[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20296-20297]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8700]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0130-201111(b); FRL-9293-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Florida;
Prevention of Significant Deterioration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to convert a conditional approval of
provisions in the Florida State Implementation Plan (SIP) to a full
approval under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). On June 17, 2009, the
State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, submitted a SIP revision in response to the conditional
approval of its New Source Review (NSR) permitting program. The
revision includes changes to certain parts of the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration construction permit program in Florida,
including the definition of ``new emissions unit,'' ``regulated air
pollutant'' and ``significant emissions rate'' as well as recordkeeping
requirements. In addition, Florida provided a clarification that the
significant emissions rate for mercury in the Florida regulations is
intended to apply as a state-only provision. EPA has determined that
this revision addresses the conditions identified in the

conditional approval, and is therefore approvable. In the Final Rules
section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP
revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no
adverse comments. This proposed action is being taken pursuant to
section 110 of the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 12, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2006-0130, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0130 Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Yolanda Adams, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding federal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Florida
SIP, contact Twunjala Bradley, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bradley may also be reached via
telephone or electronic mail at<PHONE_NUMBER> and
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information regarding NSR, contact
Yolanda Adams, Air Permits Section, at the same address above. Ms.
Adams may also be reached via telephone or electronic mail at (404)
562-9214 and<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this Federal
Register. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the
direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to
this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document
should do so at this time.

    Dated: March 31, 2011.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2011-8700 Filed 4-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 100 (Thursday, May 23, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23719-23720]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10763]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0240]

Recurring Safety Zone; Chester Fireworks, Chester, WV

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the temporary safety zone for the

Chester Volunteer Fire Department Fireworks, to provide for the safety
of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters
of the Ohio River during this event. Our regulation for marine events
within the Eighth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area
for this event in Chester, WV. During the enforcement period, entry
into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh or a designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, Line 38, will be
enforced from 9:30 p.m. through 11 p.m. on July 4, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Jennifer Haggins,
Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412-221-
0807, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce a temporary
safety zone for the Chester Volunteer Fire Department Fireworks, in 33
CFR 165.801, Table 1, Line 38 from 9:30 p.m. through 11:00 p.m. on July
4, 2019. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of
persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters of
the Ohio River during this event. Our regulation for marine events
within the Eighth Coast Guard District, Sec.  165.801, specifies the
location of the safety zone for the Chester Volunteer Fire Department
Fireworks, which covers a one mile stretch of the Ohio River. Entry
into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated
representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass
through the area must request permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. They can be reached on VHF FM channel 16. If permission
is granted, all persons and vessel shall comply with the instructions
of the COTP or designated representative.
    In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register,
the COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through
Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs),
Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), and/or through other means
of public notice as appropriate at least 24 hours in advance of
enforcement.

    Dated: May 13, 2019.
A.W. Demo,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit
Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 2019-10763 Filed 5-22-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: April 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 70)]
[Notices]
[Page 19494-19495]
[DOCID:fr10ap08-36]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 4684-064]

Stillwater Hydro Associates, LLC; Notice of Application for
Transfer of License, and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Protests

April 3, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Transfer of License.
    b. Project No.: 4684-064.
    c. Date Filed: March 7, 2008.
    d. Applicants: Stillwater Hydro Partners LP (transferor);
Stillwater Hydro Associates, LLC (transferee).
    e. Name and Location of Project: The Stillwater Project is located
on the Hudson River in Saratoga and Rensselaer Counties, New York.
    f. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    g. Applicant Contacts: For the transferor: Charles A. Bouley,
Stillwater Hydro Partners LP, 265 Genesse Street, Auburn, NY 13021. For
the transferee: Dwight A. Bowler, Stillwater Hydro Associates LLC, C/O
Champlain Spinners Hydro Company, Inc., 813 Jefferson Hill Road,
Nassau, New York 12123.
    h. FERC Contact: Robert Bell at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: May 2, 2008.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the Project
Number on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing a document with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the documents on that resource agency.
    j. Description of Application: The Applicants seek Commission
approval to transfer the license for the Stillwater Project from
Stillwater Hydro Partners LP to Stillwater Hydro Associates, LLC.
    k. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``FERRIS'' link. Enter the docket number
(P-9985) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the addresses in item
g. above.
    l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    m. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    n. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', OR
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project Number of the
particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-
named documents must be filed by providing the original and eight
copies to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicants specified in the particular application.
    o. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicants.
If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for
filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of
an

agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicants' representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-7604 Filed 4-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 178 (Tuesday, September 15, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55257-55259]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23171]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2014-0002]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area, Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay; Bayonne,
NJ, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Coast Guard is establishing a Regulated
Navigation Area (RNA) on the navigable waters of Kill Van Kull and
Newark Bay surrounding the Bayonne Bridge. In response to a planned
Bayonne Bridge construction project, this rule will establish a speed
restriction in the waters surrounding the Bayonne Bridge. This rule
will allow the Coast Guard to prohibit vessel traffic through the RNA
when necessary to safeguard people and vessels from the hazards
associated with bridge construction.

DATES: This rule is effective from October 15, 2015 until December 31,
2017.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2014-0002]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
contact BMC Craig Lapiejko, Coast Guard First District Waterways
Management Branch, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Mr. Jeff Yunker, Coast Guard Sector New
York Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 718-
354-4195, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
FR Federal Register

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On January 9, 2015, we published a NPRM entitled Regulated
Navigation Area, Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay; Bayonne, NJ, NY in the
Federal Register. We received no comments on the proposed rule.
    No public meeting was requested and none was held.

B. Basis and Purpose

    Under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, the Coast Guard has the
authority to establish Regulated Navigation Areas in defined water
areas that are hazardous or in which hazardous conditions are
determined to exist. See 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1,
6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and workers from hazards associated with construction on the Bayonne
Bridge. The current Bayonne Bridge was built in 1931 and carries the
NY/NJ Route 440. The Port Authority New York/New Jersey (PANYNJ) has
contracted Skanska-Koch Inc. and Kiewit Infrastructure for this
project.
    Construction operations are sensitive to water movement, and wake
from passing vessels could pose significant risk of injury or death to
construction workers. In order to minimize such unexpected or
uncontrolled movement of water, the RNA will limit vessel speed and
wake of all vessels operating in the vicinity of the bridge
construction zone. This will be achieved by implementing a five (5)
knot speed limit and ``NO WAKE'' zone in the vicinity of the
construction as well as providing a means to suspend all vessel traffic
for emergent situations that pose imminent threat to waterway users in
the area.
    After consulting with PANYNJ, Skanska-Koch Inc., and Kiewit
Infrastructure, the Coast Guard has determined that certain aspects of
the construction project can only be completed in the channel and will
require closing the waterway. For instance, barges are expected to be
used at times while portions of the bridge are being raised and the
barges' presence might limit maneuverability in the waterway. Also, the
Coast Guard anticipates that crane and cutting operations may create
the potential for falling debris into the waterway. It is expected that
the construction efforts that might require waterway closures will not
take place until the summer of 2016.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    No comments were received concerning this rule. Due to schedule
delays, the overall timeline of the project has changed. Waterway
closures are now expected during the summer of 2016. Completion of the
entire project is now slated for 2017.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those

Orders. The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be
minimal as this RNA will not necessarily prohibit vessel traffic in the
affected waterways. Rather, this RNA will primarily establish a speed
and wake restriction along the waters surrounding the Bayonne Bridge.
There may be times that the Coast Guard will prohibit vessel traffic
through the RNA, but such closures are expected to take place during
off peak hours. Moreover, even when the Coast Guard generally prohibits
vessel traffic through the RNA, specific vessels may still obtain
permission to transit through the RNA. Additionally, the Coast Guard
will provide the public with advanced notification of waterway closures
so that mariners may plan accordingly. Such notifications will be made
through various means, including, but not limited to, Local Notice to
Mariners and at http://homeport.uscg.mil/newyork. For all of these
reasons, the Coast Guard has determined that this rule would not be a
significant regulatory action.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. For all of the reasons discussed in the
Regulatory Planning and Review section, the Coast Guard certifies under
5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves restricting vessel movement within a
regulated navigation area. This rule is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
amending 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREA

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T01-0002 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0002  Regulated Navigation Area; Kill Van Kull and Newark
Bay; Bayonne, NJ, NY Regulated Area.

    (a) Location. The following area is a Regulated Navigation Area
(RNA): All waters of Bergen Point East and West Reaches in the Kill Van
Kull, and all waters of Newark Bay South Reach, bound by the following
approximate positions: 40[deg]38'51.93'' N., 074[deg]06'47.90'' W.;
thence to 40[deg]38'41.53'' N., 074[deg]07'18.54'' W.; thence to
40[deg]38'38.20'' N., 074[deg]07'41.30'' W.; thence to
40[deg]38'40.47'' N., 074[deg]08'01.61'' W.; thence to
40[deg]38'34.20'' N., 074[deg]08'41.71'' W.; thence to
40[deg]38'39.67'' N., 074[deg]08'51.86'' W.; thence to
40[deg]38'50.20'' N., 074[deg]08'55.19'' W.; thence to
40[deg]39'17.54'' N., 074[deg]08'38.20'' W.; thence to
40[deg]39'19.00'' N., 074[deg]08'53.09'' W.; thence to
40[deg]39'07.94'' N., 074[deg]08'59.04'' W.; thence to
40[deg]38'46.87'' N., 074[deg]09'23.03'' W.; thence to
40[deg]38'33.40'' N., 074[deg]09'19.87'' W.; thence to
40[deg]38'24.86'' N., 074[deg]09'02.71'' W.; thence to
40[deg]38'23.93'' N., 074[deg]08'52.56'' W.; thence to
40[deg]38'31.40'' N., 074[deg]08'07.56'' W.; thence to
40[deg]38'31.80'' N., 074[deg]07'55.66'' W.; thence to
40[deg]38'30.06'' N., 074[deg]07'41.13'' W.; thence to
40[deg]38'33.80'' N., 074[deg]07'14.86'' W.; thence to
40[deg]38'43.93'' N., 074[deg]06'45.45'' W.; thence to the point of
origin (NAD 83).
    (b) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR
165.10, 165.11, and 165.13 apply within the RNA.
    (2) Any vessel transiting through the RNA must make a direct
passage. No vessel may stop, moor, anchor or loiter within the RNA at
any time unless they are working on the bridge construction. Movement
within the RNA is subject to a ``Slow-No Wake'' speed limit. All
vessels may not produce a wake and may not attain speeds greater than
five (5) knots unless a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain
bare steerageway.
    (3) There may be times that the First District Commander or the
Captain of the Port (COTP) New York finds it necessary to close the RNA
to vessel traffic. All closures will be limited to specific hours of
the day. Mariners will be advised of all closure dates and times via
Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners in advance of
closure times. During such closures, persons and vessels may request
permission to enter the RNA by contacting the COTP or the COTP's on-
scene representative on VHF-16 or via phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Sector New
York Command Center).
    (4) Vessels in the RNA must comply with directions given to them by
the COTP or the COTP's on-scene representative. An ``on-scene
representative'' of the COTP is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant
or petty officer who has been designated by the COTP to act on the
COTP's behalf. An on-scene representative may be on a Coast Guard
vessel; or other designated craft; or on shore and communicating with a
Vessel Traffic Service New York Watchstander or vessels via VHF-FM
radio or loudhailer. Members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be
present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.
    (5) All other relevant regulations, including but not limited to
the Rules of the Road, as codified in 33 CFR Subchapter E, Inland
Navigational Rules, remain in effect within the RNA and must be
strictly followed at all times.
    (c) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced from 8:00
a.m. on February 1, 2016, until December 31, 2017. This RNA's speed
restrictions are enforceable 24 hours a day as long as this RNA is in
place. The Coast Guard will enforce waterway closures only when
necessary to protect people and vessels from hazards associated with
bridge construction.
    (d) Notification. The Coast Guard will rely on the methods
described in 33 CFR 165.7 to notify the public of the time and duration
of any closure of the RNA. Violations of this RNA may be reported to
the COTP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or on VHF-Channel 16.

    Dated: August 31, 2015.
L.L. Fagan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-23171 Filed 9-14-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Name:           BARRY
Title:
Organization:   STEEL ERECTORS SAFETY ASSOC OF COLORADO - SESAC
Date:           20020909
Address1:
Address2:
City:           DENVER
State:          CO
Zip Code:       80221-6609
Docket Number:  S030
Exhibit Number: 3-7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Notice of intent to establish Negotiated Rulemaking Committee; request for nominees and comments.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is announcing its intent to establish a Cranes and Derricks Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (C-DAC) under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).  The Committee will negotiate issues associated with the development of a proposed revision of the existing construction safety standards for the cranes and derricks portion (1926.550) of 29 CFR 1926 Subpart N - Cranes, Derricks, Hoists, Elevators, and Conveyors.  The Committee will include representatives of parties who would be significantly affected by the final rule.  OSHA solicits comments on the initiative and requests interested parties to nominate representatives for membership on C-DAC.

Please note that you may not attach materials such as studies or journal articles to your electronic comments.  If you wish to include such materials, you must submit three copies to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. S-030, US Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210.

If you wish to submit a nomination or comment online, you may enter it into the box below.  If you are submitting a nomination, please read the Federal Register notice for a list of what is needed to complete the application.  Online comments or nominations must be received by September 16, 2002.

Sirs:With respect to your request for information about affected parties and other potential interests found in section II subsection (B) on pages 46614-46615 of CFR 67 #136 dates July 16 2002. In the announcement you state " One purpose.... is to obtain public comment about whether an updated.. standard.. would ... affect interests that are not listed above. OSHA invites comments and suggestions on this list of "significantly affected" interests." It seems to me that one significant large group of affected entities is the subcontractor community in general.  Your lists (above in the CFR) do not mention subcontractors or others that are exposed to cranes and lifting activities of other companies,  but which do not actively  use cranes themselves.  Many  large jobs have central crane service supplied by the General Contractor and often charged to the subcontractors (that need hoisting services on site) by the hour of use. The subcontractor is usually required to rig and signal the crane during his time of use and then return to his regular job. Obviously issues of training on rigging, signaling, and crane safety arise. Their interests are often distinctly different, and sometimes adverse to the General Contractor. Also, subcontractors that occasionally use cranes may rent one for a day or so to do a quick pick, and then not use one again for a long time. On other jobs, many millions of subcontractor employees that do little or no hoisting on their own,  work in and around trades that do.  They are exposed to the craning of the General Contractor and the other subcontractors that use cranes, but have little control or say on the matter. The interests of all groups of subcontractors (those that hoist and those that dont -  (whether independently or through the use of a common crane)) can be seen as linked in a large subgroup of contractors generally  known as "Subcontractors".  Therefore, an additional "significantly affected" interest in this negotiation should be: ==="Subcontractors or others affected by crane activities of other contractors cranes"===I am reminded of a story in Minnesota where a steel column was being hoisted by a crane (supplied incidently by the General Contractor and used by subcontractors) and the column being hoisted banged into some floor beams dislodging a "bolt barge" that fell through the upper decks and crushed two electrician subcontractor employees working several floors below. Hundreds of other subcontractor tradesmen that had no direct interest in the crane activities were potentially in the path of the crane related accident. Who will represent them?It would be fair to say that a seat on the committee should be dedicated to these affected millions of employees.   The organization that might best be able to appoint a representative to negotiate in good faith would be the National Subcontractors Association.I encourage you to expand your definition of significantly affected interests to include subcontractors and to insure that a seat on the committee is fairly representative of this large group of contractors.    Very truly yours,Barry A. Cole


Dichotomous Variables – dichotomous variables are those which take one
of two values, for example, 0 or 1, yes or no.  These variables were
used to categorize the uses during the preparation of the nomination.

Strip Bed Treatment – Strip bed treatment is ‘yes’ if the
applicant uses such treatment, no otherwise.

Currently Use Alternatives – Currently use alternatives is ‘yes’
if the applicant uses alternatives for some portion of pesticide use on
the crop for which an application to use methyl bromide is made.

Tarps/ Deep Injection Used – Because all pre-plant methyl bromide use
in the US is either with tarps or by deep injection, this variable takes
on the value ‘tarp’ when tarps are used and ‘deep’ when deep
injection is used.

Pest-free cert. Required - This variable is a ‘yes’ when the product
must be certified as ‘pest-free’ in order to be sold

Other Issues.- Other issues is a short reminder of other elements of an
application that were checked

Frequency of Treatment – This indicates how often methyl bromide is
applied in the sector.  Frequency varies from multiple times per year to
once in several decades.

Quarantine and Pre-Shipment Removed? – This indicates whether the
Quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS) hectares subject to QPS treatments
were removed from the nomination.

Most Likely Combined Impacts (%) – Adjustments to requested amounts
were factors that reduced to total amount of methyl bromide requested by
factoring in the specific situations were the applicant could use
alternatives to methyl bromide.  These are calculated as proportions of
the total request.  We have tried to make the adjustment to the
requested amounts in the most appropriate category when the adjustment
could fall into more than one category.

(%) Karst geology – Percent karst geology is the proportion of the
land area in a nomination that is characterized by karst formations.  In
these areas, the groundwater can easily become contaminated by
pesticides or their residues.  Regulations are often in place to control
the use of pesticide of concern.  Dade County, Florida, has a ban on the
use of 1,3D due to its karst geology.

(%) 100 ft Buffer Zones – Percentage of the acreage of a field where
certain alternatives to methyl bromide cannot be used due the
requirement that a 100 foot buffer be maintained between the application
site and any inhabited structure.

(%) Key Pest Impacts - Percent (%) of the requested area with moderate
to severe pest problems.  Key pests are those that are not adequately
controlled by MB alternatives.  For example, the key pest in Michigan
peppers, Phytophthora spp. infests approximately 30% of the vegetable
growing area.  In southern states the key pest in peppers is nutsedge.

Regulatory Issues (%) - Regulatory issues (%) is the percent (%) of the
requested area where alternatives cannot be legally used (e.g., township
caps) pursuant to state and local limits on their use.

Unsuitable Terrain (%) – Unsuitable terrain (%) is the percent (%) of
the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to soil type
(e.g., heavy clay soils may not show adequate performance) or terrain
configuration, such as hilly terrain. Where the use of alternatives
poses application and coverage problems.

Cold Soil Temperatures – Cold soil temperatures is the proportion of
the requested acreage where soil temperatures remain too low to enable
the use of methyl bromide alternatives and still have sufficient time to
produce the normal (one or two) number of crops per season or to allow
harvest sufficiently early to obtain the high prices prevailing in the
local market at the beginning of the season.

Total Combined Impacts (%) - Total combined impacts are the percent (%)
of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to key pest,
regulatory, soil impacts, temperature, etc.  In each case the total area
impacted is the conjoined area that is impacted by any individual
impact.  The effects were assumed to be independently distributed unless
contrary evidence was available (e.g., affects are known to be mutually
exclusive).   For example, if 50% of the requested area had moderate to
severe key pest pressure and 50% of the requested area had karst
geology, then 75% of the area was assumed to require methyl bromide
rather than the alternative.  This was calculated as follows: 50%
affected by key pests and an additional 25% (50% of 50%) affected by
karst geology.

Most Likely Baseline Transition – Most Likely Baseline Transition
amount was determined by the DELPHI process and was calculated by
determining the maximum share of industry that can transition to
existing alternatives.

(%) Able to Transition – Maximum share of industry that can transition

Minimum # of Years Required – The minimum number of years required to
achieve maximum transition.

(%) Able to Transition per Year – The Percent Able to Transition per
Year is the percent able to transition divided by the number of years to
achieve maximum transition.

EPA Adjusted Use Rate - Use rate is the lower of requested use rate for
2008 or the historic average use rate or is determined by MBTOC
recommended use rate reductions.

EPA Adjusted Strip Dosage Rate – The dosage rate is the use rate
within the strips for strip / bed fumigation.

2008 Amount of Request – The 2008 amount of request is the actual
amount requested by applicants given in total pounds active ingredient
of methyl bromide, total acres of methyl bromide use, and application
rate in pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide per acre.  U.S. units
of measure were used to describe the initial request and then were
converted to metric units to calculate the amount of the US nomination.

EPA Preliminary Value – The EPA Preliminary Value is the lowest of the
requested amount from 2005 through 2008 with MBTOC accepted adjustments
(where necessary) included in the preliminary value.

EPA Baseline Adjusted Value – The EPA Baseline Adjusted Value has been
adjusted for MBTOC adjustments, QPS, Double Counting, Growth, Use Rate/
Strip Treatment, Miscellaneous adjustments, MBTOC recommended Low
Permeability Film Transition adjustment, and Combined Impacts.

EPA Transition Amount – The EPA Transition Amount is calculated by
removing previous transition amounts since transition was introduced in
2007 and removing the amount of the percent (%) Able to Transition per
Year multiplied by the EPA Baseline Adjusted Value.

Most Likely Impact Value – The qualified amount of the initial request
after all adjustments have been made given in total kilograms of
nomination, total hectares of nomination, and final use rate of
nomination.

Sector Research Amount – The total U.S. amount of methyl bromide
needed for research purposes in each sector.

Total US Sector Nomination - Total U.S. sector nomination is the most
likely estimate of the amount needed in that sector.

 PAGE

 PAGE   ii

U.S. Eggplant

Page  PAGE   7

U.S. Eggplant


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15394-15396]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06341]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77381; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-033]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Offer Remote ITCH to Trade
Options Wave Ports

March 16, 2016.
    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 March 2, 2016, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to establish a fee for a new optional
wireless connectivity service, Remote ITCH to Trade Options Wave Ports.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq is proposing to amend Nasdaq Options Market (``NOM'') Rules
chapter XV, section 3, to establish fees for Remote ITCH to Trade
Options (``ITTO'') Wave Ports for clients co-located at other third-
party data centers located in Mahwah, N.J. (``Mahwah'') and Secaucus,
N.J. (``Secaucus''), through which Nasdaq ITTO market data will be
distributed after delivery to those data centers via a wireless
network. Nasdaq ITTO is a data feed that provides quotation information
for individual orders on the NOM book, last sale information for trades
executed on NOM, and Order Imbalance Information as set forth in NOM
Rules chapter VI, section 8.\3\ Nasdaq ITTO market data is subscribed
to under NOM Rules chapter XV, section 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Nasdaq Options Rules chapter VI, section 1(a)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq provides market data via two connectivity mediums: Fiber
optic networks, and/or wireless networks, (aka, Remote Wave Ports).
ITTO market data is currently provided only by Nasdaq through fiber
optic networks. Nasdaq is now proposing to provide ITTO market data
through Remote Wave Ports. A Remote Wave Port is a physical port
located in Nasdaq's space within a third-party's (remote) data center
that receives market data delivered by Nasdaq via a wireless
network,\4\ which is then simultaneously distributed to Wave Ports
within that location. Clients must separately subscribe to the data
received by the Remote Wave Port service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Wireless technology has been in existence for many years,
used primarily by the defense, retail, and telecommunications
industries. Wireless connectivity involves the beaming of signals
through the air between towers that are within sight of one another.
Because the signals travel a straight, unimpeded line, and because
light waves travel faster through air than through glass (fiber
optics), message latency is reduced. The continued use of this
technology by the defense industry and regulation of the spectrum by
the FCC demonstrates the secure nature of wireless networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq offers TotalView ITCH equities market data through Remote
MITCH Wave Ports for clients co-located at third-party data centers in
Mahwah and Secaucus.\5\ Nasdaq has recently increased the capacity of
its wireless networks connecting Nasdaq's Carteret data center to those
third-party data centers, so that they may now support delivery of ITTO
market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Nasdaq assesses a MITCH Wave Port installation fee of $5,000
for Mahwah installations and an ongoing monthly fee of $12,500. See
Nasdaq Rule 7015(g)(1). Nasdaq assesses a MITCH Wave Port
installation fee of $2,500 for Secaucus installations and an ongoing
monthly fee of $7,500. Id. Nasdaq notes that the higher ongoing fee
for Mahwah is reflective of the longer distance from Carteret to
Mahwah requiring greater investment in infrastructure to connect the
two locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq is proposing to deliver ITTO market data to Nasdaq-owned
cabinets at the third-party data centers located in Mahwah and Secaucus
via a wireless network, as is currently done for TotalView ITCH market
data. This offering, which is entirely optional, will enable delivery
of Nasdaq ITTO market data to the third-party data centers at the same
low latency.\6\ Clients will have the option of cross-connecting to
their subscribed ITTO Wave Ports in those data centers to receive the
ITTO data feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Nasdaq cannot preclude minor latency variances in delivery
of Nasdaq ITTO in the third-party data centers to individual clients
because it does not control the cross-connects in those centers;
however, the microwave connectivity will provide the same latency to
all clients' Remote ITTO Wave Ports and offers an improvement in
latency over fiber optic network connectivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq is proposing to assess an installation charge for a Remote
Wave Port in Mahwah of $5,000 and a charge of $2,500 for a Remote Wave
Port in Secaucus. Nasdaq is also proposing a monthly recurring fee of
$10,000 for a Remote Wave Port in Mahwah and $7,500 for a Remote Wave
Port in Secaucus. Clients opting to subscribe to a Remote ITTO Wave
Port will continue to be fee liable for the applicable market data fees
as described in NOM Rules chapter XV, section 4(a).
    Competition for market data distribution is considerable and the
Exchange believes that this proposal clearly evidences such
competition. Nasdaq is offering a new data delivery option via Remote
Wave Ports to keep pace with changes in the industry and evolving
customer needs as new technologies emerge and products continue to
develop and change. The new delivery option is similar to existing
offerings, entirely optional, and is geared towards attracting new
customers, as well as retaining existing customers.
    The proposed fees are based on the cost to Nasdaq and its vendors
of installing and maintaining the wireless connectivity and on the
value provided to the customer, which receives low latency delivery of
data feeds. The costs associated with the wireless connectivity system
are incrementally higher than fiber optics-based solutions due to the
expense of the wireless equipment, cost of installation, and

testing. The differing fee levels between Mahwah and Secaucus are
reflective of higher cost of connecting to Mahwah based on the longer
distance to Mahwah, thus a higher network cost, and higher charges
incurred by Nasdaq in co-locating and connecting within Mahwah.
    The fees also allow Nasdaq to make a profit, and reflect the
premium received by the clients in terms of lower latency over the
fiber optics option. Clients can choose to build and maintain their own
wireless networks or choose their own third party network vendors but
the upfront and ongoing costs will be much more substantial than this
Nasdaq wireless offering.
    Nasdaq notes that the proposed fees are identical to, or less than,
the analogous installation and monthly fees assessed for Remote MITCH
Wave Ports located in the same third-party data centers in Mahwah and
Secaucus.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Nasdaq Rule 7015(g)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that its proposal is consistent with section 6(b)
of the Act,\8\ in general, and with sections 6(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the
Act,\9\ 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 the Exchange
operates or controls, and is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges
offer co-location and connectivity services as a means to facilitate
the trading activities of those members who believe that co-location
and low latency connectivity enhances the efficiency of their trading.
    Accordingly, fees charged for co-location and connectivity services
are constrained by the active competition for the order flow of such
members. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for these
services, affected members will opt to terminate their co-location and/
or connectivity arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible
range of alternative strategies, including using another vendor for
connectivity services, co-locating with a different exchange, placing
their servers in a physically proximate location outside the exchange's
data center, or pursuing trading strategies not dependent upon co-
location. Thus, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to
lose not only co-location and connectivity revenues but also revenues
associated with the execution of orders routed to it by affected
members.
    Nasdaq notes that the Commission recently approved an NYSE MKT LLC
(``NYSE MKT'') rule change to offer similar services.\10\ Nasdaq
believes that this competitive dynamic imposes powerful restraints on
the ability of any exchange to charge unreasonable fees for co-location
or connectivity services, including fees for wireless connectivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76750 (December 23,
2015), 80 FR 81648 (December 30, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-
85)(approving the offering of a wireless connection to allow users
to receive market data feeds from third party markets).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A co-location customer may obtain a similar service by contracting
with a wireless service provider to install the required dishes on
towers near the data centers and paying the service provider to
maintain the service. However, the cost involved in establishing
service in this manner is substantial and could result in uneven access
to wireless connectivity. Nasdaq's proposed fees will allow these
clients to utilize wireless connectivity and obtain the lower latency
transmission of data from Nasdaq that is available to others, at a
reasonable cost.
    Moreover, Nasdaq believes that the proposed fees for wireless
connectivity to Nasdaq are reasonable because they are based on
Nasdaq's and its vendors' costs to cover hardware, installation,
testing and connection, as well expenses involved in maintaining and
managing the new connection. The proposed fees allow Nasdaq to recoup
these costs and make a profit, while providing customers the ability to
reduce latency in the transmission of data from Nasdaq, and reducing
the cost to them that would be involved if they build or buy their own
wireless networks.
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed fees are reasonable in that they
reflect the costs of the connection and the benefit of the lower
latency to clients. Last [sic], the proposed fees are reasonable
because they are identical to, or less than, the analogous installation
and monthly fees assessed by Nasdaq for Remote Wave Ports located in
the same third-party data centers in Mahwah and Secaucus that receive
ITCH market data.
    Nasdaq believes the proposed Remote Wave Port fees are equitably
allocated and non-discriminatory in that all co-location clients that
voluntarily select this service option will be charged the same amount
for the same services. As is true of all co-location services, all co-
located clients have the option to select this voluntary connectivity
option, and there is no differentiation among customers with regard to
the fees charged for the service. Further, the latency reduction
offered will be the same for all clients who choose to receive this
wireless feed from the Remote Wave Ports, The [sic] same cannot be said
of the alternative where entities with substantial resources invest in
private services and thereby obtain lower latency transmission, while
those without resources are unable to invest in the necessary
infrastructure.
    Nasdaq's proposal is also consistent with the requirement of
section 6(b)(5) of the Act that Exchange rules be designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade [sic] to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest; and are not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers. The proposal is consistent with these requirements insomuch as
it makes available to market participants, at a reasonable fee and on a
non-discriminatory basis, access to low latency means of receiving
Nasdaq's market data feeds at third-party data centers.
    Initially, Nasdaq will perform substantial network testing prior to
making the service available to members. After this testing period, the
wireless network will continue to be closely monitored and maintained
by the vendor and the client will be informed of any issues.
Additionally, during the initial roll-out of the service and on a
rolling basis for future clients, the Exchange will enable clients to
test the receipt of the feed(s) for a minimum of 30 days before
incurring any monthly recurring fees. Similar to receiving market data
over fiber optic networks, the wireless network can encounter delays or
outages due to equipment issues. As wireless networks may be affected
by severe weather events, clients will be expected to have redundant
methods to receive this market data and will be asked to attest to
having alternate methods or establishing an alternate method in the

near future when they order this service from the Exchange.

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.
    To the contrary, this proposal will promote competition for
distribution of market data by offering an optional and innovative
product enhancement. Wireless technology has been in use for decades,
is available from multiple providers, and has been adopted by other
exchanges to offer microwave connectivity for delivery of market data.
    As discussed above, the Exchange believes that fees for co-location
services, including those proposed for microwave connectivity, are
constrained by the robust competition for order flow among exchanges
and non-exchange markets, because co-location exists to advance that
competition. Further, excessive fees for co-location services,
including for wireless technology, would serve to impair an exchange's
ability to compete for order flow rather than burdening competition.
    Competition between the Exchange and competing trading venues will
be enhanced by allowing the Exchange to offer its market participants a
lower latency connectivity option to receive market data, which is
currently available through other connectivity. Competition among
market participants will also be supported by allowing small and large
participants the same price for this lower latency connectivity.
    The proposed rule change will likewise enhance competition among
service providers offering connections between market participants and
the data centers. The offering will expand the multiple means of
connectivity available, allowing customers to compare the benefits and
costs of lower latency transmission and related costs with reference to
numerous variables.
    The Exchange, and presumably its competitors, selects service
providers on a competitive basis in order to pass along price
advantages to their customers, and to win and maintain their business.
The offering is consistent with the Exchange's own economic incentives
to facilitate as many market participants as possible in connecting to
its market.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (a) By order approve
or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (b) institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change 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-2016-033 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-033. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-033 and should
be submitted on or before April 12, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-06341 Filed 3-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P