ENCLOSURE RICHMOND OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT JULY 12, 2004 2 Richmond Nonattainment Reclassification Petition Ozone Air Monitoring Data Analysis INTRODUCTION The Department of Environmental Quality operates four continuous ozone air quality monitors in the Richmond metropolitan area. These monitors are configured to provide a comprehensive profile of ozone concentrations in the Richmond area and includes both upwind/ downwind and urban/ rural sites. Specifically, these monitors are listed below:

  Chesterfield County Monitor ( Bensley Armory)  Serves as the upwind monitor to the Richmond metro area that is located the center of the County.   Henrico County Monitor ( Math & Science Center)   Serves as the urban core monitor located just North of central Richmond City.   Hanover County Monitor ( McCellan Road)   Serves as the primary downwind monitor for the metro area.   Charles City Monitor ( Shirley Plantation)   Serves as a secondary downwind monitor for the metro area.

This monitoring network has been in place for since the early 1990' s with the exception of the local movement of the Hanover monitor in 2000.

Provided below is a map of the location of the Richmond ozone monitors and their current design values based on 2001 to 2003 data, which represents the average of the 4th highest values during each of these years.

Richmond Monitoring Network & Current Ozone Design Values Hanover Petersburg Charles City Henrico Chesterfield Richmond Colonial Heights Hopewell Prince George I 95 I 85 I 64 I 95 I 64 HANOVER 94 PPB CHARLES CITY 91 PPB CHESTERFIELD 86 PPB HENRICO 90 PPB 3 The current " worst case" monitor that was used to set the 8 hour ozone standard nonttainment classification is the primary downwind monitor located in Hanover County. This monitor's current design value is 94 ppb which is within the 5% range allowed for reclassification to the lower marginal level. All the other monitors in the metro area have design values within the marginal classification range.

MONITORING DATA TRENDS To further analyze ozone trends in the Richmond area, individual and cumulative data evaluations have been performed on ozone monitoring data in the area beginning in 1990. Provided below are trend graphs for each of the four Richmond monitors showing the design value trends from 1990 to the current three year period.

Richmond Monitor Design Value Trends from 1990 to 2003 As can be clearly seen from these graphs, the general trend lines for the Richmond monitors have increased only slightly over period analyzed. In addition, three monitors have remained solidly in the marginal range in terms of design values during the same period. Furthermore, a definite downward trend can be seen at these three monitors since the official promulgation of the 8 hour ozone standard in 1997. The anomaly observed in the Hanover monitor is due to its closure and removal after the 1999 ozone season. Therefore, the trend after the 1997 1999 design value period is not available for this particular monitor. The relocated Hanover monitor has just completed its first threeyear monitoring period recording a design value of 94 PPB.

To further evaluate this data, the average of the design values for all four monitors has been plotted and is presented below. This graph serves as an indication of the overall ozone concentration trends in Richmond during the 1990 to 2003 period. Chesterf ield Co., 71 H 0.070 0.080 0.090 0.100 0.110 Henrico Co., 72 M 0.070 0.080 0.090 0.100 0.110 Hanover Co., 73 C 0.070 0.080 0.090 0.100 0.110 Charles City Co., 75 B 0.070 0.080 0.090 0.100 0.110 4 Overall Richmond Monitor Design Value Trend ( 1990 to 2003)

It can been seen that the general trend for the Richmond area is that ozone concentrations and corresponding design values are consistent with a marginal nonattainment classification and have remained mostly in the core marginal range of 85 to 90 PPB.

Finally, the number of days when exceedances of the 8 hour standard were recorded in the Richmond area from 1994 to 2003 have been plotted below to serve as an indicator of the amount of time that area residents have been exposed to levels of ozone above the standard.

Number of Richmond High Ozone Days ( Three Year Average Trend) 3 year Averages for all Richmond Monitors ( 1990 to 2003)

0.060 0.070 0.080 0.090 0.100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Units  ppm Central Richmond Exeedance days 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 94' to 96' 95' to 97' 96' to 98' 97' to 99' 98' to 00' 99' to 01' 00' to 02' 01' to 03' 5 Again, this data shows a mostly stable and consistent trend of average exceedance days in the Richmond area, other than the exceptional period during the late 1990' s. The same clear downward trend can again be seen from this peak period ( 1997 to 1999) to the present time.

CONCLUSIONS The analysis of monitoring data provided above supports the petition for the reclassification of the Richmond 8 hour ozone nonattainment area to a marginal nonattainment area in that:

  Three of the four monitors in the Richmond metro area have and continue to record levels consistent with a marginal nonattainment classification.

  The majority of the monitoring indicators for the Richmond metro area are indicative of a marginal nonattainment area with design values and overall area averages well within the range for this lesser classification ( 85 to 92 PPB).

  The one monitor of exception to this general trend in Hanover County is located in the rural and sparsely populated Northeast corner of the nonattainment area. The vast majority of the metro area's population is located in areas where the corresponding monitors are consistently recording marginal levels of ozone nonattainment ( Chesterfield & Henrico).

  Thus far, no exceedances of the 8 hour standard have been recorded in the Richmond area during the 2004 ozone season. 6 Richmond Nonattainment Reclassification Petition Regional Ozone Modeling Analyses INTRODUCTION Given the tight timeframe for submitting this petition for the reclassification of the Richmond nonattainment area, only limited modeling could be performed specifically to support this petition. However, several previous modeling exercises performed by DEQ and EPA provide consistent indications that the Richmond area is likely to attain the ozone standard during the 2007 to 2010 timeframe. A listing of these modeling analyses is provided below:

  DEQ Early Action Compact Regional Ozone Modeling   EPA NOX SIP Call Rule Modeling   EPA Clear Skies Act ( CSA) Modeling   EPA Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR) Modeling The remainder of this section will summarize these modeling exercises and the results and predictions relating to the Richmond nonattainment area.

VDEQ EARLY ACTION COMPACT MODELING As part of the early action compact and planning process for the Roanoke and Winchester areas in Virginia, the DEQ performed a regional modeling exercise to demonstrate that these areas would attain the 8 hour ozone standard by 2007. Although Richmond was not the focus of this modeling, data is also available for this area that provides data on predicted ozone reductions and resulting levels in the Richmond area by 2007. Provided below are graphic and table summaries of the data for Richmond from this modeling:

Regional Modeling Results   Base Case Episode ( August 1999) 7 Regional Modeling Results   2007 Future Control Case Predictions ( full domain)

Regional Modeling Results   2007 Future Control Case Predictions ( Central VA)

Although initial visual review of these results appears to indicate a continuing issue with high 8 hour ozone levels in the Richmond areas, it should be noted that in the base case modeling, ozone concentrations are over predicted in the Richmond area for the selected 1999 episode. Logically, this over prediction is continued into the 2007 control episode. While all the factors leading to this over prediction by the model are not yet known, much of this may be attributable to a major error in Richmond utility emissions and the overly conservative estimates of Richmond VOC point source emissions due to the application of rule effectiveness and other factors. 8 After correcting the error in area utility emissions, the control case was run again and produced the following results.

Revised Modeling Results   2007 Future Control Case ( Corrected Utility NOX Emissions)

Attainment Test Results for Monitors in the Richmond Area ( Exact Grid Cell)

County/ City Modeled Average Base Year ( 1999) Daily 8 hr Maximum O3 ( ppb) Modeled Average Future Year ( 2007) Daily 8 hr Maximum O3 ( ppb) Relative Reduction Factor ( RRF) Current Design Value ( 1997 1999) Future Design Value ( 1997 1999) Current Design Value ( 2001 2003) Future Design Value ( 2001 2003)

Chesterfield 83.31 69.13 0.83 91 75.5 86 71.4 Henrico 86.43 76.77 0.888 96 85.2 90 79.9 Hanover 83.67 72.31 0.864 99 85.5 94 81.2 Charles City 80.87 71.37 0.882 96 84.7 91 80.3 Attainment Test Results for Monitors in the Richmond Area ( Max 9 Grid Cells)

County/ City Modeled Average Base Year ( 1999) Daily 8 hr Maximum O3 ( ppb) Modeled Average Future Year ( 2007) Daily 8 hr Maximum O3 ( ppb) Relative Reduction Factor ( RRF) Current Design Value ( 1997 1999) Future Design Value ( 1997 1999) Current Design Value ( 2001 2003) Future Design Value ( 2001 2003)

Chesterfield 86.94 76.35 0.878 91 79.9 86 75.5 Henrico 91.74 80.22 0.874 96 83.9 90 78.7 Hanover 88.72 79.45 0.895 99 88.6 94 84.1 Charles City 86.8 78.69 0.907 96 87.1 91 82.5 Nonattainment Attainment Two attainment tests were applied to the modeling results, an exact monitor grid cell analysis ( first table), and a 9 grid cell maximum analysis ( second table). As can be seen by these results, strict application of the attainment test by developing relative reduction factors ( RRF) and applying them to the three year design value during the time of the modeled episode ( 1997 to 1999) produces mixed results in terms of predicted future 9 design values. The exact cell test predicts attainment at all area monitors. The 9 cell maximum test predicts attainment at 2 monitors and marginal nonattainment at the other 2 monitors based on the 1997 to 1999 design values.

However, since the design values used to officially designate these areas were from a different time period ( 2001 to 2003), an additional analysis was performed by applying the RRFs developed by the model to the current area monitor design values. This additional analysis predicts attainment in 2007 at all area monitors for both attainment tests.

VDEQ REFINED EAC MODELING ( UPDATED POINT SOURCES)

In an effort to refine the EAC modeling specific to the Richmond area and to utilize more current and representative estimates for point source emissions, revised 2007 point source emissions projections were developed using the recently developed point source emissions estimates for 2002. The results of this refined modeling are presented below:

Revised Modeling Results   2007 Future Control Case ( Revised Point Source Emissions) 10 Attainment Test Results for Monitors in the Richmond Area ( Exact Grid Cell)

County/ City Modeled Average Base Year ( 1999) Daily 8 hr Maximum O3 ( ppb) Modeled Average Future Year ( 2007) Daily 8 hr Maximum O3 ( ppb) Relative Reduction Factor ( RRF) Current Design Value ( 1997 1999) Future Design Value ( 1997 1999) Current Design Value ( 2001 2003) Future Design Value ( 2001 2003)

Chesterfield 83.31 65.96 0.792 91 72.1 86 68.1 Henrico 86.43 71.34 0.825 96 79.2 90 74.3 Hanover 83.67 67.06 0.801 99 79.3 94 75.3 Charles City 80.87 68.43 0.846 96 81.2 91 77.0 Attainment Test Results for Monitors in the Richmond Area ( Max 9 Grid Cells)

County/ City Modeled Average Base Year ( 1999) Daily 8 hr Maximum O3 ( ppb) Modeled Average Future Year ( 2007) Daily 8 hr Maximum O3 ( ppb) Relative Reduction Factor ( RRF) Current Design Value ( 1997 1999) Future Design Value ( 1997 1999) Current Design Value ( 2001 2003) Future Design Value ( 2001 2003)

Chesterfield 86.94 71.36 0.821 91 74.7 86 70.6 Henrico 91.74 74.71 0.814 96 78.1 90 73.3 Hanover 88.72 74.03 0.834 99 82.6 94 78.4 Charles City 86.8 73.65 0.849 96 81.5 91 77.3 Nonattainment Attainment Again, the same two attainment tests were applied to the refined Richmond modeling results. Under this scenario, in all cases attainment is predicted for the area monitors and surrounding grid cells.

EPA MODELING EXERCISES A number of modeling exercise have be performed by EPA to support various rulemaking actions, beginning with the NOX SIP Call ( SC) and most recently in support of the Clear Skies Act ( CSA) and Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR). Although these various modeling exercises were performed for different reasons, all of them have produced predicted future ozone levels that provide additional information on predicted ozone trends in the future. A summary of these modeling exercises and the resulting ozone predictions for the Richmond area is provided in the table below:

MONITOR 2007 2010 2015 2020 Chesterfield 74 PPB ( SC) 74 PPB ( CAIR) 71PPB ( CAIR) 69 PPB ( CSA) Henrico 77 PPB ( SC) 77 PPB ( CAIR) 74 PPB ( CAIR) 65 PPB ( CSA) Hanover 77 PPB ( SC) NA NA NA Charles City 77 PPB ( SC) 77 PPB ( CAIR) 74 PPB ( CAIR) 65 PPB ( CSA)

As can be seen above, all of these EPA modeling exercises predict attainment in the Richmond area as early as 2007 and continuing out to 2020 with decreasing ozone concentrations. 11 CONCLUSIONS The referenced modeling exercises support the petition for the reclassification of the Richmond 8 hour ozone nonattainment area to a marginal nonattainment area in that:

  There is a preponderance of modeling evidence that the Richmond area will continue to experience lower ozone levels and is likely to attain the 8 hour standard by 2007.

  Specifically, almost all of these analyses predict that the Richmond area will come into compliance with the 8 hour standard by 2007 or 2010, depending on the analysis involved.

  Continue attainment and decreasing ozone levels are predicted for the Richmond area out into the future ( 2015 & 2020). 12 Richmond Nonattainment Reclassification Petition Ozone Precursor Emissions Analysis INTRODUCTION The Department of Environmental Quality periodically develops comprehensive air pollutant emissions inventories to support air quality planning and tracking purposes. A statewide base year 2002 ozone precursor inventory, currently in draft form, has been developed to serve as a baseline for 8 hour ozone planning purposes. A summary of this inventory and projected emissions to 2007 for the Richmond area are provided in this analysis to document the anticipated emissions reductions expected from existing and future state and federal control programs. These controls can be categorized as follows:

  Stationary & Area Source Controls  In addition NOX SIP Call program which will produce significant utility NOX emission reductions, the EPA has developed a number of control programs to address smaller " area" sources of emissions that are significant contributors to ozone formation. These programs reduce emissions from such sources as industrial/ architectural paints, vehicle paints, metal cleaning products, and selected consumer products.

  Motor Vehicle Controls  Significant progress continues in reducing motor vehicle emissions. Several federal programs have established more stringent engine, vehicle and fuel standards for cars, sport utility vehicles, and large trucks. These programs combined are expected to produce progressively larger emission reductions over the next twenty years as new vehicles replace older ones.

  Non Road Vehicle & Equipment Standards  The category of " non road" sources that covers everything from lawn & garden equipment to aircraft, has become a significant source of air pollutant emissions. In response, EPA has adopted a series of strategies to address these sources. These programs include engine emission standards for lawn & garden equipment, construction equipment, boat engines, and locomotives.

2002 BASELINE EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR RICHMOND Provided below is a summary of the 2002 baseline ozone season daily emissions inventory of VOC and NOX for the Richmond nonattainment area:

VOC Emissions:

CATEGORY DAILY EMISSIONS Point 27.94 tons Area 45.71 tons Nonroad 19.64 tons Mobile 46.31 tons TOTAL: 139.60 tons Point Area Nonroad Mobile 33% 20%

18% 33% 13 NOX Emissions:

CATEGORY DAILY EMISSIONS Point 120.80 tons Area 25.62 tons Nonroad 19.81 tons Mobile 72.29 tons TOTAL: 238.51 tons 2007 PROJECTED EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR RICHMOND Provided below is a summary of the 2007 projected ozone season daily emissions inventory of VOC and NOX for the Richmond nonattainment area:

VOC Emissions:

CATEGORY DAILY EMISSIONS Point 30.18 tons Area 46.70 tons Nonroad 14.14 tons Mobile 32.16 tons TOTAL: 123.17 tons NOX Emissions:

CATEGORY DAILY EMISSIONS Point 81.63 tons Area 26.60 tons Nonroad 17.26 tons Mobile 50.82 tons TOTAL: 176.31 tons Point Area Nonroad Mobile 51% 30%

11% 8%

Point Area Nonroad Mobile 26% 25%

11% 38%

Point Area Nonroad Mobile 46% 29%

15% 10% 14 OZONE PRECURSOR EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN RICHMOND BY 2007 Provided below is a summary of the anticipated emission reductions in ozone season daily emissions of VOC and NOX for the Richmond nonattainment area by 2007:

As can be seen from the graph above, it is predicted that a 12% reduction in VOC emissions and 26% reduction in NOX emissions will occur in the Richmond nonattainment area by 2007 due to the implementation of state and federal control measures.

CONCLUSIONS The emissions analysis presented supports the petition for the reclassification of the Richmond 8 hour ozone nonattainment area to a marginal nonattainment area in that:

  Significant reductions in both VOC and NOX emissions are expected in the Richmond area between 2002 and 2007.

  These local reductions, combined with ozone transport reduction from other areas, are likely to be sufficient to bring the area into compliance with the 8 hour ozone standard.

  The predicted reductions from many of these control measures will continue to increase beyond the 2007 timeframe. 0 50 100 150 200 250 Tons Per Day 2002 2007 Inventory year VOCs NOx  12%  26%


[Federal Register: October 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 209)]
[Notices]
[Page 61410]
[DOCID:fr30oc07-72]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension: Rule 206(4)-7, SEC File No. 270-523, OMB Control No.
3235-0585.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Investment
Advisers Act rule 206(4)-7 (17 CFR 275.206(4)-7), Compliance procedures
and practices.'' Rule 206(4)-7 requires each investment adviser
registered with the Commission to (i) adopt and implement internal
compliance policies and procedures, (ii) review those policies and
procedures annually, (iii) designate a chief compliance officer, and
(iv) maintain certain compliance records. The rule is designed to
protect investors by fostering better compliance with the securities
laws. The collection of information under rule 206(4)-7 is necessary to
assure that investment advisers maintain comprehensive internal
programs that promote the advisers' compliance with the Advisers Act.
The information collected under this rule may also assist Commission
staff in assessing investment advisers' compliance programs.
    This collection of information is mandatory. The information
collected pursuant to the rule 206(4)-7 is reviewed by the Commission's
examination staff. It will be accorded the same level of
confidentiality accorded to other responses provided to the Commission
in the context of its examination and oversight program.
    The respondents are investment advisers registered with the
Commission. Our latest data indicate that there were 10,817 advisers
registered with the Commission as of September 30, 2007. The Commission
has estimated that compliance with rule 206(4)-7 imposes a burden of
approximately 80 hours per respondent. Based on this figure, the
Commission estimates a total annual burden of 865,360 hours for this
documentation of information.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the documentation of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and
suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: October 24, 2007.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-21282 Filed 10-29-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6102-6103]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02160]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Changes in
Permissible Stage 2 Airplane Operations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. This information will be used to issue special flight
authorizations for non-revenue transports and non-transport jet
operations of Stage 2 airplanes at U.S. airports. Only a minimal amount
of data is requested to identify the affected parties and determine
whether the purpose for the flight is one of those enumerated by law.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by March 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronda Thompson at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0652.
    Title: Changes in Permissible Stage 2 Airplane Operations.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 1050-8.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on November 10, 2015 (80 FR 69773). This collection is
required under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (as amended
by Pub. L. 106-113) and the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.
This information is used by the FAA to issue special flight
authorizations for nonrevenue operations of transports and non-
transport jet Stage 2 airplanes at U.S. airports. Only minimal amount
of data is requested to identify the affected parties and determine
whether the purpose for the flight is one of the ones enumerated in the
law.

    Respondents: Approximately 50 applicants.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 12.5 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 27, 2016.
Ronda Thompson,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Performance, Policy &
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2016-02160 Filed 2-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


as ``14A Executive Compensation,'' votes pursuant to Section 14A(a)(2)
of the Exchange Act would be identified as ``14A Executive Compensation
Vote Frequency,'' and votes pursuant to Section 14A(b) of the Exchange
Act would be identified as ``14A Extraordinary Transaction Executive
Compensation.''
    For purposes of the cost/benefit analysis, we have estimated that
the aggregate annual costs imposed by the proposed rule and form
amendments on institutional investment managers would be approximately
$13.5 million.\139\ We have further estimated that the aggregate annual
costs imposed by the proposed form amendments on funds would be
approximately $2.5 million.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ See supra note 128 and accompanying text.
    \140\ See supra note 130 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission solicits comment on these estimates and the
anticipated effect the proposed amendments would have on small entities
subject to the rule.

E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules

    The Commission believes that there are no rules that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule and rule and form
amendments.

F. Significant Alternatives

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act directs us to consider significant
alternatives that would accomplish our stated objective, while
minimizing any significant adverse impact on small issuers. In
connection with the proposed amendments, the Commission considered the
following alternatives: (i) The establishment of differing compliance
or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the
resources available to small entities; (ii) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting
requirements under the proposed amendments for small entities; (iii)
the use of performance rather than design standards; and (iv) an
exemption from coverage of the proposed amendments, or any part
thereof, for small entities.
    The Commission believes that, at the present time, special
compliance or

reporting requirements for small entities, or an exemption from
coverage for small entities, would not be appropriate or consistent
with investor protection. Proposed new rule 14Ad-1 and amendments to
Form N-PX, if adopted, would apply to institutional investment managers
that are required to file reports under Section 13(f) of the Exchange
Act. Our proposal is intended to implement the disclosure required by
Section 14A(d) of the Exchange Act, which was added by Section 951 of
the Dodd-Frank Act. In light of the congressional mandate, we believe
it is important for the disclosure to apply to all institutional
investment managers that are required to file reports under Section
13(f) of the Exchange Act, regardless of their size.
    The proposed amendments to Form N-PX would also apply to funds. In
the case of Section 14A Votes, we believe this is necessary to achieve
consistent reporting with respect to institutional investment manager
votes because a portion of the votes of those managers will be reported
on Form N-PX reports filed by funds under the provisions to prevent
duplicative reporting. Therefore, unless we require funds to report
this information, the record of institutional investment managers will
be incomplete. In addition, information about the magnitude of a
reporting person's voting power and the number of votes cast
contributes to the transparency of proxy voting. For that reason, we
are also proposing to extend the new requirements to the complete proxy
voting records of funds. This is intended to improve transparency of
fund proxy voting records and enable fund shareholders to better
monitor their funds' involvement in the governance activities of
portfolio companies. Therefore, we believe it is important for the
proposed amendments to apply to all funds, regardless of size.
    We have endeavored through the proposed amendments to Form N-PX to
minimize the regulatory burden on institutional investment managers and
funds, including small entities, while meeting our regulatory
objectives. Form N-PX is supported by a number of third-party service
providers and is already used by the many institutional investment
managers who currently file Form N-PX reports on behalf of funds. We
have endeavored to clarify, consolidate, and simplify the requirements
applicable to institutional investment managers and funds, including
those that are small entities. Finally, we do not consider the use of
performance rather than design standards to be consistent with the
congressional mandate in the Dodd-Frank Act.

G. Request for Comment

    The Commission encourages the submission of written comments with
respect to any aspect of this analysis. Comment is specifically
requested on the number of small entities that would be subject to the
proposed rule and form amendments and the likely impact of the proposal
on those small entities. Commenters are asked to describe the nature of
any impact and provide empirical data supporting the extent of the
impact. These comments will be considered in the preparation of the
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if the proposed amendments are
adopted and will be placed in the same public file as comments on the
proposed amendments themselves.

VIII. Consideration of Impact on the Economy

    For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 (``SBREFA''),\141\ a rule is ``major'' if it results or is
likely to result in:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ Public Law 104-21, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
     A major increase in costs or prices for consumers or
individual industries; or
     Significant adverse effects on competition, investment, or
innovation.
    We request comment on whether our proposal would be a ``major
rule'' for purposes of SBREFA. We solicit comment and empirical data
on:
     The potential effect on the U.S. economy on an annual
basis;
     Any potential increase in costs or prices for consumers or
individual industries; and
     Any potential effect on competition, investment, or
innovation.

IX. Statutory Authority

    The Commission is proposing new rule 14Ad-1 pursuant to the
authority set forth in Sections 13, 23(a), 24, and 36 of the Exchange
Act [15 U.S.C. 78m, 78w(a), 78x, and 78mm] and Section 951(d) of the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The
Commission is proposing amendments to rule 30b1-4 pursuant to the
authority set forth in Section 951(d) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act and Sections 8, 30, 31, 38, and 45
of the Investment Company Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30, 80a-37,
and 80a-44]. The Commission is proposing amendments to Form N-PX
pursuant to the authority set forth in Sections 13, 23(a), 24, and 36
of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78m, 78w(a), 78x, and 78mm]; Section
951(d) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act; and Sections 8, 30, 31, 38, and 45 of the Investment Company Act
[15 U.S.C. 80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30, 80a-37, and 80a-44].

List of Subjects

17 CFR Parts 240 and 249

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

17 CFR Parts 270 and 274

    Investment companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Securities.

Text of Proposed Rule and Form Amendments

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Commission proposes to
amend Title 17, Chapter II, of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:

PART 240--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934

    1. The authority citation for part 240 is amended by adding the
following citation in numerical order to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3,
77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i,
78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78p, 78q, 78s, 78u-5,
78w, 78x, 78ll, 78mm, 80a- 20, 80a-23, 80a-29, 80a-37, 80b-3, 80b-4,
80b-11, and 7201 et seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350 and 12 U.S.C.
5221(e)(3) unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
    Section 240.14Ad-1 is also issued under sec. 951(d), Pub. L. 111-
203, 124 Stat. 1376.
* * * * *
    2. Section 240.14Ad-1 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  240.14Ad-1  Report of proxy voting record.

    (a) Subject to paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, every
institutional investment manager (as that term is defined in section
13(f)(6)(A) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78m(f)(6)(A))) that is required to
file reports under section 13(f) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78m(f)) shall
file an annual report on Form N-PX (Sec. Sec.  249.326 and 274.129 of
this chapter) not later than August 31 of each year, for the most
recent twelve-month period ended June 30, containing the institutional
investment manager's proxy voting record for each shareholder vote
pursuant to sections 14A(a) and (b) of the Act (15 U.S.C.

78n-1(a) and (b)) with respect to which the manager, whether directly
or indirectly, through any contract, arrangement, understanding,
relationship, or otherwise, had or shared the power to vote, or to
direct the voting of, any security.
    (b) An institutional investment manager is not required to file a
report on Form N-PX (Sec. Sec.  249.326 and 274.129 of this chapter)
for the twelve-month period ending June 30 of the calendar year in
which the manager's initial filing on Form 13F (Sec.  249.325 of this
chapter) is due pursuant to Sec.  240.13f-1 of this part. For purposes
of this paragraph, ``initial filing'' on Form 13F means any quarterly
filing on Form 13F if no filing on Form 13F was required for the
immediately preceding calendar quarter.
    (c) An institutional investment manager is not required to file a
report on Form N-PX (Sec. Sec.  249.326 and 274.129 of this chapter)
with respect to any shareholder vote at a meeting that occurs after
September 30 of the calendar year in which the manager's final filing
on Form 13F (Sec.  249.325 of this chapter) is due pursuant to Sec.
240.13f-1 of this part. An institutional investment manager is required
to file a Form N-PX for the period July 1 through September 30 of the
calendar year in which the manager's final filing on Form 13F is due
pursuant to Sec.  240.13f-1 of this part; this filing is required to be
made not later than February 28 of the immediately following calendar
year. For purposes of this paragraph, ``final filing'' on Form 13F
means any quarterly filing on Form 13F if no filing on Form 13F is
required for the immediately subsequent calendar quarter.

PART 249--FORMS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

    3. The authority citation for part 249 is amended by adding the
following citation in numerical order to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. and 7201 et seq.; and 18
U.S.C. 1350, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
    Section 249.326 is also issued under sec. 951(d), Pub. L. 111-203,
124 Stat. 1376.
* * * * *
    4. The heading for Subpart D is revised to read as follows:

Subpart D--Forms for Annual and Other Reports of Issuers and Other
Persons Required Under Sections 13, 14A, and 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934

    5. Section 249.326 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  249.326  Form N-PX, annual report of proxy voting record.

    This form shall be used by institutional investment managers to
file an annual report pursuant to Sec.  240.14Ad-1 of this chapter
containing the manager's proxy voting record.

    Note:  The text of Form N-PX does not, and these amendments will
not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

PART 270--RULES AND REGULATIONS, INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940

    6. The authority citation for part 270 is amended by adding the
following citation in numerical order to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq., 80a-34(d), 80a-37, and 80a-
39, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
    Section 270.30b1-4 is also issued under sec. 951(d), Pub. L.
111-203, 124 Stat. 1376.
* * * * *

Sec.  270.30b1-4

    7. Section 270.30b1-4 is amended by removing the phrase ``Form N-PX
(Sec.  274.129 of this chapter)'' and adding in its place ``Form N-PX
(Sec. Sec.  249.326 and 274.129 of this chapter)''.

PART 274--FORMS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940

    8. The authority citation for part 274 is amended by adding the
following citation in numerical order to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s, 78c(b), 78l, 78m,
78n, 78o(d), 80a-8, 80a-24, 80a-26, and 80a-29, unless otherwise
noted.
* * * * *
    Section 274.129 is also issued under sec. 951(d), Pub. L. 111-
203, 124 Stat. 1376.
* * * * *
    9. The heading of Sec.  274.129 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  274.129  Form N-PX, annual report of proxy voting record.

* * * * *
    10. Form N-PX (referenced in Sec. Sec.  249.326 and 274.129) is
revised to read as follows:

    Note: The text of Form N-PX does not, and these amendments will
not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

OMB APPROVAL
    OMB Number:
    Expires:
    Estimated average burden
    hours per response

Form N-PX

Annual Report of Proxy Voting Record

General Instructions

A. Rule as to Use of Form N-PX.

    Form N-PX is to be used for reports pursuant to Section 30 of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Investment Company Act'') and Rule
30b1-4 under the Investment Company Act (17 CFR 270.30b1-4) by all
registered management investment companies, other than small business
investment companies registered on Form N-5, to file their complete
proxy voting record. Form N-PX is also to be used for reports pursuant
to Section 14A(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act'') and Rule 14Ad-1 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14Ad-1) by
institutional investment managers subject to Section 13(f) of the
Exchange Act (``Institutional Managers'') to file their proxy voting
record regarding votes pursuant to Sections 14A(a) and (b) of the
Exchange Act. Form N-PX is to be filed not later than August 31 of each
year for the most recent twelve-month period ended June 30.
    An Institutional Manager is not required to file a report on Form
N-PX for the twelve-month period ending June 30 of the calendar year in
which the manager's initial filing on Form 13F is due pursuant to Rule
13f-1 under the Exchange Act. An Institutional Manager is not required
to file a report on Form N-PX with respect to any shareholder vote at a
meeting that occurs after September 30 of the calendar year in which
the manager's final filing on Form 13F is due pursuant to Rule 13f-1
under the Exchange Act. An Institutional Manager is required to file a
Form N-PX for the period July 1 through September 30 of the calendar
year in which the manager's final filing on Form 13F is due pursuant to
Rule 13f-1 under the Exchange Act; this filing is required to be made
not later than February 28 of the immediately following calendar year.
For purposes of this paragraph, an ``initial filing'' on Form 13F means
any quarterly filing on Form 13F if no filing on Form 13F was required
for the immediately preceding calendar quarter, and ``final filing'' on
Form 13F means any quarterly filing on

Form 13F if no filing on Form 13F is required for the immediately
subsequent calendar quarter.

B. Application of General Rules and Regulations.

    The General Rules and Regulations under the Investment Company Act
and the Exchange Act contain certain general requirements that are
applicable to reporting on any form under those Acts. These general
requirements should be carefully read and observed in the preparation
and filing of reports on this form, except that any provision in the
form or in these instructions shall be controlling.

C. Preparation of Report.

    1. This form is not to be used as a blank form to be filled in, but
only as a guide in preparing the report in accordance with Rules 12b-11
(17 CFR 240.12b-11) and 12b-12 (17 CFR 240.12b-12) under the Exchange
Act (for reports filed by Institutional Managers) and Rules 8b-11 (17
CFR 270.8b-11) and 8b-12 (17 CFR 270.8b-12) under the Investment
Company Act (for reports filed by registered management investment
companies). The Commission does not furnish blank copies of this form
to be filled in for filing.
    2. The instructions to this form are not to be filed with the
report. When preparing the report, omit all bracketed text.

D. Rules To Prevent Duplicative Reporting.

    1. If two or more Institutional Managers, each of which is required
by Rule 14Ad-1 to file a report on Form N-PX for the reporting period,
shared the power to vote, or to direct the voting of, the same
securities on a vote pursuant to Section 14A(a) or (b) of the Exchange
Act, only one such Institutional Manager must include the information
regarding that vote in its report on Form N-PX.
    2. An Institutional Manager is not required to report proxy votes
that are reported on a Form N-PX report that is filed by a registered
management investment company.
    3. An Institutional Manager that had or shared the power to vote,
or to direct the voting of, any security with respect to proxy votes
that are reported by another Institutional Manager or Managers pursuant
to General Instruction D.1, or are reported on a Form N-PX report filed
by a registered management investment company, must identify each
Institutional Manager and registered management investment company
reporting on its behalf in the manner described in Special Instruction
B.2.c. and d.
    4. An Institutional Manager reporting proxy votes that are subject
to shared voting power pursuant to Instruction D.1 must identify any
other Institutional Managers on whose behalf the filing is made in the
manner described in Special Instruction C.2.
    5. A registered management investment company reporting proxy votes
that would otherwise be required to be reported by an Institutional
Manager must identify any Institutional Managers on whose behalf the
filing is made in the manner described in Special Instruction C.2.

E. Signature and Filing of Report.

    1. If the report is filed in paper pursuant to a hardship exemption
from electronic filing (see Item 201 et seq. of Regulation S-T (17 CFR
232.201 et seq.)), eight complete copies of the report shall be filed
with the Commission. At least one complete copy of the report filed
with the Commission must be manually signed. Copies not manually signed
must bear typed or printed signatures.
    2. a. For reports filed by registered management investment
companies, the report must be signed on behalf of the registered
management investment company by its principal executive officer or
officers. For reports filed by Institutional Managers, the report must
be signed on behalf of the Institutional Manager by an authorized
person.
    b. The name and title of each person who signs the report shall be
typed or printed beneath his or her signature. Attention is directed to
Rule 12b-11 under the Exchange Act and Rule 8b-11 under the Investment
Company Act concerning manual signatures and signatures pursuant to
powers of attorney.

Special Instructions

A. Organization of Form N-PX

    1. This form consists of three parts: the Form N-PX Cover Page
(``Cover Page''), the Form N-PX Summary Page (``Summary Page''), and
the proxy voting information required by the form (``Proxy Voting
Information'').
    2. Present the Cover Page and the Summary Page information in the
format and order provided in the form. Do not include any additional
information on the Cover Page or Summary Page.

B. Cover Page

    1. Amendments to a Form N-PX report must either restate the Form N-
PX report in its entirety or include only proxy voting information that
is being reported in addition to the information already reported in a
current public Form N-PX report for the same period. If the Form N-PX
report is filed as an amendment, then the reporting person must check
the amendment box on the Cover Page, enter the amendment number, and
check the appropriate box to indicate whether the amendment (a) is a
restatement or (b) adds new Proxy Voting Information. Each amendment
must include a complete Cover Page and, if applicable, a Summary Page.
    2. Designate the Report Type for the Form N-PX report by checking
the appropriate box in the Report Type section of the Cover Page, and
include, where applicable, the List of Other Persons Reporting for this
Manager (on the Cover Page), the Summary Page, and the Proxy Voting
Information, as follows:
    a. For a report by a registered management investment company,
check the box for Report Type ``Registered Management Investment
Company Report,'' omit from the Cover Page the List of Other Persons
Reporting for this Manager, and include both the Summary Page and the
Proxy Voting Information.
    b. For a report by an Institutional Manager that includes all proxy
votes required to be reported by the Institutional Manager, check the
box for Report Type ``Institutional Manager Voting Report,'' omit from
the Cover Page the List of Other Persons Reporting for this Manager,
and include both the Summary Page and the Proxy Voting Information.
    c. For a report by an Institutional Manager, when all proxy votes
required to be reported by the Institutional Manager are reported by
another Institutional Manager or Managers or by one or more registered
management investment companies, check the box for Report Type
``Institutional Manager Notice,'' include (on the Cover Page) the List
of Other Persons Reporting for this Manager, and file the Cover Page
and required signature only.
    d. For a report by an Institutional Manager, if only part of the
proxy votes required to be reported by the Institutional Manager are
reported by another Institutional Manager or Managers or one or more
registered management investment companies, check the box for Report
Type ``Institutional Manager Combination Report,'' include (on the
Cover Page) the List of Other Persons Reporting for this Manager, and
include both the Summary Page and the Proxy Voting Information.

C. Summary Page

    1. Include on the Summary Page the number of included Institutional
Managers. Enter as the number of included Institutional Managers the
total number of Institutional Managers listed in the list of included
Institutional Managers on the Summary Page, and do not count the
reporting person filing this report. See Special Instruction C.2. If
none, enter the number zero (``0'').
    2. Include on the Summary Page the list of included Institutional
Managers. Use the title, column headings, and format provided.
    a. If this Form N-PX report does not report the proxy votes of any
Institutional Manager other than the reporting person, enter the word
``NONE'' under the title and omit the column headings and list entries.
    b. If this Form N-PX report reports the proxy votes of one or more
Institutional Managers other than the reporting person, enter in the
list of included Institutional Managers all such Institutional Managers
together with their respective Form 13F file numbers, if known. (The
Form 13F file numbers are assigned to Institutional Managers when they
file their first Form 13F.) Assign a number to each Institutional
Manager in the list of included Institutional Managers, and present the
list in sequential order. The numbers need not be consecutive. Do not
include the reporting person filing this report.

D. Proxy Voting Information

    1. Disclose the information required by Item 1 in the order
presented in paragraphs (a)-(k) of Item 1.
    2. The exchange ticker symbol or CUSIP number required by paragraph
(b) or (c) of Item 1 may be omitted if it is not available through
reasonably practicable means, e.g., in the case of certain securities
of foreign issuers.
    3. Item 1(e) requires a brief identification of the matter for all
matters. In responding to Item 1(e), the reporting person should
identify any matter that is a shareholder vote pursuant to Section 14A
of the Exchange Act in the following manner:
    a. Identify a Section 14A(a)(1) vote as ``14A Executive
Compensation.''
    b. Identify a Section 14A(a)(2) vote as ``14A Executive
Compensation Vote Frequency.''
    c. Identify a Section 14A(b) vote as ``14A Extraordinary
Transaction Executive Compensation.''
    4. In responding to Item 1(g), an Institutional Manager must report
the number of shares over which the Institutional Manager had sole
voting power separately from the number of shares over which the
Institutional Manager had shared voting power. In responding to Item
1(g), an Institutional Manager also must separately report shares when
the groups of Institutional Managers who share voting power are
different. For example, if the reporting Institutional Manager shares
voting power with respect to 10,000 shares with Manager A and shares
voting power with respect to 50,000 shares with Managers A and B, then
the groups of 10,000 and 50,000 shares must be separately reported. In
responding to Item 1(g), a registered management investment company
must separately report shares with respect to which different
Institutional Managers or groups of Institutional Managers have or
share voting power.
    5. In the case of a reporting person that is a registered
management investment company that offers multiple series of shares,
provide the information required by Item 1 separately for each series.
The term ``series'' means shares offered by a registered management
investment company that represent undivided interests in a portfolio of
investments and that are preferred over all other series of shares for
assets specifically allocated to that series in accordance with Rule
18f-2(a) under the Investment Company Act (17 CFR 270.18f-2(a)).

Confidential Treatment Instructions

    1. A reporting person should make requests for confidential
treatment of information reported on this form in accordance with Rule
24b-2 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.24b-2).
    2. Paragraph (b) of Rule 24b-2 requires a person filing
confidential information with the Commission to indicate at the
appropriate place in the public filing that the confidential portion
has been so omitted and filed separately with the Commission. A
reporting person should comply with this provision by including on the
Summary Page, after the number of included Institutional Managers and
prior to the list of included Institutional Managers, a statement that
confidential information has been omitted from the public Form N-PX
report and filed separately with the Commission.
    3. A reporting person must file in paper, in accordance with Rule
101(c)(1)(i) of Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.101(c)(1)(i)), all requests
for and information subject to the request for confidential treatment.
If a reporting person requests confidential treatment with respect to
information required to be reported on Form N-PX, the reporting person
must file in paper with the Secretary of the Commission an original and
two copies of the Form N-PX reporting information for which the
reporting person requests confidential treatment.
    4. A reporting person requesting confidential treatment must
provide enough factual support for its request to enable the Commission
to make an informed judgment as to the merits of the request. If a
request for confidential treatment of information filed on Form N-PX
relates to a request for confidential treatment of information included
in an Institutional Manager's filing on Form 13F, the Institutional
Manager should so state and identify the related request. In such
cases, the Institutional Manager need not repeat the analysis set forth
in the request for confidential treatment in connection with the Form
13F filing. The Institutional Manager's request, however, must explain
whether and, if so, how the Form N-PX and Form 13F confidential
treatment requests are related.
    5. State the period of time for which confidential treatment of the
proxy voting information is requested. The time period specified may
not exceed one (1) year from the date that the Form N-PX report is
required to be filed with the Commission. The request must include a
justification of the time period for which confidential treatment is
requested, as required by Rule 24b-2(b)(2)(ii).
    6. At the expiration of the period for which confidential treatment
has been granted (the ``Expiration Date''), the Commission, without
additional notice to the reporting person, will make the proxy voting
information public unless a de novo request for confidential treatment
of the information that meets the requirements of Rule 24b-2 and these
Confidential Treatment Instructions is filed with the Commission at
least fourteen (14) days in advance of the Expiration Date.
    7. Upon the final adverse disposition of a request for confidential
treatment, or upon the expiration of the confidential treatment
previously granted for a filing, unless a hardship exemption is
available, the reporting person must submit electronically, within six
(6) business days of the expiration or notification of the final
disposition, as applicable, an amendment to its publicly filed Form N-
PX report that includes the proxy voting information as to which the
Commission denied confidential treatment or for which confidential
treatment has expired. An amendment filed under such circumstances must
not be a restatement; the reporting

person must designate it as an amendment which adds new proxy voting
information. The reporting person must include at the top of the Form
N-PX Cover Page the following legend to correctly designate the type of
filing being made:
    This filing lists proxy vote information reported on the Form N-PX
filed on (date) pursuant to a request for confidential treatment and
for which (that request was denied/confidential treatment expired) on
(date).

Paperwork Reduction Act Information

    Form N-PX is to be used by a registered management investment
company, other than a small business investment company registered on
Form N-5 (17 CFR 239.24 and 274.5), to file reports with the Commission
pursuant to Section 30 of the Investment Company Act and Rule 30b1-4
thereunder. Form N-PX is also to be used by an institutional investment
manager subject to Section 13(f) of the Exchange Act to file reports
with the Commission as required by Section 14A(d) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 14Ad-1 thereunder. Form N-PX is to be filed not later than
August 31 of each year, containing the reporting person's proxy voting
record for the most recent twelve-month period ended June 30. The
Commission may use the information provided on Form N-PX in its
regulatory, disclosure review, inspection, and policymaking roles.
    Registered management investment companies and institutional
investment managers are required to disclose the information specified
by Form N-PX, and the Commission will make this information public.
Registered management investment companies and institutional investment
managers are not required to respond to the collection of information
contained in Form N-PX unless the Form displays a currently valid
Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') control number. Please direct
comments concerning the accuracy of the information collection burden
estimate and any suggestions for reducing the burden to the Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549-1090. The OMB has reviewed this collection of information under
the clearance requirements of 44 U.S.C. 3507.

Form N-PX

Annual Report of Proxy Voting Record

Form N-PX Cover Page

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

(Name of reporting person) (For registered management investment
companies, provide exact name of registrant as specified in charter)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip code)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

(Name and address of agent for service)
    Telephone number of reporting person, including area code: --------
--------
    Report for the [year ended June 30, ----] [period July 1, ---- to
September 30, ----]
    Commission Investment Company Act or Form 13F File Number: [811- ]
[28- ]----
    Check here if amendment [ballot]; Amendment number: --------

    This Amendment (check only one):

[ballot] is a restatement.
[ballot] adds new proxy voting entries.

    Report Type (check only one):

[ballot] Registered Management Investment Company Report.
[ballot] Institutional Manager Voting Report (Check here if all proxy
votes of this reporting manager are reported in this report.)
[ballot] Institutional Manager Notice (Check here if no proxy votes
reported are in this report, and all proxy votes are reported by other
reporting person(s).)
[ballot] Institutional Manager Combination Report (Check here if a
portion of the proxy votes for this reporting manager are reported in
this report and a portion are reported by other reporting person(s).)

    List of Other Persons Reporting for this Manager:
    [If there are no entries in this list, omit this section.]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Investment Company Act or Form 13F File Number            Name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[811- ] [28- ]....................................  ....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [Repeat as necessary.]

FORM N-PX SUMMARY PAGE

    Number of Included Institutional Managers: ----
    List of Included Institutional Managers:
    Provide a numbered list of the name(s) and 13F file number(s) of
all Institutional Managers with respect to which this report is filed,
other than the reporting person filing this report.
    [If there are no entries in this list, state ``NONE'' and omit the
column headings and list entries.]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 No.                      Form 13F  File No.                           Name
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       28-.....................  ...............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [Repeat as necessary.]

Form N-PX

Item 1. Proxy Voting Record.

    If the reporting person is a registered management investment
company, disclose the following information for each matter relating to
a portfolio security considered at any shareholder meeting held during
the period covered by the report and with respect to which the
reporting person was entitled to vote. If the reporting person is an
Institutional Manager, disclose the following information for each
shareholder vote pursuant to Sections 14A(a) and (b) of the Exchange
Act considered at any shareholder meeting held during the period
covered by the report and with respect to which the reporting person,
whether directly or indirectly, through any contract, arrangement,
understanding, relationship, or otherwise, had or shared the power to
vote, or to direct the voting of, any security. If a reporting person
does not have any proxy votes to report for the reporting period, the
reporting person shall file a report with the Commission stating that
the reporting person does not have proxy votes to report.
    (a) The name of the issuer of the security;
    (b) The exchange ticker symbol of the security;
    (c) The Council on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures
(``CUSIP'') number for the security;
    (d) The shareholder meeting date;
    (e) A brief identification of the matter voted on;
    (f) For reports filed by registered management investment
companies, disclose whether the matter was proposed by the issuer or by
a security holder;
    (g) The number of shares the reporting person was entitled to vote
(for registered management investment

companies) or had or shared voting power over (for Institutional
Managers);
    (h) The number of shares in (g) that were voted;
    (i) How the reporting person voted the shares in (h) (e.g., for or
against proposal, or abstain; for or withhold regarding election of
directors) and, if the votes were cast in multiple manners (e.g., for
and against), the number of shares voted in each manner;
    (j) Whether the votes disclosed in (i) represented votes for or
against management's recommendation; and
    (k) Identify each Institutional Manager on whose behalf this Form
N-PX report is being filed (other than the reporting person) and who
had or shared the power to vote, or to direct the voting of, the
securities voted by entering the number assigned to the Institutional
Manager in the List of Included Managers.

Signature

    [See General Instruction E]
    Pursuant to the requirements of the [Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (for Institutional Managers)] [Investment Company Act of 1940 (for
registered management investment companies)], the reporting person has
duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized.

(Reporting Person)-----------------------------------------------------

By (Signature and Title)*----------------------------------------------

Date-------------------------------------------------------------------

* Print the name and title of each signing officer under his or her
signature.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: October 18, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-26536 Filed 10-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 72679]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29693]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 510

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0002]

New Animal Drugs; Change of Sponsor's Name and Address

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect a change of sponsor's name from Belcher
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC. The sponsor's
mailing address will also be changed.

DATES: This rule is effective November 26, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven D. Vaughn, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-100), Food and Drug Administration, 7520
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855;<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Belcher Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 12393 Belcher
Rd., suite 420, Largo, FL 33773 has informed FDA that it has changed
its name and address to Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 6911 Bryan Dairy
Rd., Largo, FL 33777. Accordingly, the Agency is amending the
regulations in 21 CFR 510.600 to reflect this change.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 510

    Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 510 is
amended as follows:

PART 510--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 510 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.

0
2. In Sec.  510.600, in the table in paragraph (c)(1), revise the entry
for ``Belcher Pharmaceuticals, Inc.''; and in the table in paragraph
(c)(2), revise the entry for ``062250'' to read as follows:

Sec.  510.600  Names, addresses, and drug labeler codes of sponsors of
approved applications.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Firm name and address                  Drug labeler code
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 6911 Bryan     062250
 Dairy Rd., Largo, FL 33777.

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Drug labeler code                  Firm name and address
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
062250............................  Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 6911
                                     Bryan Dairy Rd., Largo, FL 33777.

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: November 19, 2010.
Elizabeth Rettie,
Deputy Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for
Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 2010-29693 Filed 11-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: June 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 105)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31129-31131]
[DOCID:fr01jn06-26]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0354; FRL-8177-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Ohio; Proposal To Approve Revision to Ohio State Implementation Plan To
Rescind Oxides of Nitrogen Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Ohio State
Implementation Plan (SIP) to rescind a rule which originally affected
stationary combustion sources located within Priority I regions of the
State and, new sources regardless of location. The rule revision we are
proposing to approve also applies to nitric acid manufacture. EPA is
proposing to approve this rule rescission because we agree with Ohio
that the rescinded rule is no longer the limiting regulation for any
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emission units in the State. The
rule was originally approved over 30 years ago and has been superseded
by a number of State regulations and Federal Regulations of equivalent
or more stringent nature. The Ohio NOX SIP Call rules and
Federal emissions standards for utility and industrial units all have
greater potential for reducing emissions of NOX and
improving human health than does the State's rescinded rule. Rescinding
this rule removes any confusion in the affected community over which
rule applies to NOX sources in Ohio. EPA believes that an
approval of this rule revision request would have no adverse effect on
air quality.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 3, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0354, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section,
(AR-18J), Air Program Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
     Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, (AR-18J), Air Program Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional
Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-0354. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone John Paskevicz, Engineer, at
(312) 886-6084 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Paskevicz, Engineer, Criteria
Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. Who Is Affected by This Rule?
III. What Is the Impact on Air Quality Due to the Rescission of this
Rule?
IV. Did the Public Have Opportunity To Review and Make Comment on
the State's Action?
V. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of

the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. Who Is Affected by This Rule?

    In taking the action to rescind Ohio Administrative Code (OAC)
3745-23-06, the State of Ohio has determined that no one is affected by
this rule. We agree. The State reviewed its NOX plan and
found that this 30-year old rule no longer applies to any source in the
State. The rule has been made redundant and out-of-date by a series of
rulemakings over the past years. Most recently, the State's
NOX SIP Call rule which reduces NOX emissions, a
summertime ozone precursor, has a greater health benefit because the
emission rates associated with the NOX SIP Call are
significantly more stringent than OAC 3745-23-06. Similarly, 40 CFR
Part 60, subpart Da and subpart G emission rates are more stringent
than the rule Ohio is rescinding.

III. What Is the Impact on Air Quality Due to the Rescission of This
Rule?

    The State noted that only one unit (a boiler at the General Motors
Corporation Moraine Assembly Plant) was affected by this rule, the only
unit in the State in which the Title V permit referenced this rule.
This source was closed permanently in August 2003. The closure of that
unit reduced the emissions of NOX into the atmosphere
resulting in a reduction of ozone precursor during the summertime and
the reduction of acid rain precursor during the other seasons. No other
source permits issued by Ohio rely on this rule to control emissions of
NOX.

IV. Did the Public Have Opportunity To Review and Make Comment on the
State's Action?

    Yes. On December 1, 2004, a public hearing was held in Columbus,
Ohio. No comments were made at the hearing, and no comments were
received from the public during the comment period. Comment was
received from a staff member of Ohio EPA Division of Air Pollution
Control. The commenter noted that for one type of unit the rule is more

stringent than the Federal performance standard for the type of fuel
burned. The State responded by writing that Ohio relies on the Federal
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) to set standards for
appropriate units and the State emission standards are not intended to
be more restrictive than NSPS. Ohio statute prohibits State rules more
stringent than Federal rules. While this action appears to be a
relaxation for an oil-fired unit, the backstop is the Federal NSPS.
However, as comments were being considered by the State, the source
(General Motors Corporation) shut down the Moraine Assembly Plant
boiler. This unit was the only boiler affected by the rescinded rule.
All other existing boilers of 250 million BTU per hour or larger in
size are covered by the NOX SIP Call and have emissions caps
during the ozone season.

V. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    We are proposing to approve the State's request to rescind the rule
OAC 3745-23-06. A review of the Ohio Title V permit list shows that the
only permit still in the system which references this rule is for a 250
million BTU boiler formerly owned by the General Motors Corporation
(GM). The GM Moraine assembly plant permit applies to a gas fired
boiler (with oil back-up) which ceased operation in 2003, about a year
before this action (to rescind this rule) was approved by the Ohio EPA
Director. Citizens who wish to comment on this action are encouraged to
do so within the time-frame noted in the front of this notice.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866; Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty
beyond that required by state law, it 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).

Executive Order 13132 Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act.

Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13045 Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a
prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of
a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the
Clean Air Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA
do not apply.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 17, 2006.
Norman Niedergang,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E6-8467 Filed 5-31-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66420-66422]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26543]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No FMCSA-2013-0392]

Proposed Enhancements to the Motor Carrier Safety Measurement
System (SMS) Public Web Site

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA provides notice and seeks comments on proposed
enhancements to the display of information on the Agency's Safety
Measurement System (SMS) public Web site. FMCSA first announced the
implementation of the SMS in April 2010 and announced further
improvements to the SMS in March 2012 and August 2012. Consistent with
its prior announcements, the Agency proposes changes to the design of
the SMS public Web site that are the direct result of feedback from
stakeholders regarding the information displayed. However, the Agency
is not proposing changes to the SMS methodology at this time.
    On November 4, 2013, FMCSA began a preview of the proposed Web site
enhancements at https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/SMSPreview/. Motor carriers
are able to log in with their Portal account to view their own data in
the redesigned format. The general public will be also able to access
simulated motor carrier data to view the improved Web site design.
During the preview period, FMCSA will hold several webinars to provide
detailed information about the proposed SMS display changes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 6, 2014.
Educational webinars:
    1. Monday, November 18, 2013, 12:00 to 1:30 p.m. eastern time.
    2. Thursday, November 21, 2013, 1:30 to 3:00 p.m. eastern time.
    3. Friday, November 22, 2013, 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. eastern time.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System Number FMCSA-2013-0392 by any of the following
methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility, (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room 12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Hand Delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., e.t, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means.
    FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address,
an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your
submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
in the

search box insert the docket number ``FMCSA-2013-0392'' and click the
search button. When the new screen appears, click on the blue ``Comment
Now!'' button on the right hand side of the page. On the new page,
enter information required including the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than
8[frac12] by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If
you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached
the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change the proposed enhancements based on your
comments. FMCSA may issue final enhancements at any time after the
close of the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number
``FMCSA-2013-0392'' and click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket
Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments related to the
proposed rulemaking.
    Note that all comments received, including any personal information
provided, will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov.
Please see the ``Privacy Act'' heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT Headquarters Building at
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
Privacy Act System of Records Notice for the DOT Federal Docket
Management System published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008
[73 FR 3316].
    Public Participation: The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is
generally available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can get
electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the
``help'' section of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Comments
received after the comment closing date will be included in the docket,
and will be considered to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Courtney Stevenson, Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, Compliance Division, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-Mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The SMS

    On April 9, 2010, FMCSA announced the implementation of the SMS in
the Federal Register (75 FR 18256) (Docket No. FMCSA-2004-18898). The
Agency announced it would use the SMS to identify high-risk motor
carriers for on-site investigations consistent with Section 4138 of the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users, Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1745 (Aug. 10,
2005) (set out as a note to 49 U.S.C. 31144). The SMS has been
operational since December 2010. The SMS is also used to identify and
prioritize motor carriers for other interventions, including automated
warning letters, and serves as a principal factor in roadside
inspection selection software designed to recommend motor carriers with
known performance and compliance problems for inspections.
Effectiveness testing of the SMS has shown that motor carriers that are
categorized as high-risk by the SMS have future crash rates more than
double that of all active motor carriers.
    Just as the Motor Carrier Safety Status Measurement System
(SafeStat) previously provided the public with access to SafeStat data
online, the SMS provides the motor carrier industry and other safety
stakeholders with more comprehensive, informative and regularly updated
safety performance data. As FMCSA explained in its April 9, 2010
Federal Register notice, the SMS provides motor carriers and other
safety stakeholders with regularly updated safety performance
assessments through the public Web site at http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/SMS.
    From the start of CSA, FMCSA expected to modify SMS as new data and
additional analyses became available. As stated in its March 27, 2012
Federal Register notice (77 FR 18298) (Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0074),
FMCSA plans to apply a systematic approach to making improvements to
SMS, prioritizing and releasing packages of improvements as needed.
Last year, FMCSA made 11 improvements to SMS to better identify high-
risk and non-compliant motor carriers for interventions. Those SMS
enhancements were implemented in December 2012 and included a new
Hazardous Materials (HM) Compliance Behavior Analysis and Safety
Improvement Category (BASIC). A complete description of those
enhancements, including the rationale behind them, was published in the
Federal Register on August 28, 2012 (77 FR 52110) (Docket No. FMCSA-
2004-18898). The enhancements are also outlined in the SMS Changes
Foundational Document on the Agency's Web site at http://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/Documents/SMS_FoundationalDoc_Final.pdf. The
current proposed enhancements to the display of information on the SMS
are an extension of the Agency's effort to provide more comprehensive,
informative, and regularly updated safety and compliance performance
data through a systematic approach, as announced in the April 9, 2010
and March 27, 2012 Federal Register notices.
    The August 28, 2012, Federal Register notice announced that the
Agency would study and refine the HM Compliance BASIC before making it
a publicly available BASIC in December 2013. The Agency continues to
examine the HM Compliance BASIC but does not plan to make it publicly
available with these proposed enhancements to the SMS public Web site.
The current effort is focused primarily on the display of the data that
is currently available in the SMS.

Enhancing the Public Display of SMS Information

    In Fiscal Year 2012, the SMS public Web site hosted nearly 48
million user sessions, up from over 30 million user sessions in Fiscal
Year 2011 and 4 million user sessions under the prior public SafeStat
system in 2010. Many more users now access the SMS; this presents FMCSA
with opportunities to ensure that the users understand the information
provided.
    FMCSA received feedback on SMS's public display from a variety of
stakeholders including the Agency's Motor Carrier Safety Advisory
Committee (MCSAC). The MCSAC was asked to appoint a subcommittee to
help identify ways in which FMCSA could leverage the SMS Web site to
best promote safety; suggestions as to how FMCSA could more clearly
convey the intent of the SMS as FMCSA's workload prioritization tool;
aspects that work

well with respect to the current SMS Web site's design and operation;
and what changes would make the information on the SMS more easily
understood and accessible to a variety of safety stakeholders.

List of Proposed Enhancements to the SMS Display

    The proposed Web site enhancements seek to accomplish three key
objectives:
    1. Provide easier, more intuitive navigation and user-friendly
features and descriptions to clarify the SMS's role as FMCSA's
prioritization tool for interventions;
    2. Consolidate FMCSA safety information so users do not have to go
to multiple sites; and
    3. Provide improved access to detailed information and new
performance monitoring tools.
    The proposed Web site enhancements are summarized below:
     Displaying a summary BASIC status to better clarify if a
motor carrier's performance in the individual BASICs causes it to be
prioritized for an intervention. Detailed data such as the motor
carrier's percentile ranking in each BASIC has been moved to the
individual drill down pages for each BASIC.
     A new ``Take a Tour'' feature to highlight enhancements to
the SMS display and show visitors how to locate and use the site.
     Allowing the Web site user to download the data for all of
the carriers in the same safety event group used to rank a carrier's
BASIC percentile. The SMS determines a BASIC percentile for each motor
carrier within a BASIC based on how the individual carrier's BASIC
measure ranks relative to other carriers with a similar number of
safety events (i.e., inspections, violations, or crashes).
     Highlighting a motor carrier's individual performance
measure in each BASIC to more clearly identify its performance trends
over time. The measure is based on the results of the carrier's
roadside inspections or crashes, and is not relative to other carriers
in its safety event group.
     Reordering the display of the BASICs based on their
association to crash rates, with the BASICs with the strongest
associations at the left.
     Displaying any motor carrier safety rating from a
compliance review issued in accordance with 49 CFR part 385.
Previously, users had to go to FMCSA's Safety and Fitness Electronic
Records System (SAFER) Web site.
     Displaying current insurance and authority status.
Previously, users had to access FMCSA's Licensing and Insurance Online
Web site.
     Providing a motor carrier's enforcement case history,
including the date the case was closed, the applicable violations, and
the associated fines.
     Enhancing the display of safety performance over time
through a variety of displays and graphs users can customize.
     Displaying the total number of inspections as well as a
breakdown of the number of inspections with violations used in the SMS
in each carrier's detail.
     Clarifying terminology in the SMS, such as the definitions
of the terms ``0%'' and ``<3 inspections with violations,'' in a new
glossary called ``SMS Display Key Terms.''
    On November 4, 2013, FMCSA began a preview of the proposed Web site
enhancements at https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/SMSPreview/. Motor carriers
are able to log in with their Portal account or PINs to view their own
data in the proposed re-designed format. The general public will be
able to access simulated carrier data in order to view the proposed
enhancements. During the preview period, FMCSA will hold several public
webinars to provide stakeholders with detailed information about the
SMS display.
    The Agency is not proposing changes to the SMS methodology at this
time.

Public Webinars

    FMCSA plans to host several educational webinars for the public
addressing the proposed enhancements to the SMS public Web site. These
webinars will take place in November 2013. The scheduled dates and
times are below.
    1. Monday, November 18, 2013, 12:00 to 1:30 p.m. eastern time.
    2. Thursday, November 21, 2013, 1:30 to 3:00 p.m. eastern time.
    3. Friday, November 22, 2013, 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. eastern time.

All the webinars will have closed captioning available, and all
stakeholders are encouraged to participate. Interested parties can
register for the webinars through the FMCSA's National Training Center
at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/ntc/webinarinfo/CSA_Improvements_Webinar-FMCSA.pdf.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA requests comments on the above improvements to the SMS public
Web site. Commenters are requested to provide supporting data wherever
appropriate.

    Issued On: October 31, 2013.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-26543 Filed 11-1-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P