[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59850-59851]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21025]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0139]

Entry-Level Driver Training: United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS);
Reconsideration of Denial of Application for Exemption

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

ACTION: Application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) seeks
reconsideration of the Agency's denial of its application for exemption
from provisions in the Entry-Level Driver Training (ELDT) final rule
requiring two years of experience for training instructors. UPS
believes that its current process of preparing driver trainers exceeds
any skill set gained merely by operating a tractor-trailer for two
years. UPS also believes that a two-year experience requirement doesn't
automatically equate to success as a commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
driver trainer. UPS makes this reconsideration request to ensure that
it can continue to exceed the current regulatory requirements and
provide proper training of its drivers and improve highway and public
safety. FMCSA requests public comment on the UPS application for
reconsideration.

DATES: October 23, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2019-0139 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver comments to Docket
Operations, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. E.T., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you,
please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Docket
Operations.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2019-0139), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2019-0139'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and
click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment
Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box in the following
screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual
or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they
reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov and insert
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2019-0139'' in the ``Keyword'' box and click
``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose the
document listed to review. If you do not have access to the internet,
you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in
the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments, and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reason for the grant or denial, and, if granted,
the specific person or class of persons receiving the exemption, and
the regulatory provision or provisions from which exemption is granted.
The notice must also specify the effective period of the exemption (up
to 5 years), and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Background

    The Entry-Level Driver Training (ELDT) final rule was adopted
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31305(c). The rule is based in part on consensus
recommendations from the Agency's ELDT Advisory Committee, a negotiated
rulemaking committee. The rule enhances the safety of CMV operations on
our Nation's highways by establishing a minimum standard for ELDT and
increasing the number of drivers who receive ELDT. The rule revises 49
CFR part 380, Special Training Requirements, to include, among other
things, driver training instructor qualifications. Under 49 CFR 380.713
a driver training instructor must have two years' experience and have
held a commercial driver's license (CDL) for two years, as set forth in
the definitions of behind-the-wheel (BTW) instructor and theory
instructor in 49 CFR 380.605.
    On June 19, 2019, FMCSA published a UPS application for exemption
from two provisions of the ELDT final rule and requested public comment
[84 FR 28623]. UPS requested an exemption from (1) the requirement in
49 CFR 380.713 that a driver training instructor hold a Commercial
Driver's License (CDL) and have two years' experience driving a
commercial motor vehicle (CMV), as set forth in the definitions of
``behind-the-wheel (BTW) instructor'' and ``theory instructor;'' and
(2) the requirement in 49 CFR 380.703(a)(7) to register each training
location in order to obtain a unique Training Provider Registry (TPR)
number applicable to that location.
    The Agency received 112 comments, including 58 supporting the
requested exemptions and 51 opposing them. Three other commenters had
no position either for or against the application and provided no
substantive comments.
    On December 9, 2019, the Agency denied the UPS exemption request
because the application did not provide an analysis of the safety
impacts the requested exemptions may cause, as required by 49 CFR
381.310(c)(4), and did not explain how the exemptions would likely
achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved by complying with the current regulations, as
required by 49 CFR 381.310(c)(5).

IV. Request for Reconsideration of Agency Decision

    On July 1, 2020, UPS requested that FMCSA reconsider its denial of
the exemption from 49 CFR 380.713. UPS believes that its current
process of preparing driver trainers exceeds any skill set gained
merely by operating a tractor-trailer for two years. The company also
believes that a two-year experience requirement doesn't automatically
equate to success as a CMV driver trainer. UPS has provided the Agency
with updated information since the original denial illustrating that
many of their locations have experienced turnover issues with driver
trainers. UPS stated that it has had to hire 100 candidates to attempt
to net the 50 trainer positions necessary across the U.S. Of the 100
hired, UPS has been able to retain only 38 trainers for the reasons
explained in the request for reconsideration. A copy of the UPS
application is in the docket listed at the beginning of the this
notice.

V. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), FMCSA requests public
comment from all interested persons on UPS' request for reconsideration
of its application for an exemption. All comments received before the
close of business on the comment closing date indicated at the
beginning of this notice will be considered and will be available for
examination in the docket at the location listed under the Addresses
section of this notice. Comments received after the comment closing
date will be filed in the public docket and will be considered to the
extent practicable. In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also
continue to file, in the public docket, relevant information that
becomes available after the comment closing date. Interested persons
should continue to examine the public docket for new material.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-21025 Filed 9-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


An Affordable Fuel Injection System for Small Engines.

J. Allen

Scion-Sprays Ltd, Hethel Engineering Centre, Norwich, NR14 8FB, UK.

Tel   +44 (0)1953 859110		E-Mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Pulse Count Injection Technology (PCI):

PCI uses a small geometrically fixed volume to repeatedly inject an
identical amount of fuel (“pulse volume”) into the engine intake
manifold a number of times each engine cycle.

Figure 1. Concept of a PCI injection process shown for a single engine
cycle.

The total number of pulses (“count”) of injected fuel determines the
total amount of fuel delivered to the engine each engine cycle, as shown
in Fig 1.

In order to achieve this fuel flow control process the injector is
constructed as a simple positive displacement pump, with a solenoid
driven piston and cylinder working as the fixed volume displacement
unit. Two one-way check valves ensure the correct flow path of the fluid
into and out of the injector. In this arrangement the single injector is
both a pumping unit and the flow metering unit which can be supplied
with fuel directly from the fuel tank.

The PCI Technology therefore contains fewer parts at a significantly
lower cost than a conventional injection system, but still delivers an
accurately controlled volume of fuel to the engine each cycle.

Because of the straightforward pulsed nature of the PCI solution the
electronic controls of the system can also be extremely simple and thus
very low cost.

Figure 2. Image of the PC Injector, Fuel Injection module and the
complete Fuel Injection system.

The modular design of the PCI Technology allows the complete fuel
injection system to be fitted into a single housing combined with the
throttle body, delivering a single component system that is very well
sealed against the harsh environments often encountered by small
engines. The electronic control offered by PCI Technology also forms a
perfect platform for a low cost solution to end-user requirements such
as; easy start, smooth response to load changes and simple maintenance.
Also by delivering optimised fuel quantity under all operating
conditions it minimises fuel consumption and emission output. Figure 3
shows an example of emission reduction of 10% achieved through fuelling
optimisation.

Figure 3. Emission Results comparison

 PAGE

 PAGE   1

RIA-2006

May 2006

Pulse volume is geometrically fixed

Count number is simple to control

Fuel quantity delivered = pulse volume x count

Start of Injection Burst

Pulse Count Variation

Individual Pulses


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37157]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13654]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0404]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Reynolds Channel, Nassau, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Long Beach Bridge, mile 4.7, across
Reynolds Channel, at Nassau, New York. This temporary deviation is
necessary to facility public safety during a public event, the Annual
Salute to Veterans and Fireworks Display.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 9:30 p.m. on June 25, 2016 to
11:59 p.m. on June 26, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0404] is available
at 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 deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Judy K. Leung-Yee, Project
Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Town of Hempstead Department of Public
Safety requested and the bridge owner, Nassau County Department of
Public Works, concurred with this temporary deviation from the normal
operating schedule to facilitate a public event, the Annual Salute to
Veterans and Fireworks Display.
    The Long Beach Bridge, mile 4.7, across Reynolds Channel has a
vertical clearance in the closed position of 22 feet at mean high water
and 24 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating
regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.799(g).
    Reynolds Channel is transited by commercial and recreational
traffic.
    Under this temporary deviation, the Long Beach Bridges may remain
in the closed position between 9:30 p.m. and 11:59 p.m. on June 25,
2016 (rain date: June 26, 2016 between 9:30 p.m. and 11:59 p.m.).
    Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do
so at anytime. The bridges will not be able to open for emergencies and
there are no immediate alternate routes for vessels to pass.
    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through
our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 3, 2016.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-13654 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: July 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 126)]
[Notices]
[Page 36068-36069]
[DOCID:fr02jy07-89]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0052]

Portable Fire Extinguishers (Annual Maintenance Certification
Record); Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB)
Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comment concerning its proposal to extend
OMB approval of the information collection requirements specified in
the Standard on Portable Fire Extinguishers (Annual Maintenance
Certification Record) (29 CFR 1910.157(e)(3)).
    Paragraph (e)(3) of the Standard requires employers to: Inspect
portable fire extinguishers annually for normal operation; record the
maintenance date; retain the maintenance record for one year after the
last entry or for the life of the shell, whichever is less; and make
the record available to an OSHA compliance officer upon request. The
annual maintenance inspection ensures that portable fire extinguishers
are in safe operating condition in case of a fire, while the
maintenance record provides evidence to employees and Agency compliance
officers that employers performed the required inspections.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
August 31, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0052,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2007-0052). All comments, including any
personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket
without change, and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
 For further information on submitting comments see

the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of this notice
titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at

the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;

however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information
regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries,
illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires
that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers,
especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the
maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining
information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    Section 1910.157(e)(3) specifies that employers must subject each
portable fire extinguisher to an annual maintenance inspection and
record the date of the inspection. In addition, this provision requires
employers to retain the inspection record for one year after the last
entry or for the life of the shell, whichever is less, and to make the
record available to OSHA on request. This recordkeeping requirement
assures employees and Agency compliance officers that portable fire
extinguishers located in the workplace will operate normally in case of
fire; in addition, this requirement provides evidence of the required
extinguisher inspections to OSHA compliance officers during a workplace
inspection.

II. Special Issues for Comment OSHA has a particular interest in
comments on the following issues:

     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Standard on Portable Fire
Extinguishers (Annual Maintenance Certification Record) (29 CFR
1910.157(e)(3)). The Agency is requesting to increase its current
burden hour estimate associated with this Standard from 67,500 hours to
69,019 hours for a total increase of 1,519 hours. The Agency will
summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will
include this summary in the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Portable Fire Extinguishers (Annual Maintenance
Certification Record) (29 CFR 1910.157(e)(3)).
    OMB Number: 1218-0238.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 138,038.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Average Time per Response: 30 minutes (.50 hour) to perform and
record the required maintenance inspection.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 69,019.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $19,878,208.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on this Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0052). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled Addresses).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov.
 Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about

submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index, some information (e.g., copyrighted

material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and

access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available through the Web site, and for assistance in using the
Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR
65008).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on June 25, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
 [FR Doc. E7-12708 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: February 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 33)]
[Notices]
[Page 7791-7792]
[DOCID:fr20fe07-34]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55267; File No. SR-NSCC-2006-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Allow Retirement and Other Benefit Plans and Programs
Offered By Registered Broker/Dealers To Be Processed Through Its
Insurance Processing Service

February 9, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on December 13, 2006, the
National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been
prepared primarily by NSCC. NSCC filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \2\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(4) thereunder \3\ so that the proposal was effective upon filing
with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend NSCC's Rules
related to the Insurance Processing Services (``IPS'') and Insurance
Carrier Members in order to allow retirement and other benefit plans
and programs offered by registered broker/dealers to be processed on
the IPS platform.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NSCC 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. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of this filing is to amend NSCC's Rules related to IPS
and Insurance Carrier Members in order to allow retirement and other
benefit plans and programs offered by registered broker/dealers to be
processed on the IPS platform.

Background

    NSCC's IPS is a non-guaranteed service, meaning that NSCC does not
function as a central counterparty or guarantor with respect to payment
obligations arising in connection with IPS transactions. IPS was
established in 1997 as the Annuities Processing Service, a centralized
communication link that connected participating insurance carriers with
broker/dealers and other entities that distributed annuities issued by
the participating insurance carrier.\5\ The service was later expanded
to accommodate processing of life insurance products in addition to
annuities, and its name was changed to IPS. Similarly, the name of the
participating insurance carriers using IPS was changed from ``Annuities
Carrier Members'' to ``Insurance Carrier Members.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39096 (September 19,
1997), 62 FR 50416 (September 25, 1997) [File No. SR-NSCC-96-21].
    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 40634 (November 4,
1998), 63 FR 63096 (November 10, 1998) [File No. SR-NSCC-98-13] and
41477 (June 4, 1999), 64 FR 31666 (June 11, 1999) [File No. SR-NSCC-
99-04].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, IPS provides for the communication of data relating to
insurance products (both annuities and life insurance products) and for
the settlement of certain payments relating to insurance products, as
set forth in NSCC Rule 57, ``Insurance Processing Service.''
Participating insurance carriers that use IPS to communicate with their
distributors information regarding their insurance products are called
``Insurance Carrier Members.'' Their distributors are called
``Members'' or ``Mutual Fund/Insurance Services Members'' and use IPS
under authority of NSCC Rule 2, ``Members.'' The qualifications of
Insurance Carrier Members are set forth in Rule 56 and Addendum Q of
NSCC's Rules.
    Certain retirement and other benefit plans and programs offered by
a broker/dealer are functionally similar to annuities in that the
broker/dealer (functioning as an administrator and/or custodian of the
program) offers multiple investment options (typically mutual funds or
annuities) within the ``wrap'' of the program for sale to plan sponsors
through distributing broker/dealer intermediaries. Current IPS
functionality that is used for annuities and other insurance products
is useful in the context of these programs. Examples of such
functionalities included the communication of customer positions and
activity among the investment options within the program, information
regarding the values of the various investment options included within
the program, data concerning program commissions and other compensation
due to the distributing broker/dealers, and the payment of such
commissions and compensation through NSCC's daily money settlement.

(A) Proposed Amendments to NSCC's Rules

    Under the proposed amendments, the IPS is renamed the ``Insurance
and Retirement Processing Services'' (and is still referred to as
``IPS'') and the products processed through IPS are renamed ``IPS
Eligible Products.'' IPS Eligible Products now include, in addition to
insurance products, retirement and other benefit plans and programs.
    ``Insurance Carrier Member'' is renamed ``Insurance Carrier/
Retirement Services Member.'' Formerly, only insurance companies could
qualify under this membership category. Pursuant to the proposed rule
change, registered broker/dealers will also be eligible to qualify as
Insurance Carrier/Retirement Services Members. The membership
qualifications applicable to insurance companies in their capacity as
Insurance Carrier/Retirement Services Members are unchanged. The
membership qualifications applicable to a broker/dealer in its capacity
as an Insurance Carrier/Retirement Services Member will be the same as
the qualifications currently applicable to a broker/dealer which acts
as a Mutual Fund/Insurance Services Member processing transactions on
IPS today as a distributor of insurance products issued by an Insurance
Carrier Member. These qualifications, such as the requirement that the
broker/dealer maintain $50,000 in excess net capital over that required
by the Commission or the broker/dealer's designated examining authority
(``Excess Net Capital''), are also the same qualifications required of
a broker/dealer that participates in NSCC's Mutual Fund Services,
whether acting as a Fund Member (analogous to an Insurance Carrier/
Retirement Services Member on IPS) or as a Mutual Fund/Insurance
Services Member distributing

mutual funds and similar fund products on NSCC's mutual fund processing
platform, Fund/Serv.
    Rule 1, ``Definitions and Descriptions'' The definition of
``Eligible Insurance Plan'' is deleted and has been replaced by the
term ``IPS Eligible Product'' in order to include retirement and other
benefit plans and programs as products that may be processed through
IPS. The defined term ``Insurance Carrier Member'' is changed to
``Insurance Carrier/Retirement Services Member, as discussed above.
Conforming changes are also made throughout NSCC's Rules.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ References to ``Insurance Carrier Members'' and the
``Insurance Processing Service'' are replaced with the new terms
throughout NSCC's Rules; however, due to the extent of their use
throughout the Rules, these changes have not been reflected in
Exhibit 5 to the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An unrelated technical change is made to defined terms ``TPA'' and
``TPA Member'' to clarify that a TPA Member must be a third party
administrator. Although implied, this had not been expressly stated.
    Rule 3, ``Lists to be Maintained'' Section 9 of Rule 3 is revised
to refer to ``IPS Eligible Products,'' rather than insurance plans, as
the subject of transactions processed on IPS.
    Rule 50, ``Automated Customer Account Transfer Service''
(``ACATs'') Section 8 of Rule 50 is revised to delete references to an
``Insurance Company'' as the entity which would confirm or reject an
ACATs transfer of IPS Eligible Products. ``Insurance Carrier/Retirement
Services Member'' is substituted in its place. Similar changes are also
made to the description of ACATs for Eligible IPS Products in Section 6
of Rule 57.
    Rule 56, ``Insurance Carrier Member'' Rule 56 is revised to include
broker/dealers as entities which can become Insurance Carrier/
Retirement Services Members.
    Rule 57, ``Insurance Processing Service'' Rule 57 is revised to
refer to the ``Insurance and Retirement Processing Services'' in place
of the ``Insurance Processing Service.'' In addition, an error in
Section 2(a) is corrected to state that the service is offered by NSCC.
    Addendum Q, ``Standards of Financial and Operational Capability for
Insurance Carrier Members'' Addendum Q is revised to reflect that
broker/dealers that are Insurance Carrier/Retirement Services Members
or are applicants must meet the general qualifications currently
applicable to Insurance Carrier Members (other than with respect to
financial qualifications that are applicable solely to insurance
companies). In addition, Addendum Q is revised to reflect that such
broker/dealers must also maintain $50,000 in Excess Net Capital.
    The proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of
Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder because
the addition of retirement and other benefit plans and programs offered
by registered broker/dealers will permit the processing of additional
financial products through NSCC and is designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of transactions and to assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody and control of
NSCC.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact or impose any burden on competition.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet
been solicited or received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by NSCC.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)
thereunder \9\ because the proposed rule effects a change in an
existing service of NSCC that (i) does not adversely affect the
safeguarding of securities or funds in the custody or control of NSCC
and (ii) does not significantly affect the respective rights or
obligations of NSCC or those members using the service. At any time
within sixty days of the filing of such rule change, the Commission may
summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NSCC-2006-16 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2006-16. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at NSCC, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.nscc.com/legal/2006/2006-16.pdf.
 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-NSCC-2006-16 and should be submitted on
or before March 13, 2007.

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-2845 Filed 2-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 3, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31968-31970]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14162]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86220; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2019-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Instituting
Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed
Rule Change Relating to the Permitted Investments of the PGIM Ultra
Short Bond ETF

June 27, 2019.
    On March 13, 2019, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Arca'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
make certain changes to the listing rule for shares (``Shares'') of the
PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (``Fund''). The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal

Register on April 2, 2019.\3\ On May 10, 2019, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period
within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\ The Commission has
received no comment letters on the proposal. The Commission is
publishing this order to institute proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85430 (Mar. 27,
2019), 84 FR 12646 (Apr. 2, 2019) (``Notice'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85829 (May 10,
2019), 84 FR 22221 (May 16, 2019). The Commission designated July 1,
2019, as the date by which the Commission shall approve or
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve
or disapprove, the proposed rule change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposal

A. The Fund and the Shares

    According to the Exchange, the investment objective of the Fund is
to seek total return through a combination of current income and
capital appreciation, consistent with preservation of capital. The Fund
seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing primarily in a
portfolio of U.S. dollar denominated short-term fixed, variable and
floating rate debt instruments. Under normal market conditions,\7\ the
Fund invests at least 80% of its net assets (plus any borrowings for
investment purposes) in a portfolio of financial instruments consisting
of (1) the Principal Investment Instruments (as defined in the First
Prior Order); and (2) derivatives (as described in the Prior Orders)
that (a) provide exposure to such Principal Investment Instruments, or
(b) are used to enhance returns, manage portfolio duration, or manage
the risk of securities price fluctuations, as described in the Prior
Orders.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``normal market conditions'' is defined in NYSE
Arca Rule 8.600-E(c)(5).
    \8\ The terms ``First Prior Order'' and ``Prior Orders'' are
defined infra at note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Shares commenced trading on the Exchange on April 10, 2018,
pursuant to the generic listing standards under Commentary .01 to NYSE
Arca Rule 8.600-E (``Managed Fund Shares'').\9\ Since then, the
Exchange has proposed--and the Commission has approved--two proposed
rule changes to expand the permitted investments of the Fund beyond
what is permitted under the generic listing requirements.\10\ By the
instant proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to again amend the
listing rule applicable to the Shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A Managed Fund Share is a security that represents an
interest in an investment company registered under the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1) organized as an open-end
investment company or similar entity that invests in a portfolio of
securities selected by its investment adviser consistent with its
investment objectives and policies. In contrast, an open-end
investment company that issues Investment Company Units, listed and
traded on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3), seeks to
provide investment results that correspond generally to the price
and yield performance of a specific foreign or domestic stock index,
fixed income securities index or combination thereof.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 83319 (May 24,
2018), 83 FR 25097 (May 31, 2018) (SR-NYSEArca-2018-15) (``First
Prior Order''); and 84818 (December 13, 2018) (SR-NYSEArca-2018-75)
(together with the First Prior Order, ``Prior Orders'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Proposed Modifications to the Shares' Listing Rule

    The Exchange proposes to amend two requirements of the Shares'
current listing rule as set forth in the First Prior Order, namely the
requirements that: (1) The Fund's investments in non-U.S. Government,
non-agency, non-GSE and other privately issued asset backed securities
(including mortgage-backed securities) (``Private ABS/MBS'') are
limited to 20% of the total assets of the Fund; \11\ and (2) the Fund
may invest only 10% of its total assets in fixed income securities that
do not satisfy the criteria of Commentary .01(b)(4) to NYSE Arca Rule
8.600-E.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ At the time the proposed rule change was filed, Commentary
.01(b)(5) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E provided that non-agency, non-
government sponsored entity and privately issued mortgage-related
and other asset-backed securities components of a portfolio may not
account, in the aggregate, for more than 20% of the weight of the
fixed income portion of the portfolio. Recently, however, the
Exchange amended Commentary .01(b)(5) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E, and
it now provides that non-agency, non-government sponsored entity and
privately issued mortgage-related and other asset-backed securities
components of a portfolio may not account, in the aggregate, for
more than 20% of the weight of the portfolio. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 86017 (June 3, 2019), 84 FR 26711 (June 7,
2019) (SR-NYSEArca-2019-06).
    \12\ Commentary .01(b)(4) requires that at least 90% of the
fixed income weight of the portfolio must be either: (a) From
issuers that are required to file reports pursuant to Sections 13
and 15(d) of the Act; (b) from issuers that have a worldwide market
value of its outstanding common equity held by non-affiliates of
$700 million or more; (c) from issuers that have outstanding
securities that are notes, bonds debentures, or evidence of
indebtedness having a total remaining principal amount of at least
$1 billion; (d) exempted securities as defined in Section 3(a)(12)
of the Act; or (e) from issuers that are a government of a foreign
country or a political subdivision of a foreign country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify the Fund's current limit on Private
ABS/MBS by removing collateralized debt obligations (``CDOs'') \13\
from the definition of Private ABS/MBS and by allowing the Fund to
invest up to 20% of its total assets in CDOs. Therefore, the Exchange
is proposing to allow up to 40% of the Fund's portfolio to be composed
of what had previously been defined as Private ABS/MBS. The Exchange
asserts that ability to invest up to 20% of the Fund's portfolio CDOs
would help the Fund maintain portfolio diversification and would reduce
manipulation risk.\14\ The Exchange argues that CDOs can be
distinguished from asset backed securities (``ABS'') because CDOs are
collateralized by bank loans or by corporate or government fixed income
securities, while ABS are collateralized by consumer and other loans
(including student loans) made by non-bank lenders.\15\ Additionally,
the Exchange states that the Fund's investments in CDOs would be
subject to the Fund's liquidity procedures, and that the Fund's
investment adviser does not expect that such investments would
materially impact the liquidity of the Fund's investments.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange defines CDOs as collateralized loan
obligations (``CLOs'') and collateralized bond obligations
(``CBOs''). The Exchange defines CLOs as securities issued by a
trust or other special purpose entity that are collateralized by a
pool of loans by U.S. banks and participations in loans by U.S.
banks that are unsecured or secured by collateral other than real
estate. The Exchange defines CBOs as securities issued by a trust or
other special purpose entity that are backed by a diversified pool
of fixed income securities issued by U.S. or foreign governmental
entities or fixed income securities issued by U.S. or corporate
issuers.
    \14\ See Notice, supra note 3, 84 FR at 12647-48.
    \15\ See id. at 12647, n.12.
    \16\ See id. at 12648.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, with respect to the requirement the Fund may invest
only up to 10% of its total assets in fixed income securities that do
not satisfy the criteria of Commentary .01(b)(4), the Exchange proposes
that the Fund's Private ABS/MBS (which may constitute up to 20% of the
portfolio) and CDOs (which also may constitute up to 20% of the
portfolio) would not count toward that 10% limit. As a result, up to
50% of the Fund's fixed income securities might not satisfy the
criteria in Commentary .01(b)(4). The Exchange argues that this
alternative limit is appropriate because the criteria in Commentary
.01(b)(4) ``do not appear to be designed for structured finance
vehicles such as Private ABS/MBS.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes no other changes to the Shares' listing rule.

II. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-
NYSEArca-2019-14 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \18\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change. Institution of proceedings
does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described below, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide comments
on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\19\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be ``designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade,'' and ``to protect investors and the public
interest.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the
Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth
in the Notice,\21\ in addition to any other comments they may wish to
submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission
seeks comment on the following questions and asks commenters to submit
data where appropriate to support their views.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the listing rule for the Shares were amended as proposed, would
the listing rule continue to ensure that a substantial portion of the
Fund's portfolio consists of fixed income securities for which
information is publicly available? If not, are there reasons why it may
not be necessary that information be publicly available for Private
ABS/MBS and CDOs (as distinguished from other types of fixed income
securities)?
    Would the proposed increased investment in Private ABS/MBS and CDOs
by the Fund increase the susceptibility of the Shares to manipulation?
If so, why; if not, why not? If the Fund's permitted investments were
expanded to the extent proposed, would any other restrictions on the
Fund's permitted investments be appropriate in order for the proposed
rule change to be consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act?

III. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or
the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to
be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be
facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the
Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an
opportunity to make an oral presentation.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by July 24, 2019. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal
to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by August 7,
2019. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of
the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in addition to
any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule
change.
    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-NYSEArca-2019-14 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2019-14. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2019-14 and should be submitted
by July 24, 2019. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by August 7,
2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-14162 Filed 7-2-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 77 (Monday, April 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 18945]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08168]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Extension: Rule 17Ac3-1(a) and Form TA-W; SEC File No. 270-96, OMB
Control No. 3235-0151]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
existing collection of information provided for in Rule 17Ac3-1(a) and
Form TA-W, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et
seq.) (``Exchange Act''). The Commission plans to submit this existing
collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Section 17A(c)(4)(B) of the Exchange Act authorizes transfer agents
registered with an appropriate regulatory agency (``ARA'') to withdraw
from registration by filing a written notice of withdrawal with the ARA
and by agreeing to such terms and conditions as the ARA deems necessary
or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors,
or in the furtherance of the purposes of Section 17A.
    In order to implement Section 17A(c)(4)(B) of the Exchange Act, the
Commission promulgated Rule 17Ac3-1(a) (17 CFR 240.17Ac3-1(a)) and
accompanying Form TA-W (17 CFR 249b.101) on September 1, 1977. Rule
17Ac3-1(a) provides that notice of withdrawal from registration as a
transfer agent with the Commission shall be filed on Form TA-W. Form
TA-W requires the withdrawing transfer agent to provide the Commission
with certain information, including: (1) The locations where transfer
agent activities are or were performed; (2) the reasons for ceasing the
performance of such activities; (3) disclosure of unsatisfied judgments
or liens; and (4) information regarding successor transfer agents.
    The Commission uses the information disclosed on Form TA-W to
determine whether the registered transfer agent applying for withdrawal
from registration as a transfer agent should be allowed to deregister
and, if so, whether the Commission should attach to the granting of the
application any terms or conditions necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors, or in furtherance of
the purposes of Section 17A of the Exchange Act. Without Rule 17Ac3-
1(a) and Form TA-W, transfer agents registered with the Commission
would not have a means to voluntarily deregister when it is necessary
or appropriate to do so.
    On average, respondents have filed approximately 17 TA-Ws with the
Commission annually from 2014 to 2017. A Form TA-W filing occurs only
once, when a transfer agent is seeking to deregister. Approximately 80
percent of Form TA-Ws are completed by the transfer agent or its
employees and approximately 20 percent of Form TA-Ws are completed by
an outside filing agent that is hired by the registrant to prepare the
form and file it electronically. In view of the readily-available
information requested by Form TA-W, its short and simple presentation,
and the Commission's experience with the filers, we estimate that
approximately 30 minutes is required to complete and file Form TA-W.
For transfer agents that complete Form TA-W themselves, we estimate the
internal labor cost of compliance per filing is $25 (0.5 hours x $50
average hourly rate for clerical staff time). We estimate that outside
filing agents charge $100 to complete and file at TA-W on behalf of a
registrant, reflecting an external labor cost to respondents. The total
annual time burden to the transfer agent industry is approximately 9
hours (17 filings x 0.5 hours). The total annual external labor cost to
respondents is $340 (17 annual forms x $100 x 20%).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 18, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08168 Filed 4-21-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                                  MEMORANDUM

Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340
Fairfax, VA 22030
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

TO:			Paul Shriner and Jan Matuszko, USEPA
FROM:		John Sunda (SAIC) and Kelly Meadows
DATE: 		March 8, 2010

SUBJECT:		Estimation of Net Difference in Capital and O&M Costs for Once-through Versus Closed-Cycle Cooling for New Generating Units at Existing Power Plants and for Repowering of Existing Generating Units

EPA requested that Tetra Tech and SAIC estimate engineering costs associated with construction of cooling water systems for new generating units and for repowered generating units as a way to compare these costs against those for retrofitting intake technologies or flow reduction requirements at existing generating units.

The following cost analysis provides an estimate of the net difference in capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs between the cooling system options of flow reduction using closed-cycle cooling with mechanical draft cooling towers versus once-through cooling.  Separate cost estimates are provided for new and repowered generating units as well as generating with different thermal efficiencies.

Introduction

The construction of new generating units and repowering of existing units at existing power plants is a common practice employed by electric generators to meet one or more of the following goals: to increase plant capacity; to increase plant efficiency; to reduce operating costs, to extend plant life, to improve plant reliability; and to reduce emission of pollutants.  There are numerous financial, engineering, and regulatory benefits to adding to or rehabilitating generating capacity at existing sites compared to building new units at a new site.  For example, a new or repowered unit may increase the total capacity, allowing the plant to better meet the demand for power; alternatively, a new or repowered unit may replace (or make obsolete) an older generating unit that was no longer cost-effective to operate, creating a more competitive portfolio for the utility.  Additionally, projects at existing plants (including repowering projects) can take advantage of existing infrastructure and support services, while the construction of new generating units offers significant flexibility in the unit's design and location.

As detailed below, the capital costs for either a once-through or a closed-cycle cooling system at new generating units are relatively similar: for each type of generating unit, once-through systems are approximately 15% more expensive.  For repowered units, capital costs for closed-cycle systems are nearly twice as high for an "easy" difficulty retrofit and approximately three times more costly for an "average" retrofit.  For all generating units (new or repowered), O&M costs are approximately twice as high for closed-cycle systems.

Definitions

For the purposes of this analysis, the term "new units" refers to generating units that do not replace the generating capacity of existing generating units and will require their own cooling system that is mostly independent of the cooling system and intakes for the existing generating units.  The once-through cooling option for new units is assumed to require a new intake and discharge structure either adjacent to the existing intake or in a new location.  The closed-cycle cooling option for new units is also assumed to be completely independent of the existing plant cooling systems, with the exceptions of make-up water which may be withdrawn from the existing cooling system and tower blowdown which may be combined with an existing plant discharge.

For the purposes of this analysis, the term "repowered units" refers to full repowering projects where all (or a large portion) of the major components of an existing generating system such as boilers, steam turbines, and condensers are replaced or upgraded.  The repowered generating system is assumed to be located and sized such that the repowered unit(s) will continue to use the existing once-through cooling water intake, intake pumps, and discharge system.  It is assumed that the water withdrawal flow rate(s) and heat discharge rate(s) would not increase.  In fact, since repowered systems are almost always more efficient, more power can be generated even though the cooling water capacity has not changed.  Table 1 below shows the equivalent increase in generating capacity for a repowering project if an average existing 500 MW conventional steam cycle plant with an efficiency of about 32% (heat rate = 10,800 BTU/Kwh) is replaced with a newer, more efficient steam plant that is sized to reject the same amount of waste heat (i.e., no changes to cooling water flow rate and condenser temperature rise [range]).

Table 1. Equivalent Generation Capacities for Steam Power Plants with Similar Heat Rejection Rates and Equal Cooling Water Flows

                               Plant Efficiency
                           Equivalent Capacity (MW)
                                Increase Factor
Older Existing Coal
                                      32%
                                      500
                                      1.0
Sub-Critical Fossil Fuel
                                     39.2%
                                      653
                                      1.3
Ultra-Critical Fossil Fuel
                                     45.5%
                                      888
                                      1.8
Combined Cycle
                                     56.9%
                                     1451
                                      2.9

General Design and Cost Assumptions

Net O&M and capital costs are estimated on a per MW generating capacity basis so that these cost estimates can be applied to generating units of any size.  For repowered units, since the assumptions are that the existing intake will be used for the once-though option, the costs apply only to situations where the new condenser flow rate is equal to or less than the existing condenser flow rate.  Thus, the repowered units will have an increase in power generating capacity similar to the ratios shown in Table 1.

Costs are derived using estimated cooling water flow rates and corresponding costs for 500 MW generating units representing three different available boiler designs.  Table 2 presents the generating unit efficiency and design cooling system flow assumptions.  The heat rate and efficiency values for ultra-critical fossil fuel and combined cycle represent estimates of the current state-of-the-art capabilities for these types of generating systems.

Table 2. Generating Unit Design Assumptions

                           Sub-Critical Fossil Fuel
                          Ultra-Critical Fossil Fuel
                                Combined Cycle
Capacity (MW)
                                      500
                                      500
                                      500
Heat Rate (BTU/KWh)
                                     8,700
                                     7,500
                                     6,000
Plant Efficiency (%)
                                     39.2
                                     45.5
                                     56.9
Range ([o]F)
                                      20
                                      15
                                      20
                                      15
                                      20
                                      15
Cooling Water Flow (gpm/MW)
                                      440
                                      590
                                      320
                                      430
                                      200
                                      270
Cooling Water Flow (gpm)
                                    220,000
                                    295,000
                                    160,000
                                    215,000
                                    100,000
                                    135,000

The design assumptions in Table 2 are used for both the new unit option and the repowering option.  It is assumed that the cooling (circulating) water flow rate will be the same for once-through and closed-cycle cooling options for each generating unit.  Costs are estimated for two different condenser temperature rise (range) values of 15[o]F and 20[o]F, since cooling water per MW will be different for different range values.  These two values were selected because they are typical for values used at existing plants.  The ratios between heat rejection and cooling water flow (shown in Table 1), however, do not change as long as the range is the same for the new repowered and old generating units.  The flow rate estimates in Table 2 are based on the assumed heat rates and the assumption that 90% of the heat not converted to electric power ends up being rejected from the system through the cooling water.

Repowering Scenarios

Once-Through Option

The repowering scenarios are assumed to be a full repowering where all of the major components of the generating system such as boilers, steam turbines, and condensers are replaced or upgraded.  For the once-through option, it is assumed that the existing shoreline intake pump well and cooling water piping are retained for the new system.

Cost assumptions for the once-through cooling system include:

   * System will use existing intake pumps and piping;
   * Pumping head is 35 ft;
   * Intake will be upgraded to modified Ristroph screens with a 0.5 fps through-screen velocity, requiring an expansion of the intake;
   * Intake upgrade costs are based on a cost module for a new, larger intake structure;
   * O&M costs are based on coarse mesh modified Ristroph screens with the average intake flow equal to 75% of design flow;
   * Intake water depth is assumed to be 18 ft and well depth used for cost estimates is 50 ft;
   * Existing circulating pumps will be upgraded to variable speed using VFDs, based on a unit cost of $15/gpm applied to the cooling water flow.

The major capital cost components for the once-through option are the upgrades of the intake needed to meet impingement requirements, which include the intake and screen upgrade and the upgrade of pump drives with VFDs.  A review of the intake upgrade cost estimates for different flows showed that they were not linear, while most other cost components in this analysis (including the cooling tower costs) are in fact linear.  To avoid the skewed results for net costs that would result from mixing linear cooling tower costs and non-linear intake modification costs, capital costs were derived for the median flow for the ultra-critical fossil fuel plant for Cost Module 3 and then converted to unit costs in dollars/gpm.  These unit costs were then applied to the flows for all three generating unit types.

The major O&M cost components for the once-through option are the intake technology O&M and the pump energy.  The intake technology O&M is based on modified Ristroph traveling screens with a through-screen velocity of 0.5 fps.  The O&M costs were linear.

Closed-Cycle Option

The required retrofit components for the closed-cycle option are similar to those required for cooling tower retrofits at existing generating units that are not modified or repowered.  However, in some respects, demolition and construction activities associated with unit repowering should make the retrofit easier and somewhat less costly compared to retrofitting an unmodified unit.  In addition, there should be no difference between cooling system options for the construction downtime associated with the repowering, as the construction of either cooling system could easily be completed during the scheduled construction downtime.

Recirculating tower option costs were estimated for two retrofit conditions using cost estimate factors derived from the EPRI Tower Calculation Worksheet (EPRI 2007a).  One cost estimate uses the EPRI cooling tower retrofit costs for the "easy" difficulty cooling tower installation option, which represents situations where there is suitable space nearby for the cooling tower and that the repower project construction is extensive enough such that many of the difficulties encountered in retrofitting cooling towers to a mostly unaltered existing generating unit can readily be addressed through design modifications of the repowered units.  This would be more applicable to major repowering projects where a substantial portion of the existing generating unit is demolished and replaced with an entirely new system.  The other cost estimate uses the EPRI cooling tower retrofit costs for the "average" difficulty cooling tower installation, which represents more difficult circumstances, such as limited space onsite or the proximity of residential areas.  Both of these cost items include all of the typical capital cost components of a cooling tower retrofit, including cooling towers, pumps, piping, make-up water and blowdown systems.

The factors cited by EPRI (EPRI 2007b) that affect the selection of cooling tower retrofit difficulty include:

   * The need to make modifications to the condensers;
   * The distance between the tower and generating unit;
   * Steps necessary to prepare the site such as demolishing buildings or structures;
   * Elevation of tower site, e.g., too low site elevation may require grading to raise elevation or extra pumps for return flow;
   * Presence of underground, surface and overhead interferences such as utilities, roadways, and overhead transmission lines that may conflict with the placement of the towers, water pipes, and pump wells;
   * Difficulty related to tie-in and ability to use existing intake and discharge structures for make-up and blowdown;
   * Proximity of the location selected for circulating pumps and the availability of power;
   * Presence of unfavorable soil conditions or contamination.

Since this option assumes that major modifications, if not a complete rebuild, will be performed on the generating unit as well as portions of the cooling system, it is reasonable to assume that some of these difficulties will be dealt with regardless of the cooling option selected and that many may be at least partially mitigated in the repowered system design.  For this reason, only the "easy" and "average" difficulty cost options are included in these repower cooling tower options.

The following assumptions were used for the closed-cycle option:

   * Retrofit capital costs are based on EPRI capital cost factor of $160/gpm for an "easy" retrofit and $249/gpm for an "average" retrofit;
   * Cooling tower pump energy requirements are based on a total pumping head of 38 to 40 ft;
   * Cooling tower fan energy requirements are based on tower cells sized to handle 12,000 gpm per cell with 200 Hp fans in each cell;
   * Cooling tower O&M is based on the EPRI cost estimate plus added costs for optimized operation at a higher cycle of concentration (COC) than is typical for existing power plants with cooling towers.  The cost factor used was $2.01/gpm of recirculating flow.

New Generating Unit Scenarios

New generating units are assumed to require their own cooling water system that is mostly independent of the existing cooling water system.  While the site layout may impose certain restrictions, the flexibility inherent in new construction should allow for more optimal placement of generating units, cooling towers, piping, and intakes, at least between the cooling system options, than would be available for repowering of existing units.  It is assumed that cooling water piping costs will be the same for each cooling option, since the cooling flow will be the same and similar sized pipes would be used, and thus the cost differences will be dependent mostly on the required distances for each option.  Without knowledge of site-specific conditions, it is not possible to determine which option would require greater lengths of piping.

Once-Through Option

For the once-through option, a new intake structure and traveling screens must be constructed along with the pump wells.  These costs are based on Cost Module 3.  While this module is intended to estimate the cost for adding a new larger intake in front of an existing intake, is assumed to be reasonably similar to the cost for construction a portion of a new intake.  An additional cost is added to account for the deeper pump wells needed for the once-through option (as opposed to a closed-cycle pump well, which can be shallower).  Since both pump well and intake screen structures should be similar in relative size and cost with respect to concrete requirements and equipment requirements (pump shafts versus added screen height), the added pump well depth cost is assumed to be similar in magnitude to the difference in cost between the cost for Module 3 with a 50 ft screen well versus Module 3 with a 25 ft screen well.  This is based on the assumption that the concrete and equipment costs for the added depth are comparable for the screen channel walls and added screening equipment versus the pump well walls and pump shaft.

 The assumptions for the once-through option include:

   * Pumping head is 35 ft;
   * Cost for intake screens, screen structure and extra pump well depth are $98/gpm flow. This value is based on costs for Module 3 with a 50 ft screen well using a flow of 160,000 gpm plus difference between Module 3 costs for 25 ft and 50 ft screen wells;

Closed-Cycle Option

It is assumed that the cooling tower option will not require a new intake structure, since make-up can often be taken from the existing plant cooling water intake system.  As such, the cooling tower component costs will be limited to the cooling towers and basins, with some added costs for make-up and blowdown pumping and piping.  Since these flows are relatively low, the make-up and blowdown pumping and piping costs are a relatively small component but are included.  The cooling tower capital costs included in this analysis are limited to these components because both systems will require similar pump and piping costs.

Capital costs for the pumping equipment are assumed to be the same as those for the once-through option.  The pump well component costs are also assumed to be equal, except that the surface water intake pump well structure for the once-through option must be deeper to allow for water level fluctuations and prevent equipment damage from flood conditions.

The assumptions for the closed-cycle option include:

   * Cost of cooling tower is assumed to be $80/gpm. This cost is derived from the estimated median total cost for the towers and basins based on cost estimates presented in the report "California's Coastal Power Plants: Alternative Cooling System Analysis" (Tetra Tech 2008).  These costs include the 25% indirect and 25% contingency factors used in this report.  Report costs are based on design and build estimates submitted by cooling tower vendors plus engineering estimates for the concrete basins;
   * Capital cost of makeup water pumps and piping is assumed to be 5% of cooling tower costs;
   * Pump energy requirement is based on total pumping head from EPRI worksheet (38 to 40 ft);
   * Fan energy requirement is based on tower cells sized for 12,000 gpm per cell with 200 Hp fans;
   * Cooling tower O&M is based on the EPRI cost estimate plus added costs for optimized operation at a higher COC than is typical for existing power plants with cooling towers.  The cost factor used was $2.01/gpm of recirculating flow.

Turbine Efficiency Penalty

It is expected that the turbine efficiency penalty as a percent of total power generation will be lower for newer, more efficient generating units.  The estimates for the turbine efficiency penalty presented here use the current EPA estimates for existing plants of 1.5% for non-nuclear and 2.5% for nuclear plants as the starting point.  For newer, more efficient generating units, these values are adjusted using assumed high pressure (HP) steam turbine inlet pressures.  The assumption is that the energy available is a function of the difference between the high pressure and low pressure sides of the steam turbine and that the energy loss in MW associated with a given increase in the turbine exhaust backpressure is somewhat constant, all else being equal.  Thus, the percent of energy loss due to a given change in turbine backpressure should decrease and be indirectly proportional to the increase in the HP steam inlet pressure.  While the energy available is also a function of the inlet steam temperature and steam reheat steps, these values tend to be higher as well for the newer generating systems.

It is also assumed that for new and repowered units, either new or refurbished turbines and condensers with improved optimal designs will be utilized and that they will result in improved equipment efficiency.  This improvement is assumed to result in a 10% reduction in the energy penalty over equivalent existing designs.  Table 3 shows the estimated existing plant energy penalty adjustments based on proportional differences in the assumed HP turbine inlet pressures.  For combined cycle, the adjustment is based on the assumption that the steam component penalty would be similar to that for an existing non-nuclear plant but is responsible for only 1/3 of total generation.  Table 4 presents the estimated energy penalty for repowered and new generating units.  While the energy penalties for non-optimized repowered units are also shown in Table 4, it is reasonable to assume that in most cases optimization of condensers and turbines will occur.

Table 3. Assumed Values and Penalties for Existing Plants
                                  Plant Type
                           Assumed Plant Efficiency
                    Assumed HP Turbine Inlet Pressure (psi)
            Penalty Without Optimizing Turbine and Condenser Design
Nuclear
                                      33%
                                      800
                                     2.5%
Non-nuclear (Old and New)
                                      34%
                                     2400
                                     1.5%
Non-nuclear 39%
                                      39%
                                     3600
                                     1.0%
Non-nuclear 45%
                                      45%
                                     4500
                                     0.80%
Combined Cycle[1]
                                      57%
                                     1800
                                     0.67%
1 Assumes HSRG produces 33% of power.

Table 4. Estimate New and Repowered Unit Turbine Efficiency Energy Penalty
                                  Plant Type
                       Assumed Plant Thermal Efficiency
                    Turbine Efficiency Penalty  -  Repower
              Turbine Efficiency Penalty  -  Repower Optimized[1]
                     Turbine Efficiency Penalty  -  New[1]
Nuclear
                                      33%
                                     2.5%
                                     2.25%
                                     2.25%
Non-nuclear (Old and New)
                                      34%
                                     1.5%
                                     1.35%
                                     1.35%
Non-nuclear 39%
                                      39%
                                     1.0%
                                     0.90%
                                     0.90%
Non-nuclear 45%
                                      45%
                                     0.80%
                                     0.72%
                                     0.72%
Combined Cycle[2]
                                      57%
                                     0.67%
                                     0.60%
                                     0.60%
1 Assume turbine and condenser optimization
2 Assumes HSRG produces 33% of power

Estimated Costs

Tables 5, 6, and 7 present a summary of the estimated Capital and O&M costs in dollars (and MW) per MW generating capacity representing the difference in costs between the two cooling system options for the three different fuel-type 500 MW plants shown in Table 2.  Table 5 presents the estimates for adding a new generating unit to an existing power plant and Tables 6 and 7 present the estimates for repowering existing generating units for "easy" and "average" difficulty cooling tower retrofits, respectively.  The tables show the total costs and differences in costs for the components included in this analysis, but do not necessarily include items that were assumed to be equal in value between the cooling options.  The unit costs per MW were derived by dividing the cost difference by the generating capacity.  The costs in columns 3 through 6 were derived using estimated flow rates for a condenser temperature rise (range) of 20[o]F.  To obtain the unit cost estimates for a range of 15[o]F shown in the last column, the 20[o]F range costs were adjusted based on the differences in the estimated condenser flow rates.

Costs are in 2009 dollars, with intake module costs adjusted for inflation using the February 2009 ENR CCI index of 8533.  O&M costs for energy in dollars and the resulting total were derived using an assumed value of $50/MWh and are presented for comparative purposes.  Where possible, economic analyses should use the energy values shown in MW and apply the predicted energy cost per MW for the specific application.

References

Tetra Tech. California's Coastal Power Plants: Alternative Cooling System Analysis. February 2008.

EPRI. Tower Calculation Worksheet. 2007.

EPRI. Instructions for Retrofit Cost Analyses. 2007


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9707-9708]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3768]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

Extension: Rule 489 and Form F-N; SEC File No. 270-361; OMB Control
No. 3235-0411.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously
approved collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 489 (17 CFR 230.489) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15
U.S.C. 77a et seq.) requires foreign banks and foreign insurance
companies and holding companies and finance subsidiaries of

foreign banks and foreign insurance companies that are exempted from
the definition of ``investment company'' by virtue of rules 3a-1 (17
CFR 270.3a-1), 3a-5 (17 CFR 270.3a-5), and 3a-6 (17 CFR 270.3a-6) under
the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) to file
Form F-N (17 CFR 239.43) to appoint an agent for service of process
when making a public offering of securities in the United States.
During calendar year 2010, approximately 13 entities were required by
rule 489 to make 15 Form F-N submissions. The Commission has previously
estimated that the total annual burden associated with information
collection and Form F-N preparation and submission is one hour per
filing. Based on the Commission's experience with disclosure documents
generally, the Commission continues to believe that this estimate is
appropriate. The estimated annual burden of complying with the rule's
filing requirement is approximately 15 hours, as some of the entities
submitted multiple filings.
    The estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and are not derived
from a comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the cost
of Commission rules and forms.
    The collection of information under Form F-N is mandatory. The
information provided by the Form is not kept confidential. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid
control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of
this notice.

    Dated: February 14, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-3768 Filed 2-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


August 7   11, 2001 Episode ° Plots provide ozone concentration and wind vectors ID Description AP Apex JN Jean JO Joe Neal MQ Mesquite PL Hendersen PV Palo Verde School LV Las Vegas Airport NE Nellis Air Force CAL CalWash 3 Monitoring Stations


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 83 (Monday, May 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 23415]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09187]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4527-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

South Dakota; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of South Dakota (FEMA-4527-DR), dated April 5, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued March 11, 2021.

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: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of South Dakota is hereby amended to include Individual
Assistance limited to COVID-19 Funeral Assistance under Other Needs
Assistance for those areas determined to have been adversely affected
by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of April 5, 2020.

    Individual Assistance limited to COVID-19 Funeral Assistance
under Other Needs Assistance for all areas in the State of South
Dakota (already designated for Individual Assistance, limited to the
Crisis Counseling Program and emergency protective measures
[Category B] not authorized under other Federal statutes, including
direct Federal assistance).

(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.)

Robert J. Fenton,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-09187 Filed 4-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P