have created them. This contour based enhancement defines a "stream" based on topography, regardless of whether or not the stream is actually drawn on the map.

Because using an increased detail of stream network (smaller map scale) requires increased effort levels, EPA developed a method that was both practical and depicted the appropriate stream level for this assessment. The amount of stream data available is extensive; the national coverage for RF1 contains 100 megabytes of data, while RF3 contains 7,400 megabytes. All of RF1 (data on just the largest rivers in the nation) can reside and be analyzed on a single microcomputer. However, the RF3 network and the similar, newer NHD are so large they can be analyzed in a Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 B 6 microcomputer environment only when divided into 20 separate parts. Therefore, EPA assumed that a national dataset containing all streams and swales identifiable from 1: 2,400 scale maps would be unworkable within the current limits of any microcomputer.

To maintain a relatively small map scale, EPA performed an inventory of streams and swales identifiable based on 1: 24,000 scale maps (where swales are added manually) by first sampling representative watersheds or areas. (An actual inventory of individual swales and streams on a 1: 24,000 scale for specific acreage developed in any given state in any given year is beyond current computational capabilities and the limits of available data, requiring some type of approximation or sampling technique). EPA used digital elevation maps (DEMs), which allowed EPA to process contour data, enhancing the original stream network to provide data on the larger intermittent streams (typically streams draining less than 30 acres). Because EPA's assessment of the construction industry indicates that a medium sized construction start is approximately 20 acres, this approach is refined enough to inventory the number and size of streams potentially impacted by construction and land development activities. The number and length of streams in a larger area were then estimated by using the stream density found in the sampled watershed/ area. Appendix C Impacts of Construction Activities on Hydrology Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines 1 The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) is the former name of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

June 2002 C 1 Appendix C Impacts of Construction Activities on Hydrology Overview This appendix describes hydrologic changes that result from construction and post development activities, and focuses primarily on changes in runoff rates and soil infiltration. The general hydrologic changes caused by these industries have environmental and economic impacts.

The objectives of this appendix are:

° To demonstrate the variation in runoff rate for a 10 acre site as it changes from a forested condition into a construction condition.

° To describe the environmental benefits of current BMPs primarily designed to limit discharge from construction sites.

Methodology A simple hydrologic model was developed to depict the hydrologic changes that result from construction and land development activities on a (10 acre) site. The size of 10 acres was chosen because it represents the typical size for a construction site. In addition, the hydrologic changes are believed to be similar to changes that result on larger sites such as 100 acre sites and 1000 acre sites.

Investigation of hydrologic changes was performed by using two hydrologic models: TR 55 and TR 20. These models use data developed over many years by USDA/ Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and are among the most often employed models for the hydrologic design of hydraulic structures, such as storm drainage systems (USDA, 2002).

The 10 acre watershed was assumed to have a 50/ 50 mix of soils in the type B and C hydrologic soil classification, with an average ground slope of 7 percent. Time of concentration was derived based on standard TR 55 worksheets that analyze sheet flow, shallow concentrated flow, and pipe flow. For the analysis, the 2 year 24 hour SCS 1 type II rainfall event, totaling 3.2 inches of rainfall, was used to conservatively estimate the runoff hydrographs.

Multiple land use conditions (Table C 1) were evaluated to help assess the hydrologic impacts for the small 10 acre site. EPA notes that most construction sites occupying 10 acres are Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 C 2 equipped with a sedimentation pond, intended to minimize sediment discharge from the site. Although sediment ponds are not designed specifically shave the peak runoff rate (i. e., limit the construction site peak discharge rate to be equal to or less than the peak runoff from the forested site), these structures inherently have some capability of peak shaving depending on the site conditions. In addition, sedimentation ponds can be built to increase its peak shaving capability. For the purposes of this assessment, EPA assumed that a sedimentation pond (Condition 3) shaves the peak completely, as shown in Figure C 1.

Table C 1. Evaluated Hydrologic Conditions for a Typical 10 Acre Site Land Use Condition Description 1 Pre development: a forested land use 2 Construction: cleared and grubbed soil surface with no vegetation and without construction runoff BMPs (No sedimentation ponds)

3 Construction: cleared and grubbed soil surface with no vegetation with storm water BMPs (a sedimentation pond that also shaves the peak runoff to match the predevelopment peak flow)

The results of the analysis are presented below for each of these land use conditions.

Discussion of Runoff Results for Modeled Land Use Conditions Figure C 1 compares the predicted runoff hydrographs for Land Use Conditions 1 through 3. The hydrographs in the figure show the large increase in runoff volume and peak runoff rate that occurs for construction sites with or without storm water BMPs that limit the peak runoff rates. This increase is caused by the removal of existing vegetation and compaction of site soils with earth moving equipment, which greatly diminishes the site's ability to absorb rainfall and limit discharge. In fact, NRCS data strongly suggest that a fully constructed site (e. g., a residential neighborhood) produces less runoff than a denuded site under construction, even though impervious surfaces (e. g., driveways, roofs) have not yet been installed. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 C 3 Comparison of Various Construction Conditions for A Ten Acre Construction Site 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time In Hours Flow Discharged (cubic feet per second) Forested Construction Site Without BMPs Construction Site With BMPs Figure C 1. Runoff Hydrographs for a 10 Acre Construction Site Although the implementation of peak shaving BMPs minimizes some of the flooding downstream of a construction site due to high peak flows, it does not eliminate the potential for enhanced flooding that is caused by longer durations of high flow discharges. Table C 2 indicates that the construction site produces high flows for a much greater duration than flows originally released from the forested site. In fact, the 10 acre site that once produced a flow rate equal to or greater than 3 cubic feet per second (cfs) for only 0.2 hours will produce more than 3 Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 C 4 cfs for 3.2 hours when peak shaving BMPs are employed during construction. Should a 2 year storm occur during the construction period, the longer flow duration increases the chances that the discharge will be combined with downstream peak flows from other developing/ developed locations to produce a flooding condition.

Table C 2. Comparison of Durations of High Flow Rates for Different Land Use Conditions Land Use Condition Hours of flow equal to or greater than:

3 cfs 2 cfs 1 cfs Forested 0.2 0.3 0.8 Construction site without peak shaving BMPs 0.9 1.4 3.3 Construction site with peak shaving BMPs 3.2 4 5.7 cfs = cubic feet per second


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 14, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37049]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14769]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0507]

Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo
Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone located in federal
regulations for a recurring marine event. This action is necessary and
intended for the safety of life and property on navigable waters during
this event. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may
enter the respective safety zone without the permission of the Captain
of the Port Buffalo or a designated representative.

DATES: The regulations listed in 33 CFR 165.939 as listed in Table
165.939(c)(1) will be enforced from 7:15 a.m. through 1:15 p.m. on July
17, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email MST2 Natalie Smith, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety
Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone listed in
33 CFR 165.939, Table 165.939(c)(1) for the Whiskey Island Paddlefest
in Cleveland, OH, on all U.S. waters of Lake Erie, Cleveland Harbor,
from 41[deg]29'59.5'' N and 081[deg]42'59.3'' W, to 41[deg]30'4.4'' N
and 081[deg]42'44.5'' W, to 41[deg]30'17.3'' N and 081[deg]43'0.6'' W,
to 41[deg]30'9.4'' N and 081[deg]43'2.0'' W, to 41[deg]29'54.9'' N and
081[deg]43'34.4'' W, to 41[deg]30'0.1'' N and 081[deg]43'3.1'' W, and
back to 41[deg]29'59.5'' N and 081[deg]42'59.3'' W (NAD 83) from 7:15
a.m. through 1:15 p.m. on July 17, 2021. The scheduled date of zone
enforcement differs from that published in 33 CFR 165.939 to
accommodate the sponsoring organization's priority to better align
their event with other occurring local events, other paddle races
taking place in the Great Lakes region, and to ensure the availability
of personnel and resources to support the event.
    Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within the safety zone during an enforcement period is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a designated
representative. Those seeking permission to enter the safety zone may
request permission from the Captain of the Port Buffalo via channel 16,
VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone
shall obey the directions of the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a
designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels
shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR
165.939 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice of enforcement
in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime
community with advance notification of this enforcement period via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the
Captain of the Port Buffalo determines that the safety zone need not be
enforced for the full duration stated in this notice he or she may use
a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the
respective safety zone.

R.R. Kistner,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2021-14769 Filed 7-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


SIC Code SIC Code Description NAICS Code NAICS Description 4922 Natural Gas Transmission 48621 Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas ( pt) 4923 Natural Gas Transmission and Distribution Transmission 22121 48621 Natural Gas Distribution ( pt) Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas ( pt) 4941 Water Supply 22131 Water Supply and Irrigation Systems ( pt) 4952 Sewerage Systems 22132 Sewage Treatment Facilities 4953 Refuse Systems Materials Recovery Facilities 56292 Materials Recovery Facilities Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal 562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal Solid Waste Landfills 562212 Solid Waste Landfill Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators 562213 Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal 562219 Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal 5031 Lumber, Plywood, Millwork, and Wood Panels 42131 Lumber, Plywood, Millwork, and Wood Panel Wholesalers 5032 Brick, Stone, and Related Construction Materials Sold Via Retail Method Sold Via Wholesale Method 44419 42132 Other Building Material Dealers ( pt) Brick, Stone, and Related Construction Material Wholesalers 5074 Plumbing and Heating Equipment and Supplies ( Hydronics) Sold Via Retail Method 44419 Other Building Material Dealers ( pt) Sold Via Wholesale Method 42172 Plumbing and Heating Equipment and Supplies ( Hydronics) Wholesalers 5093 Scrap and Waste Materials 42193 Recyclable Material Wholesalers 5099 Durable Goods, Not Elsewhere Classified 42199 Other Miscellaneous Durable Goods Wholesalers ( pt) 5149 Groceries and Related Products, NEC Bottling Mineral or Spring Water 312112 Bottled Water Manufacturing ( pt) Except Bottling Mineral or Spring Water 42249 Other Grocery and Related Products Wholesalers 5153 Grain and Field Beans 42251 Grain and Field Bean Wholesalers 5172 Petroleum and Petroleum Products Wholesalers, Except Bulk Stations and Terminals 42272 Petroleum and Petroleum Products Wholesalers ( except Bulk Stations and Terminals) 5191 Farm Supplies Lawn and Garden Supplies Sold Via Retail Method 44422 Nursery and Garden Centers ( pt)   Retail ( continued) A 8 Table A 1. Selections of the U. S. Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) Code matched to the North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) Code ( continued)

SIC Code SIC Code Description NAICS Code NAICS Description 5191 ( cont) Except Lawn and Garden Supplies Sold Via Retail Method 42291 Farm Supplies Wholesalers 5199 Nondurable Goods, NEC Advertising Specialties Goods Distributors 54189 Other Services Related to Advertising ( pt) Except Advertising Specialty 42299 Other Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods Wholesalers 5211 Lumber and Other Building Materials Dealers Home Centers 44411 Home Centers Except Home Centers 44419 Other Building Material Dealers ( pt) 5411 Grocery Stores Convenience Stores with Gas 44711 Gasoline Stations with Convenience Stores ( pt) Supermarkets and Grocery Stores with Little General Merchandise 44511 Supermarkets and Other Grocery ( except Convenience) Stores Supermarkets and Grocery Stores with Substantial General Merchandise 45291 Warehouse Clubs and Superstores ( pt)

Convenience Stores without Gas 44512 Convenience Stores 5541 Gasoline Service Stations With Convenience Store 44711 Gasoline Stations with Convenience Store ( pt) Except with Convenience Stores 44719 Other Gasoline Stations 5812 Eating and Drinking Places Full Service Restaurants 72211 Full Service Restaurants Limited Service Restaurants 722211 Limited Service Restaurants Cafeterias 722212 Cafeterias Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars 722213 Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars ( pt) Food Service Contractors 72231 Food Service Contractors Caterers 72232 Caterers Dinner Theaters 71111 Theater Companies and Dinner Theaters ( pt) 5992 Florists 453110 Florists 6515 Operators of Residential Mobile Home Sites 53119 Lessors of Other Real Estate Property( pt) 7212 Garment Pressing, and Agents for Laundries and Dry Cleaners 81232 Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services ( except Coin Operated) ( pt) 7215 Coin Operated Laundries and Dry Cleaning 81231 Coin Operated Laundries and Dry Cleaners 7216 Dry Cleaning Plants, Except Rug Cleaning 81232 Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services ( except Coin Operated) ( pt) ( continued) A 9 Table A 1. Selections of the U. S. Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) Code matched to the North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) Code ( continued)

SIC Code SIC Code Description NAICS Code NAICS Description 7532 Top, Body, and Upholstery Repair Shops and Paint Shops 811121 Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance 7533 Automotive Exhaust System Repair Shops 811112 Automotive Exhaust System Repair 7538 General Automotive Repair Shops 811111 General Automotive Repair 7692 Welding Repair 81131 Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment ( except Automotive and Electronic) Repair and Maintenance ( pt) 7999 Amusement and Recreation Services, NEC Ticket Agencies 561599 All Other Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services ( pt) Aerial Tramways, Scenic and Amusement 48799 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Other ( pt) Circus Companies and Traveling Carnival Shows 71119 Other Performing Arts Companies ( pt) Professional Athletes 711219 Other Spectator Sports ( pt) Skiing Facilities 71392 Skiing Facilities Nonmembership Recreation Facilities 71394 Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers ( pt) Casinos, except Casino Hotels 71321 Casinos ( except Casino Hotels) Lottery, Bingo, Bookie and Other Gaming Operations 71329 Other Gambling Industries ( pt)

Caverns and Miscellaneous Commercial Parks 71219 Nature Parks and Other Similar Institutions ( pt) Sports Instruction 61162 Sports and Recreation Instruction Nonathletic Recreational Instruction 611699 All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction ( pt) State Fairs, Agriculture Fairs, and County Fairs with Facilities 71131 Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports, and Similar Events with Facilities ( pt) State Fairs, Agriculture Fairs, and County Fairs without Facilities 71132 Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports, and Similar Events without Facilities ( pt) Sports Equipment Rental 532292 Recreational Goods Rental Scenic Transport Operations, Land 48711 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Land ( pt) Charter Fishing 48721 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Water ( pt) Amusement and Recreation Services, NEC ( except circuses, professional athletes, caverns and other commercial parks, skiing facilities) 71399 All Other Amusement and Recreation Industries ( pt)

( continued) A 10 Table A 1. Selections of the U. S. Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) Code matched to the North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) Code ( continued)

SIC Code SIC Code Description NAICS Code NAICS Description 8051 Skilled Nursing Care Facilities Continuing Care Retirement Communities 623311 Continuing Care Retirement Communities ( pt) All Other Skilled Nursing Care Facilities 62311 Nursing Care Facilities ( pt)

8062 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 62211 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals ( pt) 8211 Elementary and Secondary Schools 61111 Elementary and Secondary Schools 9199 General Government NEC 92119 Other General Government Support 9223 Correctional Institutions 92214 Correctional Institutions 9224 Fire Protection 92214 Fire Protection 9511 Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management 92411 Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management Programs 9512 Land, Mineral, Wildlife, and Forest Conservation 92412 Administration of Conservation Programs 9621 Regulation and Administration of Transportation Programs Air Traffic Control 488111 Air Traffic Control ( pt) Except Air Traffic Control 92612 Regulation and Administration of Transportation Programs


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19145-19146]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07640]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71843; File No. SR-CME-2014-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fee Schedule Applicable to Its MXN OTC IRS Clearing Offering

April 1, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'' or ``Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on March 24, 2014, Chicago Mercantile Exchange
Inc. (``CME'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change described in Items I, II and
III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by CME. CME filed
the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) \4\ thereunder so that the proposal was effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CME is proposing to amend the fee schedule that currently applies
to its OTC Interest Rate Swap clearing offering by adopting a fee
waiver program that applies to Mexican Peso (``MXN'') over-the-counter
(``OTC'') interest rate swap (``IRS'') house accounts. The text of the
proposed rule change is below. Italicized text indicates additions; no
deletions are shown.
* * * * *

Mexican Peso (MXN) Over-the-Counter (OTC) Interest Rate Swaps (IRS)
House Fee Waiver

Program Purpose

    The purpose of the Program is to incentivize market participants
to submit transactions in the MXN OTC IRS product listed below to
the Clearing House for clearing, which will improve market
liquidity. The resulting addition of liquidity benefits all
participants in the market.

Product Scope

    MXN OTC IRS cleared by the Clearing House (``Product'').

Eligible Participants

    There is no limit to the number of participants that may
participate in the Program. The fee incentive described below will
be open to all market participants and will be automatically applied
to all transaction fees for house accounts on MXN OTC IRS.

Program Term

    Start date is April 1, 2014. End date is March 31, 2015.

Hours

    The Program will be applicable regardless of the transaction
time.

Program Incentives

    Fee Waiver. All market participants that submit transactions in
the Products to the Clearing House will have their transaction fees
for house accounts waived.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CME included statements
concerning the purpose 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. CME 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

    CME is registered as a derivatives clearing organization with the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission and currently offers clearing
services for many different futures and swaps products. With this
filing, CME proposes to make certain amendments related to the fees it
applies to certain interest rate swaps cleared at CME. The proposed
changes involve a fee waiver program that applies to house account
clearing of MXN OTC IRS products. The changes are designed to
incentivize market participants to submit additional transactions in
MXN OTC IRS products to CME for clearing. There is no limit to the
number of participants that may participate in the proposed fee waiver
program; it will be open to all market participants and will be
automatically applied to all transaction fees for house accounts on MXN
OTC IRS.
    The changes that are described in this filing are limited to fee
changes for OTC IRS products. Although the proposed changes would
become effective on

filing, CME plans to operationalize the fee waiver program on April 1,
2014. The terms of program are set to expire on March 31, 2015.
    The proposed fee changes are limited to CME's business as a
derivatives clearing organization clearing products under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') and
do not materially impact CME's security-based swap clearing business in
any way. CME has also certified the proposed rule changes that are the
subject of this filing to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(``CFTC'') in CFTC Submission 14-082.
    CME believes the proposed rule changes are consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act including Section 17A of the Exchange
Act.\5\ More specifically, the proposed rule changes establish or
change a member due, fee or other charge imposed by CME under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) \6\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) \7\ thereunder. CME believes that the proposed fee change
is consistent with the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the rules and regulations thereunder and, in particular, to
17A(b)(3)(D) \8\, because the proposed fee changes apply equally to all
market participants clearing MXN OTC IRS in house accounts and
therefore the proposed changes provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among participants. CME also
notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily direct business to competing venues. As such,
the proposed changes are appropriately filed pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \9\ of the Act and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed rule changes
modify pricing for house account clearing of MXN OTC IRS products.
These products are swaps under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC,
and, as such, these proposed changes do not affect the security-based
swap clearing activities of CME in any way and therefore do not impose
any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

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

    CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments
regarding this proposed rule change. CME has not received any
unsolicited written comments from interested parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \10\ of the Act and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ), or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-CME-2014-10 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-CME-2014-10. 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 or
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of CME and on CME's
Web site at http://www.cmegroup.com/market-regulation/rule-filings.html.
    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-CME-2014-10 and
should be submitted on or before April 28, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-07640 Filed 4-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 93)]
[Notices]
[Page 28060-28062]
[DOCID:fr15my06-80]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53776; File No. SR-Phlx-2005-73]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change and Amendments No. 1 and 2
Thereto Relating to the Exchange's Obvious Error Rule

May 9, 2006.
    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 14, 2005, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. On
November 18, 2005, the Phlx submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change.\3\ On April 6, 2006, the Phlx submitted Amendment No. 2 to
the proposed rule change.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 corrected technical errors in the proposed
rule text.
    \4\ Amendment No. 2 deleted the proposed revisions to Rule
1092(c) that related to an erroneous print disseminated by the
underlying market which is later cancelled or corrected by the
underlying market and an erroneous quote in the underlying market.
Thus, the Exchange does not propose to make any changes to Rule
1092(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Phlx proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1092 (Obvious Errors). The
proposed amendments to Phlx Rule

1092 would: (1) change the definition of ``obvious error'' to mean a
transaction that occurs at an execution price that differs from the
Theoretical Price by at least the maximum allowable bid/ask
differential; and (2) change the definition of ``Theoretical Price''
for purposes of determining whether an execution price constitutes an
``obvious error.''
    Below is the text of the proposed rule change, as amended. Proposed
new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in [brackets].
* * * * *
Obvious Errors
    Rule 1092. The Exchange shall either nullify a transaction or
adjust the execution price of a transaction that results in an Obvious
Error as provided in this Rule.
    (a) Definition of Obvious Error. For purposes of this Rule only, an
Obvious Error will be deemed to have occurred when the execution price
of a transaction is higher or lower than the Theoretical Price for a
series by an amount equal to at least the amount shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Minimum
                      Theoretical price                          amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below $2.....................................................       $.25
$2 to $5.....................................................       $.40
Above $5 to $10..............................................       $.50
Above $10 to $20.............................................       $.80
Above $20....................................................      $1.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [(i) If the Theoretical Price of the option is less than $3.00:
    (A) During regular market conditions (including rotations), the
execution price of a transaction is higher or lower than the
Theoretical Price for the series by an amount of 35 cents or more; or,
    (B) During unusual market conditions (i.e., the Exchange has
declared an unusual market condition status for the option in
question), the execution price of a transaction is higher or lower than
the Theoretical Price for the series by an amount of 50 cents or more.
(ii) If the Theoretical Price of the option is $3.00 or more:
    (A) During regular market conditions (including rotations), the
execution price of a transaction is higher or lower than the
Theoretical Price for the series by an amount equal to at least two
times the maximum bid/ask spread allowed for the series, so long as
such amount is 50 cents or more; or
    (B) During unusual market conditions (i.e., the Exchange has
declared an unusual market condition status for the option in
question), the execution price of a transaction is higher or lower than
the Theoretical Price for the series by an amount equal to at least
three times the maximum bid/ask spread allowed for the series, so long
as such amount is 50 cents or more.]
    (b) Definition of Theoretical Price. For purposes of this Rule
only, the [t] Theoretical Price of an option is:
    (i) If the series is traded on at least one other options exchange,
the [last bid or offer] mid-point of the National Best Bid and Offer
(``NBBO''), just prior to the transaction [, on the exchange that has
the most total volume in that option over the most recent 60 calendar
days]; or
    (ii) If there are no quotes for comparison purposes, as determined
by two Floor Officials and designated personnel in the Exchange's
Market Surveillance Department.
    (c)-(f) No change.
Commentary:
    .01 No change.
    .02 [ The Theoretical Price will be determined under paragraph
(b)(i) of this Rule as follows: (i) the bid price from the exchange
providing the most total volume in the option over the most recent 60
calendar days will be used with respect to an erroneous bid price
entered on the Exchange, and (ii) the offer price from the exchange
providing the most total volume in the option over the most recent 60
calendar days will be used with respect to an erroneous offer price
entered on the Exchange.
    .03 ] The price to which a transaction is adjusted under paragraph
(c)(ii) of this Rule will be determined as follows: (i) the bid price
from the exchange disseminating the National Best Bid for the series at
the time of the transaction that was the result of an obvious error
will be used with respect to an erroneous offer price entered on the
Exchange, and (ii) the offer price from the exchange disseminating the
National Best Offer for the series at the time of the transaction that
was the result of an obvious error will be used with respect to an
erroneous bid price entered on the Exchange. If there are no quotes for
comparison purposes, the adjustment price will be determined by two
Floor Officials and Market Surveillance.

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 Exchange states that the purpose of the proposed rule change,
as amended, is to modernize the Exchange's Obvious Error rule so that
it addresses issues raised by the increasingly electronic options
marketplace.
Definition of Obvious Error
    Currently, Exchange Rule 1092(a) defines ``obvious error'' as the
execution price of a transaction that is higher or lower than the
Theoretical Price (if the Theoretical Price is less than $3.00) for the
series by an amount of 35 cents or more; or, during unusual market
conditions (i.e., the Exchange has declared an unusual market condition
status for the option in question), by an amount of 50 cents or more.
Where the Theoretical Price is $3.00 or more, ``obvious error'' is
defined as the execution price of a transaction that is higher or lower
than the Theoretical Price for the series by an amount equal to at
least two times the allowable maximum bid/ask spread for the series, so
long as the amount is 50 cents or more, and three times the allowable
bid/ask spread during unusual market conditions.
    The proposed rule change would re-define ``obvious error'' by
deeming an ``obvious error'' to have occurred when the execution price
of a transaction is higher or lower than the Theoretical Price for a
series by an amount equal to at least the amount shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Minimum
                      Theoretical price                          amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below $2.....................................................       $.25
$2 to $5.....................................................       $.40
Above $5 to $10..............................................       $.50
Above $10 to $20.............................................       $.80
Above $20....................................................      $1.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed new definition of ``obvious
error'' would facilitate the efficient determination by Floor Officials
as to whether a trade resulted from an obvious error by setting minimum
amounts by which the transaction price differs from the Theoretical
Price without requiring such Floor Officials to conduct an inquiry into
the volume of all exchanges each time they review a

transaction under the rule. The proposed definition of ``obvious
error'' would apply during both normal and unusual market conditions,
thus further streamlining the Floor Officials' review process.
Definition of Theoretical Price
    Currently, Phlx Rule 1092(b) defines ``Theoretical Price'' as the
last bid or offer, just prior to the transaction, on the exchange that
has the most total volume in that option over the most recent 60
calendar days; or if there are no quotes for comparison purposes, as
determined by two Floor Officials and designated personnel in the
Exchange's Market Surveillance Department. The proposed rule change
would define ``Theoretical Price'' as, respecting series traded on at
least one other options exchange, the mid-point of the National Best
Bid and Offer (``NBBO'') just prior to the transaction.
    The Phlx notes that currently, all options exchanges, including the
Phlx, have rules permitting specialists and market makers to
disseminate electronic quotations with a bid/ask differential of up to
$5.00, regardless of the price of the bid.\5\ For the most part, the
Phlx believes that such quotations do not reflect the NBBO. Under the
current Exchange rule, the Theoretical Price, defined as the last bid
or offer just prior to the transaction on the market with the highest
volume, could differ from the NBBO by a significant amount if the bid/
ask differential on such market in the series is $5.00 wide. In order
to account for this potential discrepancy between the Theoretical Price
as established by rule and the actual NBBO, the proposal would re-
define the term ``Theoretical Price'' to mean the mid-point of the NBBO
just prior to the transaction. This should provide Exchange Floor
Officials with a more accurate measure of the price on which to base
their determination that a transaction resulted from an obvious error,
based on the actual NBBO instead of a quotation with a bid/ask
differential of $5.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., Exchange Rule 1014(c)(i)(A)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For consistency, the Exchange proposes to delete Commentary .02 to
Phlx Rule 1092, which references the Theoretical Price as currently
defined, from the Rule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \6\, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest,
by establishing objective definitions of Theoretical Price and
``obvious error'' that address issues raised by the increasingly
electronic options marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received by the Exchange on
this proposal, as amended.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve the proposed rule change, as amended, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Phlx-2005-73 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2005-73. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. 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-Phlx-2005-73 and should be submitted on or before June 5, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-7323 Filed 5-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P