  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

SIERRA CLUB,

		Plaintiff,

	v.

LISA JACKSON, Administrator of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency,

		Defendant.

	)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 09-cv-0751

CONSENT DECREE

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Sierra Club filed this action pursuant to section
304(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2),
alleging that Defendant Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), failed to perform a duty
mandated by CAA section 505(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2), to grant
or deny, within 60 days, an administrative petition submitted by
Plaintiff requesting that EPA object to a Title V Operating Permit
issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to Wisconsin
Public Service Corporation’s J.P. Pulliam Generating Station
(“Pulliam”) in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and EPA (collectively the “Parties”) wish to
effectuate a settlement of the above-captioned case without expensive
and protracted litigation.

WHEREAS, the Parties consider this Decree to be an adequate and
equitable resolution of the claims in the above-captioned case.

WHEREAS, the Court, by entering this Decree, finds that this Decree is
fair, reasonable, in the public interest, and consistent with the CAA,
42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq.

NOW THEREFORE, before the taking of testimony, without trial or
determination of any issue of fact or law, and upon the consent of the
Parties, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that:

1.	This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims set forth
in the Complaint related to Plaintiff’s administrative petition on the
Pulliam permit and to order the relief contained in this Decree.  Venue
is proper in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Wisconsin.

2.	By June 4, 2010, or within 20 days after the entry date of this
Consent Decree, whichever date is later, EPA shall sign its response to
the administrative petition dated June 25, 2009, regarding the Title V
permit for Pulliam that was submitted to EPA by Plaintiff.

Within 15 business days following signature of such response(s), EPA
shall:

deliver notice of such action on the Pulliam permit to the Office of the
Federal Register for prompt publication; and

transmit EPA’s determination, if an objection in whole or in part, to
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 101 S. Webster Street, PO
Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707-7921,<PHONE_NUMBER> (Fax), pursuant to 40
C.F.R. § 70.7(g)(1).

4.	The United States agrees to pay Plaintiff as full settlement of all
claims for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred, under any
authority, the sum of $2,624.71 as soon as reasonably practicable
following entry of this Decree, by electronic funds transfer to a bank
account identified by Plaintiff.  Nothing in this paragraph shall be
construed as an admission or concession by EPA that Plaintiff is
entitled to or eligible for recovery of any costs or attorneys’
fees.5.	Subject to paragraph 6 of this Decree, any provision of this
Decree may be modified by the Court upon (a) written stipulation of the
Parties, or (b) a motion of any party to this Decree, pursuant to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and upon consideration of any response
by the non-moving party to this Decree.

6.	The Parties may extend the deadline in Paragraph 2 by 30 days or less
by written stipulation executed by counsel for the Parties and filed
with the Court.  Extensions greater than 30 days may be granted pursuant
to Paragraph 5.

7.	Plaintiff and EPA shall not challenge the terms of this Decree or
this Court’s jurisdiction to enter and enforce this Decree.  Subject
to paragraphs 5 and 6 of this Decree, upon entry, no party shall
challenge the terms of this Decree.

8.	Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to limit or modify any
discretion accorded EPA by the CAA or by general principles of
administrative law in taking the actions which are the subject of this
Decree, including the discretion to alter, amend or revise any responses
or final actions contemplated by this Decree.  EPA’s obligation to
perform the actions specified in Paragraph 2-4 by the time specified
therein does not constitute a limitation or modification of EPA’s
discretion within the meaning of this paragraph.

9.	Nothing in this Decree shall be construed as an admission of any
issue of fact or law nor to waive or limit any claim or defense, on any
grounds, related to any final action EPA may take with respect to the
Title V Operating Permit for Pulliam.

10.	Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to confer upon the
district court jurisdiction to review any final decision made by EPA
pursuant to this Decree.  Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to
confer upon the district court jurisdiction to review any issues that
are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Courts of
Appeals pursuant to CAA section 307(b)(1) and 505, 42 U.S.C. §
7607(b)(1), 7661d.  Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to waive
any remedies or defenses the Parties may have under CAA Section
307(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1).

11.	The Parties recognize and acknowledge that the obligations imposed
upon EPA under this Decree can only be undertaken using appropriated
funds legally available for such purpose.  No provision of this Decree
shall be interpreted as or constitute a commitment or requirement that
the United States obligate or pay funds in contravention of the
Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, or any other applicable
provision of law.  The possibility exists that circumstances outside the
reasonable control of EPA could delay compliance with the deadline
established in Paragraph 2.  Such situations include, but are not
limited to, a government shut-down such as occurred in 1995 and 1996, or
catastrophic environmental events requiring immediate and/or
time-consuming response by EPA.  Should a delay occur due to such
circumstances, any resulting failure to meet the deadline set forth
herein shall not constitute a failure to comply with the terms of this
Consent Decree, and any deadlines occurring within one hundred twenty
(120) days of the termination of the circumstances causing the delay
shall be extended one day for each day of the circumstances causing the
delay.  EPA will provide Plaintiff with notice as soon as is reasonably
possible under the circumstances in the event that EPA invokes this
provision of the Consent Decree and will provide Plaintiff with an
explanation of EPA’s basis for invoking this provision.  Plaintiff may
challenge the invocation of this provision of the Consent Decree under
the dispute resolution terms of this Consent Decree.

12.	Any notices required or provided for by this Decree shall be made in
writing, via facsimile or other means, and sent to the following:

For Plaintiff:

DAVID BENDER

McGillivray Westerberg & Bender, LLC

305 S. Paterson Street

Madison, WI 53703

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
For Defendant:

JERED LINDSAY

Environmental Defense Section

Environment & Natural Resources Division

P.O. Box 23986

Washington, D.C. 20026-3986

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
AMY HUANG BRANNING

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of General Counsel

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
13.	In the event of a dispute between the Parties concerning the
interpretation or implementation of any aspect of this Decree, the
disputing Party shall provide the other Party with a written notice
outlining the nature of the dispute and requesting informal
negotiations.  If the Parties cannot reach an agreed-upon resolution
within ten (10) business days after receipt of the notice, any party may
move the Court to resolve the dispute.

14.	No motion or other proceeding seeking to enforce this Decree or for
contempt of Court shall be properly filed unless Plaintiff has followed
the procedure set forth in Paragraph 13, and provided EPA with written
notice received at least 10 business days before the filing of such
motion or proceeding.

15.	The Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine and effectuate
compliance with this Decree.  When EPA’s obligations under Paragraphs
2-4 have been completed, this case shall be dismissed with prejudice.
The Parties shall file the appropriate notice with the Court so that the
Clerk may close the file.

16.	The Parties agree and acknowledge that before this Consent Decree
can be finalized and entered by the Court, EPA must provide notice in
the Federal Register and an opportunity for comment pursuant to CAA
section 113(g), 42 U.S.C. § 7413(g).  EPA will promptly submit a
public notice of this Consent Decree to the Federal Register for
publication and public comment after lodging this Agreement with the
Court.  After this Consent Decree has undergone an opportunity for
notice and comment, the Administrator and the Attorney General, as
appropriate, will promptly consider any such written comments in
determining whether to withdraw or withhold consent to this Consent
Decree, in accordance with section 113(g) of the CAA.  If the
Administrator or the Attorney General elects not to withdraw or withhold
consent to this Consent Decree, the Parties will promptly file a motion
that requests the Court to enter this Consent Decree.

17.	The undersigned representatives of each Party certify that they are
fully authorized by the Party they represent to bind that Party to the
terms of this Decree.

SO ORDERED on this         day of                              2010.

_____________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SO AGREED:

FOR PLAINTIFF

_______________________________

DAVID BENDER

McGillivray, Westerberg & Bender LLC

305 S. Paterson Street

Madison, WI 53703

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
DATED:

FOR DEFENDANT			           	IGNACIA S. MORENO

           	Assistant Attorney General

           	Env. & Natural Resources Division

_____________________________

JERED J. LINDSAY

Environmental Defense Section

Environment & Natural Resources Division

United States Department of Justice

P.O. Box 23986

Washington, D.C. 20026-3986

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
DATED:

Of Counsel for Defendant:

AMY HUANG BRANNING

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of General Counsel

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

 PAGE  8


" .

s To: Jack Waggener@ URSCorp. com dwin/ DC/ U S EP EPA Lee Bagby@ urscorp. com, Maryt mpel/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Jack,

r confirming our meeting on Thursday, July 31,2003 in our office conference room 6231 F. As I am providing the following preliminary list of our concerns related to your July 3 email ts. Hopefully, this will increase the efficiency and utility of our meeting.

Woody We have several questions and requests that are intended to develop the necessary technical record for our use in reviewing your issues related to the molybdenum limits in the Organics subcategory of the CWT rule. As you know, the record must logically support any proposed modifications or changes to the existing rule.

Is the Clean Harbors facility subject to the CWT rule?

1  Based on the description of the Clean Harbors, Deer Park, Texas facility operations ( pages 1 & 2 of the attachment to your 07 03 03 email), the Deer Park operations are not subject to the CWT rule. The Deer Park biological treatment system accepts only wastewater generated on site: leachate from the two landfills, contaminated ground water " pump & treat" wastewater, stom water and landfill run on. As described in the 2000 final CWT rule, the landfills 2. Please describe the off site waste receipts other than landfill wastewater, if any, that are treated in the biological system?

Is there any information that documents that the Deer Park treatment system is well designed and well operated?`

3. Please provide a detailed block diagram clearly showing all the unit operations of the powdered activated carbon biological treatment system including recycle loops. The discussion suggests that the Deer Park system is a continuous activated sludge biological system with PAC addition. Please show what astes are sent to each storage tank, include the sampling points for the molybdenum data c in June 2003; show the compliance monitoring effluent sampling point as well as the internal monitoring sampling point required by the State of Texas.

4. Please provide the design basis for the existing treatment system { compliance targets by pollutant parameter, flow rate, hydraulic residence time, organic load ( BOD5), mixed liquor suspended solids ( MLSS), F/ M xatio, etc)  Please provide the individual flows for the leachate, groundwater, storm water, and landfill run on including which holding tank receives each waste stream. Are the holding tanks agitated or mixed for equalization? 5. Please provide the Baseline Monitoring Report and subsequent Compliance Monitoring Reports.

ters. The Mo data alone is insufficient to assess the or each sample date, please 7. Please provide data for the operating conditions on the dates the samples were collected.

8. For the North & South landfill leachate samples, please provide data for other parmeters, if available?

9. Please provide the operating conditions for the June 2003 molybdenum data points as well as any available data for any other parameters collected on the sample dates and other dates. I Regarding the March 24,2003 report for CIPF, Williamsport, Maryland . The report indicated that CIPF is equipped to treat metals, oils, and organics waste receipts. But during the sampling period, it only treated oils and organics waste receipts.

According to the block diagram, both oily wastestreams and organics wastestreams are treated in for Mo, but no influent SBR Mo data for the organics wastestream.

10. Do you have any organics subcategory SBR influent characterization data especially for Mo?

11 Please provide the relative influent flows to the SBR unit for the oily wastes and for the organics wastes especially for the sample dates? t m p  . T  w

in*

s

2 12. Please provide design and operating information documenting that the SBR unit is well designed and operated.

Other than Clean Harbors, Deer Park, TX, do you have any Mo influent concentration characterization data for organic waste receipts? How many CWT Organics subcategory plants have Mo problems?


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 43 (Monday, March 6, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13739-13740]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04373]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0189; Airspace Docket No. 23-ASO-02]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Shelbyville, TN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface for Bomar Field/Shelbyville
Municipal Airport, Shelbyville, Tennessee, as an airspace evaluation
determined an update for this airport necessary. This action would also
update this airport's geographic coordinates, as well as the geographic
coordinates of Ellington Airport. In addition, this action would remove
the Shelbyville VOR/DME from the description and update the description
header.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to: the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone:
(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2023-0189; Airspace Docket No. 23-ASO-02 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority,
as it would amend Class E airspace in Shelbyville, TN. An airspace
evaluation determined that this update is necessary to support IFR
operations in the area.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-
2023-0189; Airspace Docket No. 23-ASO-02) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
the address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at www.regulations.gov.

    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2022-0189; Airspace Docket No. 23-ASO-02.'' The postcard
will be dated/time-stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for federal holidays at the
office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration,
Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Incorporation by Reference

    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This
document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order
JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August
19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. These updates would be
published subsequently in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA
Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D,
and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Bomar
Field/Shelbyville Municipal Airport, Shelbyville, Tennessee, as an
airspace evaluation determined an update for this airport necessary.
This action would also update this airport's geographic coordinates, as
well as the geographic coordinates of Ellington Airport. In addition,
this action would remove the Shelbyville VOR/DME from the description,
as it is not necessary to describe the airspace. Finally, the
descriptor header would be updated by removing the city name from the
from the airport's line. Controlled airspace is necessary for the
safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in
the area.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures,'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO TN E5 Shelbyville, TN

Bomar Field-Shelbyville Municipal Airport, TN
    (Lat. 35[deg]33'34'' N, long. 86[deg]26'33'' W)
Ellington Airport, Lewisburg, TN
    (Lat. 35[deg]30'25'' N, long. 86[deg]48'14'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 9-mile radius of the Bomar Field-Shelbyville Municipal and
within 4 miles each side of the 195[deg] bearing from the airport,
extending from the 9-mile radius to 14.5-miles south of the airport,
and within 4 miles each side of the 359[deg] bearing from the
airport, extending from the 9-mile radius to 12-miles north of the
airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on February 27, 2023.
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2023-04373 Filed 3-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15988-15990]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05734]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69055; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-038]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify the Fee Schedule Governing Order Routing

March 7, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 26, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ is proposing [sic] proposed changes to amend NASDAQ's fee
schedule governing order routing. NASDAQ will implement the proposed
change on February 27, 2013.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is amending its fee schedule governing order routing to
establish fees for routing orders using its two new order routing
strategies, QDRK and QCST.\3\ All of the changes pertain

to securities priced at $1 or more per share, and to securities listed
on NASDAQ, the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') and exchanges other
than NASDAQ and NYSE. In addition, QDARK [sic] and QCST orders, like
other routable orders, will not count toward determining a member's
shares of liquidity routed for purposes of NASDAQ fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ QDRK orders, pursuant to Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(xii), check the
System for available shares and simultaneously route to certain
destinations on the System routing table that are not posting
Protected Quotations within the meaning of Regulation NMS (i.e.
``dark venues'' or ``dark pools''). QCST orders, pursuant to Rule
4758(a)(1)(A)(xiii), check the System for available shares and
simultaneously route to select dark venues and to certain low cost
exchanges. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68839 (February
6, 2013), 78 FR 9957 (February 12, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to QDRK and QCST orders that access liquidity in the
NASDAQ Market Center, members will be charged $0.0029 per share
executed. With respect to QDRK and QCST orders that execute on a venue
other than NASDAQ, members will be charged $0.0005 per share executed,
except that for QCST orders that execute on NASDAQ OMX BX, members will
receive a credit of $0.0014 per share executed.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which NASDAQ operates or controls, and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed pricing for QDRK and QCST orders executed on NASDAQ is
reasonable because it is similar to the current pricing for most orders
executed on NASDAQ. The proposed fee for QDRK and QCST orders that
execute on a venue other than NASDAQ is s [sic] the same as the current
fee for TFTY orders, and the credit for orders that execute on NASDAQ
OMX BX is the same as the current credit for TFTY, SOLV [sic] CART and
SAVE orders that execute on NASDAQ OMX BX.
    The proposed pricing for QDRK and QCST orders is consistent with an
equitable allocation of fees and is not unfairly discriminatory because
the pricing, which is the same for all NASDAQ participants, applies
solely to members that opt to route QDRK and QCST orders. Moreover, the
lower cost of these routing strategies as compared with other existing
routing strategies is not unfairly discriminatory because it is
consistent with the lower costs associated with routing to the venues
that are accessed by the new strategies.
    Finally, NASDAQ notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues
if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such
an environment, NASDAQ must continually adjust its fees to remain
competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems
that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards
applicable to exchanges. NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change
reflects this competitive environment because it is designed to ensure
that the charges for use of the NASDAQ routing facility to route
reflect changes in the cost of such routing.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Because the market
for order routing is extremely competitive, members may readily opt to
disfavor NASDAQ's routing services if they believe that alternatives
offer them better value. Moreover, by introducing new routing options
and charging fees that NASDAQ believes to be reasonable, NASDAQ
believes that it is increasing its competitiveness vis-[agrave]-vis
other trading venues. For this reason and the reasons discussed in
connection with the statutory basis for the proposed rule change,
NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the
ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain
their competitive standing in the financial markets. NASDAQ also does
not believe that the proposal raises issues of competition among its
own market participants, because the proposal applies fee and credits
equally to all participants.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \6\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4\7\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by NASDAQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \8\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-038 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-038. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written

communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, on
official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying
at the principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be
posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-038, and should be submitted
on or before April 3, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-05734 Filed 3-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 6894]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02429]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER14-1135-000]

Renewable Power Direct, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request For Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Renewable Power Direct, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is February 19, 2014.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 30, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-02429 Filed 2-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 150 (Thursday, August 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 51461]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18512]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4274-DR;Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

Oklahoma; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-4274-DR), dated July 15, 2016,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 15, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated July 15, 2016, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Oklahoma resulting from severe storms and flooding during the
period of June 11-13, 2016, is of sufficient severity and magnitude
to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the State of Oklahoma.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Charles Maskell, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Oklahoma have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Caddo, Comanche, Cotton, Garvin, Grady, and Stephens Counties
for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Oklahoma are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-18512 Filed 8-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P