SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM

A. JUSTIFICATION

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a) Title - National Estuary Program (Renewal)

1(b) Characterization/Abstract

            Section 320 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) amendments of 1987
established the National Estuary Program (NEP) to promote long-term
planning and management in nationally significant estuaries threatened
by pollution, development, or overuse.  The NEP’s objectives are to
protect, preserve, and restore estuaries.  The strategy of the Program
is to focus on estuaries that are nationally significant in recreational
and commercial value and are of great importance for fish and wildlife
resources.  Another facet of national significance is whether lessons
learned in working with the estuary can be applied to other coastal
areas.  Further, the NEP strategy emphasizes estuaries that are facing
increasing environmental stressors and where there is a greater
likelihood that NEP efforts will result in improvements in water and
sediment quality, as well as in the abundance and variety of living
resources.

Nationally significant estuaries are identified in one of two ways: 1)
the estuary is nominated by the State in which it lies; or 2) the
Administrator identifies an estuary and decides to convene a Management
Conference (the local managing entity of an NEP).  When the Governor of
the State in which the estuary is located nominates the estuary for
acceptance into the NEP, EPA then evaluates the Governor’s nomination.
 If EPA approves the addition of an estuary to the NEP, a Management
Conference is convened which involves community stakeholders including
Federal, State, local, and interstate agencies with jurisdiction over
the estuary, and other interested groups.

Estuaries have come into the NEP in five groups.  The first two groups
included 12 estuaries which Congress recommended for priority
consideration.  In 1987, Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds in North Carolina;
Buzzards Bay in Massachusetts; Long Island Sound in New York and
Connecticut; Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island; Puget Sound in
Washington; and San Francisco Bay in California entered in to the NEP.
In 1989, Delaware Inland Bays in Delaware; Delaware Bay in Delaware, New
Jersey, and Pennsylvania; Galveston Bay in Texas; New York-New Jersey
Harbor in New York and New Jersey; Santa Monica Bay in California; and
Sarasota Bay in Florida entered in to the NEP.  The nominations were
evaluated using EPA Nomination Guidance.  In 1991, the third group of
estuaries was designated based on Governors’ nominations.  These
estuaries were Indian River Lagoon in Florida; Tampa Bay in Florida;
Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine Complex in Louisiana; Casco Bay in Maine;
and Massachusetts Bays in Massachusetts.

The first 17 estuaries were established on the basis of completing a
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) within five years.
 In an effort to maximize successes of these, the Administrator opened a
fourth group of nominations in 1991 which called for the completion of
the planning process in four years.  In 1992, four estuaries were
designated under this streamlined approach:  Peconic Bay in New York;
San Juan Bay in Puerto Rico; Corpus Christi Bays in Texas; and Tillamook
Bay in Oregon.  Continuing the theme of streamlining, the Administrator
designated seven new estuaries in 1995 which were to complete their
CCMPs in three years: Great Bay in New Hampshire; Barnegat Bay in New
Jersey; Maryland Coastal Bays in Maryland, Charlotte Harbor in Florida;
Mobile Bay in Alabama; Morro Bay in California; and Lower Columbia River
in Washington and Oregon.

Once an estuary is designated by the Administrator, an agreement of
intent between the EPA and the State or States, called a Conference
Agreement, establishes the governing entity for the project which is
called a Management Conference.  The Management Conference performs an
objective, technical assessment of the condition of the estuary.  Based
on this assessment, the Conference summarizes the estuary’s
environmental challenges and indicates which challenges will be
addressed by the Conference.  After the estuary’s priorities are
identified, the Management Conference establishes goals and objectives
for the estuary.  Specific actions and commitments to protect and
restore the estuary are developed and the costs and benefits of options
are evaluated.  This information is used by the Management Conference to
develop a CCMP for the estuary.  Once the CCMP is approved by the
Administrator, the NEP is responsible for oversight, coordination, and
facilitation of CCMP implementation activities.

To obtain funding to administer Management Conferences, to characterize
and define environmental challenges of the estuary, and to develop the
CCMP, States and other eligible applicants may apply for federal funds
using a standard General Federal Assistance application.  To ensure
efficient use of allotted resources, an annual work plan for each
estuary program must be developed by the Management Conference before
individual awards can be approved.  The approved work plan then becomes
a part of the grant agreement between EPA and the recipient.

In addition, NEPs must also undergo a program evaluation every five
years.  The purpose of the program evaluation is to document progress
made in implementing the CCMP; to highlight successes, strengths, and
environmental results; and identify areas for improvement.  This
information is used by EPA to make decisions regarding funding to NEPs
who are implementing their management plans, to transfer lessons learned
in the NEPs to other coastal watersheds and EPA programs, and to provide
guidance and programmatic support to NEPs based on needs identified in
the program evaluation.

           Individual NEPs must also develop Government Performance
Results Act (GPRA) reports that provide information about environmental
results and progress implementing their CCMPs.  These are submitted
annually with the information being presented to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) with other EPA GPRA measures.

2. Need for and use of the Collection

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

            Statutory authority for the NEP is provided by Section 320
of the Clean Water Act, as amended.  The terms and conditions of grants
under the NEP are provided in 40 CFR Section 35.9040 and Section
35.9045, including the requirement for the 50 percent matching funds
from non-Federal sources and applications that are consistent with the
annual work plan prepared by each Management Conference.

For each NEP, other than standard application data, EPA needs: 1) the
Governor’s voluntary nomination to determine whether an estuary should
be included in the NEP; 2) the annual work plan to determine how the
Federal and non-Federal matching funds will be spent;

3) program evaluation package documenting CCMP implementation progress
to justify continued EPA funding under Section 320; and 4) annual GPRA
reports to show environmental results.

The State’s participation in the NEP is voluntary.  A Governor
nominates an estuary for the NEP on his or her own initiative using
Guidance which EPA has established.  The information from the Governor
includes already available knowledge about the estuary and its
importance.  The nomination also contains the Governor’s views
concerning the significance of the estuary, the need for designation,
and the State’s goals and objectives for the estuary with it’s a
strategy for meeting them.  To select an estuary for designation, EPA
uses the nomination and other existing public information on the
national significance of the estuary, considers the importance of the
estuary on a regional scale, and analyzes the environmental challenges
facing the estuary.

To obtain funding under the NEP, the General Federal Assistance Grant
application must be filed and an annual work plan must be prepared.  The
burden of the actual grant application is covered under the ICR for
General Federal Assistance applications (ICR No. 0938.11; OMB No.
2030-0020).  The only burdens covered under this ICR are the burdens of
preparing the annual work plan, the program evaluation package, and GPRA
reports which are specific to the NEP.  General Federal Assistance Grant
application burdens are not unique to the NEP and are not covered by
this document.

The annual work plan identifies and discusses major projects with goals
and milestones that will be pursued in the upcoming year.  The goals are
comprehensive and broad and are based on the individual NEP’s goals
established by the Management Conference.  In addition, the work plan
must document the sources, amounts, and kinds of funds for the upcoming
year’s activities, including a demonstration of how the required
matching funds will be provided from non-Federal sources.

NEPs must report every five years to EPA on their progress in
implementing the CCMP and achieving environmental results through the
program evaluation.

NEPs must also annually prepare a GPRA report estimating: 1) the number
of acres of habitat being restored within their study areas, and 2) the
number of CCMP priority actions being initiated.

2(b)     Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The EPA Administrator uses the information collected under this ICR to
evaluate Governors’ voluntary nominations of estuaries for the NEP and
whether grant applications under the NEP should be approved.  The
following paragraphs describe information required by the NEP:

Respondents

Process and techniques used to obtain this information

How and by whom the information is used

Flow of information and where it is submitted, filed, etc.

(A)  Governor’s Nomination

A Governor’s nomination is submitted on a one-time basis only by
States that wish to participate in the NEP, and nominations are accepted
only when the Administrator determines that additional programs are
needed and that sufficient resources are available to support them. At
this time, the EPA does not anticipate soliciting nominations in the
information collection period of 2010-2012.  A Governor’s nomination
is submitted by a State in which the target estuary lies.  If the
estuary is located in more than one State, a single nomination may be
submitted for the estuary which combines the information from all the
participating States.

The National Estuary Program Final Guidance on the Contents of the
Governor’s Nomination states that three general topics should be
addressed in the nomination: 1) national significance of the estuary, 2)
need for a Management Conference, and 3) likelihood of success.

Much of the information included in a Governor’s nomination is based
on previous accomplishments by States, EPA Regions, and local
organizations.  Information is also available in EPA’s 305(b) reports;
NOAA’s National Estuarine Inventory; NOAA’s Coastal Zone Management,
Estuarine Research, and Marine Sanctuary Programs; and university
studies.  In the Guidance, States are urged to use existing and readily
available information in the nominations.  New research and studies are
not required.  For example, data attained from the State economic
development agency or a community business group can be used to evaluate
recreational and/or commercial value of the estuary.  The uses of the
specific information recommended for inclusion in the nomination are
described below:

Describe estuary’s boundaries

-To determine if estuary meets CWA definition.

Describe estuary’s value

-To determine if estuary is nationally significant.

Demonstrate how problems will yield transferable results

-To determine how an estuary will enhance results that can be applied to
other estuarine or coastal watersheds.

Data on economic and living resources

-To determine if estuary has significant local or regional value.

Data on problems

-To determine if problems reduce value of estuarine resources.

Discussion of cause and effect

-To determine if the problem is sufficiently understood so as to be
addressed effectively.

Assess existing laws, regulations, control programs, enforcement, and
coordination

-To determine if the proposed estuary program entails studies and
control efforts beyond these programs.

List overall goals for the estuary and provide examples of specific
objectives and action plans

-To demonstrate whether the State has an understanding of the work which
must be done to mitigate problems.

List structure and membership of proposed Management Conference

-To demonstrate broad stakeholder support for the program.

Document existence of and/or potential for generating public support

- To determine whether there is or will be sufficient public support for
successful implementation of the program.

Discuss interests and agencies already working in the estuary

-To determine these public entities’ interest in and commitment to
protecting or restoring estuarine water quality.

Discuss ability to fund the coordination of the Management Conference
and action plans

-To determine if the non-Federal cost share requirement of the statute
can be met and if sufficient funding exists to implement the program.

After an estuary is accepted into the NEP, the information in the
Governor’s nomination is used to initiate consensus among Management
Conference members on priorities to be addressed by the program and to
set goals and objectives.

(B)  Annual Work Plan

In order to receive funds, grantees must submit an annual work plan to
EPA.  The contents of annual work plans are specified in 40 CFR Section
35.9045.  Work plans should include: 1) a listing and discussion of
completed projects and projects planned for the upcoming year, and 2)
describe the types of funding and amounts to be supplied by each funding
source. The work plan is reviewed by EPA and also serves as the scope of
work for the grant agreement. Annual work plans must be approved by EPA
after they are approved by the Management Conference so that assistance
funding can be awarded.  The EPA also uses these work plans to track
performance of the 28 programs currently in the NEP.

Information presented in the work plan is based on the EPA/State
Conference Agreement developed for the Management Conference, but may
further define the goals and milestones in the overall plan and modify
them based on the success or failure of activities completed in the
previous years.  The information is available from the Conference
Agreement.  The EPA uses the work plan to determine whether the monies
requested in the grant application serve the seven statutory purposes of
the Management Conference, whether they fund activities consistent with
the individual program goals, and whether their expenditure is an
efficient use of resources.  The budget information is also used to
determine whether 50 percent of the funding is provided by non-Federal
sources as required by 40 CFR 35.9040.

(C)   Program Evaluation

Each NEP must submit a program evaluation (PE) package documenting the
CCMP implementation progress.  The purpose of the PE is to document
progress made in implementing the CCMP; to highlight successes,
strengths, and environmental results; and identify areas for
improvement.  EPA issued a PE Guidance in 2011 in which the PE cycle was
changed from a three year cycle to a five year cycle (four consecutive
years with the fifth year to be spent producing a findings report). Also
the NEPs where distributed in four groups of seven Programs each.  The
NEPs must submit a PE package to EPA every five years.

For the years covered in the PE cycle, the NEP must submit as part of
the PE package: 1) the program management core elements response
(standardized measures), 2) a work plan narrative summary, and 3) a
budget summary.  The whole PE process entails: 1) PE package submission,
2) conference calls, 3) on site visit, and 4) findings letter.

Annual work plans are submitted as a component of the PE and cannot
serve in place of the PE because annual work plans are limited to the
activities of the grant recipient.  The PE encompasses the progress made
by the overall estuary program which is a collaboration of many
stakeholders each contributing to the implementation of the CCMP and the
restoration and protection of the estuary.  Only the NEP can collect
this information from stakeholders because, according to purpose (6) of
Section 320 of the CWA, the NEP is responsible for monitoring the
effectiveness of actions taken to implement the CCMP.  In addition,
Section 320(h) of the CWA requires grant recipients to report on the
progress made under Section 320. The standard recordkeeping requirement
for EPA grants is three years after the date the recipient submits the
final Financial Status Report (FSR).

(D)  Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) Reporting

            The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) require
that each agency report annually to Congress on the results of its
activities in each fiscal year. This Annual Performance Report forms the
bridge between the goals and objectives presented in the EPA Strategic
Plan and budgeted activities. The Annual Performance Report tracks the
progress made toward implementing goals and objectives in any single
fiscal year.  To assist in fulfilling this requirement, the NEPs are
asked to report on two items: 1) number of acres of habitat that have
been restored within individual study areas including type of
restoration and type of habitat; and 2) priority action items within the
CCMP that have been initiated, are ongoing, or have been completed.  NEP
reporting on these items helps to measure EPA’s overall goal of clean
and safe water.

Use of Improved Information Technology

States can access numerous computerized databases to obtain information
necessary for the Governor’s nomination.  These databases are
particularly useful in assessing water quality.  The EPA databases
available are: Surf Your Watershed, Index of Watershed Indicators (IWI),
Reach File, Water Quality File, Industrial Facilities Discharge File,
Permit Compliance System, BIOS, Complex Effluent Toxicity Information
System, Water Body File, Federal Reporting Data System, Needs Survey
File, and Grants Information Control System.  The EPA encourages the use
of internet resources to the maximum extent in all NEP transactions.

3.  Non Duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

3(a) Non Duplication

            The NEP is administered by the Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds (OWOW).  The Governor’s nomination, the annual work
plan, the program evaluation, and GPRA reporting are unique documents
addressing particular NEP requirements.  No other EPA office or any
other Federal, State, or local agency requests these same data organized
in this particular manner.

Although there are no duplicative reporting requirements, some data
required for the Governor’s nomination may be available from other EPA
programs and from other Federal, State and local agencies.  However, no
one source contains all the data required for the Governor’s
nomination.  Therefore, the data must be compiled from other sources and
organized in a manner detailed in the NEP Nomination Guidance and it
must reflect the Governor’s priorities and recommendations.  The
Nomination Guidance also affords the States considerable flexibility in
style and interpretation.  Some of the Federal agencies that compile
information relevant to the Governor’s nomination are the Department
of Interior, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the
Natural Resources Conservation Service.  In addition, public interest
groups, such as the Nature Conservancy, may possess appropriate
information.  For example, data on declining fish catches to assess the
estuary’s commercial and recreational value can be obtained from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  For annual work plans,
program evaluations, and GPRA reporting, the NEP Management Conferences
are the only source of information.

3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

            EPA Published a Federal Register notice on July 31, 2013 (78
FR 46332)October 8, 2009 (74 FR 51849) to announce the renewal of this
ICR.  No comments were received.

3(c) Consultations

          The EPA convenes one NEP national meeting each year for the
purpose of achieving the mission of the Oceans and Coastal Protection
Division. The NEP national meeting is held in Washington, DC and brings
together EPA HQ staff, EPA Regional staff, and NEP Directors and staff
to discuss policy, budget, and implementation issues on coastal
watershed protection.  The meeting is an annual opportunity to
strengthen partnerships with EPA and the NEP community.

EPA also has regulations that address the grants portion of the NEP.
These regulations require that a Management Conference be convened and
that certain program objectives are complete before funds are awarded
under Section 320(g)(3) of the CWA.  In addition, EPA has issued the
guidance package, “The National Estuary Program: Final Guidance on the
Contents of a Governor’s Nomination.”

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

A Governor’s nomination is submitted on a one-time basis by States
that request participation in the NEP, and when the Administrator
determines that there is an opportunity for additional programs with
sufficient resources to support these actions.  At this time, EPA does
not anticipate soliciting nominations in the information collection
period of 2010-2012.  Therefore, frequency of collection is not an issue
for the reporting requirements contained in this ICR.

Annual work plans are prepared every year and are submitted with the
grant application.  Priorities for Management Conferences can change
during a year, and numerous projects are tied to the results of projects
completed during the year.  Therefore, work plans must be developed
annually to plan and track the progress.

Program Evaluations (PEs) are conducted every five years.  Five years is
adequate time for significant progress to be made implementing the CCMP.
 Longer than five years poses the risk of not identifying program
challenges in time to take corrective action.  Waiting longer than five
years also puts the Agency at risk of funding programs that are not
using EPA funds for appropriate purposes or achieving expected results.
PEs conducted in less than five year intervals would be a burden with
nominal, if any, increases in useful information.

           GPRA reporting is performed on an annual cycle, typically
near the beginning of the new fiscal year.  Therefore, the NEP GPRA
reports need to be provided annually to measure progress toward annual
targets.

3(e) General Guidelines

This information collection is consistent with OMB guidelines contained
in 5 CFR 1320.6 in that:

Information is not collected more often than quarterly.

Responses are not required in less than 30 days.

Respondents are not required to submit more than an original and two
copies of the document.

It does not provide for remuneration of respondents other than
contractors or grantees.

It does not require records to be kept for more than three years.

It is not in conjunction with a statistical survey.

Provisions for small businesses and other small entities are
appropriate.

Confidentiality is protected.

It does not require provision of information in a format other than that
which it is customarily maintained.

3(f)  Confidentiality

The Governor’s nomination is considered an application and is
confidential until a Management Conference is convened.  Similarly,
applications for 320(g)(3) grants are confidential until an offer or
award is accepted by the applicant.  After acceptance, all documents are
public.

3(g)  Sensitive Questions

No information of a sensitive nature is requested by this ICR.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a) Respondents/SIC Codes

            Respondents are mainly State and local government workers.
The SIC code applicable to the State and local governments is 9511.

4(b) Information Requested

(i) Data items:  annual work plans, program evaluation packages, GPRA
Reports.

 For annual work plans the standard recordkeeping requirement for EPA
grants is three years after the date the recipient submits the final
Financial Status Report (FSR).

(ii) Respondent Activities: Compiling information on activities for each
NEP such as restoration projects, outreach material that has been
developed, and workshop proceedings.  This may include reviewing and
transmitting information or searching established databases.

5.  The Information Collected:  Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

5(a) Agency Activities

            For annual work plans, program evaluation packages, and GPRA
reports, the Agency typically will answer respondent questions, hold
conference calls, review and analyze the submissions, record the
submissions, and store the information.

5(b) Collection Methodologies and Management

             Annual work plans serve as a scope of work for the grant
agreement and are submitted in hard copy form or electronically as part
of the grant application.  Program evaluation (PE) packages are
submitted in hard copy form or electronically.  PE submissions may
include brochures, pictures, and other public outreach tools that have
been developed.  GPRA reports are submitted through an online reporting
tool.  Quality is checked by follow-up conversations with the
respondents.  For example, with PE, conference calls are set up to go
over the PE package and discuss overall progress being made implementing
the CCMP.  The processing technology at this time is standard desktop
computer with word processing software.  Agency staff will enter and
store some data electronically using these formats.  GPRA information is
also stored in a manner that allows public access through the EPA
website.  Some information is not electronic and will be disseminated at
conferences and workshops, as appropriate.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

            States and local governments are the most likely respondents
to this information request.  The burden on small organizations is
therefore not an issue for the reporting requirements contained in this
ICR.

5(d) Collection Schedule

            Annual work plans are required each year from the 28 NEPs by
June 1st.  Program evaluations are scheduled as follows:  eight NEPs for
FY2014 (added one NEP from FY2013 to have PE review one year later due
to administrative issues), seven NEPs for FY 2015, and zero  NEPs for
FY2016.  GPRA reports are submitted annually to correspond with the
Agency reporting process and are requested to be provided by the end of
the fiscal year.

6. Estimating The Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

The total number of estuary programs in the NEP is limited by the
amount of funds appropriated from Congress.  Current status and budget
projections provide for up to a total of 28 estuaries in the NEP in
FY2010.  During the term of this ICR, all 28 are operating in the
post-CCMP implementation stage which, as discussed in the abstract in
section 1(b), concerns oversight and implementation of the CCMP.  During
the post-CCMP phase, the NEPs receive significantly less funding and the
annual work plan encompasses less effort than those of the pre-CCMP
period.  Based on the experience of NEPs to date, we will continue to
use the burden hour estimates developed for the 2009 ICR calculations
for the Agency as well as respondents.

 (A) Annual Work Plans:  It is estimated that 100 burden hours are
required for State personnel to prepare and gather information to
summarize the previous year’s activities, to plan for the current
year, and to produce the annual work plan.  This is the same value used
in the previous review cycle.  It is expected that Management
Conferences will be moving to more improved records keeping and
tracking, which should result in a lower burden for the following cycle.

The annual work plan burden to respondent is:

FY2014: 28 Annual Work Plans

FY2015:  28 Annual Work Plans

FY2016:  28 Annual Work Plans

28 annual work plans * 100 hours/work plan = 2,800 hours/year

2,800 hours/year * 3 years = 8,400 hours/3 years

(B) Program Evaluations:  It is estimated that 280 burden hours per PE
review cycle are required for respondents to prepare and gather
information to summarize the previous period’s activities.  Because it
is expected that the NEPs will be continually reviewing and reassessing
priorities, 280 hours is considered to be an upper limit on the effort
required to prepare a program evaluation package.  The burden hours for
the first two years is a little higher than in the previous ICR estimate
because in 2011 EPA issued a Program Evaluation Guidance that further
align the program evaluations with individual NEP priorities and related
NEP work plans; therefore more  effort is required.  There will not be
any PEs in 2016 so the burden hours in that year will be 0.  The
personnel required to complete this effort is a mix of white collar
staff: approximately 55 percent technical, 5 percent secretarial, and 40
percent administration or managerial level.

The program evaluation burden to the respondent is:

FY2014:   8 Program Evaluations*

FY2015:   7 Program Evaluations

FY2016:   0 Program Evaluations**

*One NEP  PE was shifted from 2013 to 2014.

**EPA will spend this year producing a PE findings report.

15 Program Evaluations 280 hours/report = 4,200 hours/3 years

(C) Government Performance Results Act Reporting: The 2006 ICR value
will be used for GPRA reporting.  The 2006 value was derived based on
discussions with respondents.  It was estimated that an upper limit for
burden hours to the NEPs for reporting GPRA information is 60 hours with
a lower limit of ten hours for those NEPs with established information
management systems in place.  The annual average estimate of burden
hours for the NEPs to collect and report GPRA information is presently
25 hours per report.

The GPRA reporting burden to the respondent is:

FY2014:  28 GPRA Reports

FY2015:  28 GPRA Reports

FY2016:  28 GPRA Reports

28 GPRA Reports * 25 hours/report = 700 hours/year

700 hours/year * 3 years = 2,100 hours/3 years

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs 6(b)(I)   Estimating Labor Costs

 (A) Annual Work plans:  The post-CCMP annual work plan is estimated to
take 100 hours of preparation time by State and local government
personnel. For estimates on respondent costs, we will use the estimates
developed for the 2009 ICR from the US Department of Labor’s
occupational employment statistics employment cost index to calculate
the current value of dollar.   HYPERLINK ""    The 2013 mean hourly wage
estimate of $28.58 + a benefits/overhead multiplier of 1.6 will have a
current value of $45.30  This amount will be applied for the
occupational group of life, physical, and social science.

The annual work plan cost to the respondent is:

FY2014: 28 Annual Work Plans

FY2015: 28 Annual Work Plans

FY2016: 28 Annual Work Plans

28 Annual Work Plans * 100 hours/workplan = 2,800 hours/year

2,800 * 3 years = 8,400 hrs/3 years

8,400 hrs/3 years * $45.30hour = $380,520/3 years

(B) Program Evaluations:  It is estimated that 280 burden hours are
required for respondents to prepare and gather information to summarize
the previous period’s activities.  Because it is expected that NEPs
will be continually reviewing and reassessing priorities, 280 hours is
considered to be an upper limit on the effort required to prepare a
program evaluation package. The mean hourly wage estimate of $45.30 will
be applied for the occupational group of life, physical, and social
science (see Annual Work plan cost description above).

The Program Evaluation cost to the respondent is:

FY2014: 8 Program Evaluations

FY2015: 7 Program Evaluations

FY2016:  0 Program Evaluations

15 Program Evaluations * 280 hours/report = 4,200 hours/3 years

4,200 hours/5 years * $45.30/hour = $190,260/3 years

(C)  Government Performance Results Act Reporting: Based on discussions
with respondents, it is estimated that an upper limit for burden hours
to the NEPs for reporting GPRA information is 60 hours with a lower
limit of 10 hours for those programs with established information
management systems in place.  As programs begin to establish tracking
systems and information management systems the burden hours should
decrease.  Presently, the annual average estimate of burden hours for
the NEPs collecting and reporting GPRA information is 25 hours per
report.

The mean hourly wage estimate of $45.30 will be applied for the
occupational group of life, physical, and social science (see Annual
Work plan cost description above).

The GPRA annual reporting cost to the respondent is:

FY2014:  28 GPRA Reports

FY2015:  28 GPRA Reports

FY2016:  28 GPRA Reports

28 GPRA Reports * 25 hours/report = 700 hours/year

700 hours/year * 3 years = 2,100 hours/3 years

2,100 hours/3 years * $45.30/hour = $95,130/3 years

(6)(b)(ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs:

As in the last review cycle, no Capital and Operations and Maintenance
Costs are expected.

(6)(b)(iii) Capital/Start-up Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs:

As in the last review cycle, no Capital and Operations and Maintenance
Costs are expected.

(6)(b)(iv) Annualizing Capital Costs:   N/A

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

(A) Annual Work plans:

Part of the overall burden and cost to the Federal Government is based
on the number of annual work plans expected each year as estimated in
Item No. 6(a). The burden also is based on the 2008 ICR cycle. In the
2008 ICR cycle, reviewing the post-CCMP annual work plan required 16
hours of Federal workers’ time. These estimates were collected from
several EPA Regional Offices and also from Headquarters staff reviewers.
Cost estimates are based on the 2010 General Schedule (GS) locality pay
for a GS-12, Step 1 Federal employee for the Washington, DC area (see
HYPERLINK "http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/indexGS.asp"
http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/indexGS.asp ). With these estimates
applied, the hourly wage estimate is $35.88 + a benefits/overhead
multiplier of 1.6 (total $57.41). The burden and cost to the Federal
Government for reviewing annual work plans is summarized below.

The Annual Work Plan burden and cost to the Agency is:

FY2014: 28 Annual Work Plans

FY2015: 28 Annual Work Plans

FY2016: 28 Annual Work Plans

28 Work Plans * 16 hours/plan = 448 hours/year

448 hours/year * 3 years = 1,344 hours/ 3 years

1,344 hours/ 3 years * $57.41/hour = $77,159/3 years

(B) Program Evaluations:

Part of the overall burden and cost to the Federal Government is based
on the number of program evaluations expected each year as estimated in
Item No. 6(a).   The whole program evaluation process (e.g., reviewing
the PE packages, attending conference calls, participating in site
visit, and issuing PE findings letter) required 60 hours of Federal
workers’ time.  These estimates were collected from several EPA
Regional Offices and also from HQ staff reviewers.  Cost estimates are
based on the 2010 General Schedule (GS) locality pay for a GS-12, Step 1
Federal employee for the Washington, DC area (see   HYPERLINK
"http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/indexGS.asp"
http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/indexGS.asp ).  With these estimates
applied, the hourly wage estimate is $35.88 + a benefits/overhead
multiplier of 1.6 (total $57.41).  The burden and cost to the Federal
Government conducting the whole program evaluation process is summarized
below.

The Program Evaluation burden and cost to the Agency is:

FY2014: 8 Program Evaluations

FY2015: 7 Program Evaluations

FY2016: 0 Program Evaluations

15 Program Evaluations * 60 hours/report = 900 hours/3 years

900 hours/5 years * $57.41/hour = $51,669/3 years

(C) Government Performance Results Act Reporting:

Part of the overall burden and cost to the Federal Government is based
on the number of GPRA reports expected each year as estimated in Item
No. 6(a).  Based on Headquarters experience approximately 8 hours of
Federal workers time is required to review a GPRA report.  Cost
estimates are based on the 2010 General Schedule (GS) locality pay for a
GS-12, Step 1 Federal employee for the Washington, DC area (see
HYPERLINK "http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/indexGS.asp"
http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/indexGS.asp ).  With these estimates
applied, the hourly wage estimate is $35.88 + a benefits/overhead
multiplier of 1.6 (total $57.41).  The burden and cost to the Federal
Government for reviewing GPRA reports is summarized below.

The GPRA burden and cost to the Agency is:

FY2014:  28 GPRA Reports

FY2015:  28 GPRA Reports

FY2016:  28 GPRA Reports

28 GPRA Reports * 8 hours/report = 224 hours/year

224 hours/year * 3 years = 672 hours/3 years

672 hours/3 years * $57.41/hour = $38,580/3 years

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

The total universe of respondents is 28 NEPs for work plans and GPRA
reports, as every NEP is required to submit annual work plans and GPRA
reports over this three year cycle.  However, the universe of
respondents for program evaluations is 22 NEPs over this three year
cycle.

Total Burden to Respondent:

Annual Work plans                 8,400 hrs/3 years

Program Evaluations               4,200 hrs/3 years

GPRA Reports                        2,100 hrs/3 years

TOTAL		         14,700 hrs/3 years
                                 Annualized			4,900 hours/year

Total Cost to Respondent:

Annual Work plans                 $380,520/3 years

Program Evaluations               $190,260/3 years

GPRA Reports                        $  95,130/3 years

TOTAL			$665,910/3 years

Annualized    			$221,970/year

Total Burden for Agency:

Annual Work plans                   1,344 hours/3 years

Program Evaluations                900 hours/3 years

GPRA Reports		     672 hours/3 years

TOTAL			  2,916 hours/3 years

Annualized    			  972 hours/year

Total Cost to Agency:

Annual Work plans                  $77,159/3 years

Program Evaluations                $51,669/3 years

GPRA Reports                         $38,580/3 years

TOTAL			 $167,408/3 years

Annualized			 $55,803/year

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

(I) Respondent Tally		Total Burden: 4,900 hours/year	Total Cost:
$221,970/year

(ii) The Agency Tally           	Total Burden: 972 hours/year	Total
Cost: $55,803/year

(iii) Variations in the Annual Bottom Line:   It is not anticipated that
there will be a significant variation (>25%) for the burden or cost to
either respondents or Agency over this ICR cycle.

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden

	There is decrease of 933 hours in the total estimated respondent burden
compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease is due to
the fact that the respondents are not required to submit a program
evaluation package in 2016, as a result of modifications made by EPA to
the Program Evaluation Guidance and a redistribution of the number of
NEPs to be reviewed each evaluation cycle.

6(g) Burden Statement

            The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 100 hours per response
for Annual Work plans, 250 hours per response for program evaluations,
and 25 hours per response for GPRA reporting.  Burden means the total
time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal
agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.  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 OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

            To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection
techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0369, which is available for on-line
viewing at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov
 or in person at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number
for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>).

An electronic version of the public docket is available at
www.regulations.gov.  Use Regulations.gov to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the
docket ID number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget at<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Please include the EPA Docket ID
No.  (EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0369) and OMB control number 2040-0138 in any
correspondence.

B. COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS

	This section is not applicable because no statistical procedures are
employed for the data collection.

 PAGE  16


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10161-10164]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05087]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85303; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2019-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Exchanges Pricing Schedule at Options 7

March 13, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 28, 2019, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchanges Pricing Schedule at
Options

7, which governs the pricing for Nasdaq participants using The Nasdaq
Options Market (``NOM''), Nasdaq's facility for executing and routing
standardized equity and index options.
    While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has
designated the proposed amendments to be operative on March 1, 2019.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to create an alternative way for Participants
to earn the Tier 3 NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny
Pilot Options. Today as set forth in Options 7, Section 2(1), the
Exchange offers NOM Market Maker Rebates to Add Liquidity in Penny
Pilot Options. These rebates are structured as a six tier program
ranging from $0.20 to $0.48 per contract, with increasing volume
requirements for each tier. Participants currently receive a $0.30 per
contract (or $0.40 per contract in the symbols AAPL, QQQ, IWM, SPY and
VXX) Tier 3 rebate for adding NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.20% to 0.60% of total
industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a
month. As proposed, a Participant will also earn the Tier 3 rebate if
the Participant meets the following alternative qualifications: (1)
Transacts in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market
Center MPIDs that represent 0.70% or more of Consolidated Volume
(``CV'') \3\ which adds liquidity in the same month on The Nasdaq Stock
Market,\4\ (2) transacts in Tape B securities \5\ through one or more
of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent 0.18% or more of CV
which adds liquidity in the same month on The Nasdaq Stock Market, and
(3) executes greater than 0.01% of CV via Market-on-Close/Limit-on-
Close (``MOC/LOC'') \6\ volume within The Nasdaq Stock Market Closing
Cross in the same month. The Exchange also proposes to make related
clean-up changes by renumbering the existing method to qualify for Tier
3 as paragraph (a) and the proposed alternative as paragraph (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Consolidated Volume shall mean the total consolidated volume
reported to all consolidated transaction reporting plans by all
exchanges and trade reporting facilities during a month in equity
securities, excluding executed orders with a size of less than one
round lot. For purposes of calculating Consolidated Volume and the
extent of an equity member's trading activity, expressed as a
percentage of or ratio to Consolidated Volume, the date of the
annual reconstitution of the Russell Investments Indexes shall be
excluded from both total Consolidated Volume and the member's
trading activity.
    \4\ In calculating total volume, the Exchange would add the
Participant's total volume transacted on The Nasdaq Stock Market in
a given month across its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs which adds
liquidity, and will divide this number by the total industry
Consolidated Volume.
    \5\ Tape B securities are securities that are listed on
exchanges other than The Nasdaq Stock Market or the New York Stock
Exchange.
    \6\ MOC/LOC, as set forth in Nasdaq Rule 4754, represents the
volume in The Nasdaq Stock Market Closing Cross that allows market
participants to contribute order flow that will result in executions
at the official closing price for the day in the Nasdaq listed
security. A ``MOC Order'' is an order type entered without a price
that may be executed only during the Nasdaq Closing Cross, which
refers to the equity closing cross. A ``LOC Order'' is an order type
entered with a price that may be executed only in the Nasdaq Closing
Cross.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The alternative method to qualify for the Tier 3 NOM Market Maker
Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options proposed above is
reasonable because it will create an additional opportunity for
Participants to earn the Tier 3 rebate by incentivizing Participants to
transact greater volume on The Nasdaq Stock Market in order to qualify
for the Tier 3 rebate on NOM. The Exchange notes that this proposal is
designed as a means to improve market quality by providing Participants
with an incentive to increase their provision of liquidity on the
Exchange's equity and options markets. Today, Participants that add NOM
Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot
Options above 0.20% to 0.60% of total industry customer equity and ETF
option ADV contracts per day in a month are paid a $0.30 per contract
(or $0.40 per contract in the symbols AAPL, QQQ, IWM, SPY and VXX) Tier
3 rebate. This proposal would provide participants with additional
opportunities to earn the same Tier 3 NOM Market Maker rebate, and will
encourage Participants to send order flow to both the options and
equity markets to receive the rebate.
    Furthermore, the concept of linking incentive on NOM to activity on
The Nasdaq Stock Market exists today. The Exchange currently offers
rebates on NOM that relate to activity on The Nasdaq Stock Market.\9\
Similarly, The Nasdaq Stock Market offers credits that are based on
activity on NOM.\10\ As such, the Exchange believes that the volume
requirement to transact in all securities through one or more of the
Participant's Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent 0.70% or more
of Consolidated Volume (``CV'') which adds liquidity in the same month
on The Nasdaq Stock Market is reasonable because the Exchange already
offers rebates based on similar volume requirements.\11\ Similarly, the
volume requirement to execute greater than 0.01% of CV via Market-on-
Close/Limit-on-Close (``MOC/LOC'') volume within The Nasdaq Stock
Market Closing Cross in the same month is reasonable because

the Exchange already offers rebates based on similar volume
requirements.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For example, one of the qualifications in the $0.48 per
contract Tier 6 Customer and Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in
Penny Pilot Options requires that the Participant add liquidity in
all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs
that represent 1.00% or more of Consolidated Volume in a month or
qualifies for MARS. See Options 7, Section 2(1). Also, for example,
note ``e'' of the NOM Pricing Schedule provides that Participants
that transact in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq
Market Center MPIDs that represent 3.00% or more of Consolidated
Volume in the same month on The Nasdaq Stock Market will receive a
$0.52 per contract rebate to add liquidity in Penny Pilot Options as
Customer or Professional and $1.00 per contract rebate to add
liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options as Customer or Professional.
See Options 7, Section 2(1).
    \10\ For example, Nasdaq offers a credit of $0.0029 per share if
the member adds Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker
and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-
Penny Pilot Options of 1.15% or more of total industry ADV in the
customer clearing range for Equity and ETF option contracts per day
in a month on NOM. See Equity 7, Section 118(a)(1).
    \11\ See note 9 above.
    \12\ See note ``c'' of Options 7, Section 2(1), offering
Participants that qualify for the $0.48 per contract Tier 6 Customer
and Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options an
additional $0.05 per contract rebate if they meet the requisite
volume thresholds in clause (3) of note ``c,'' including executing
greater than 0.04% of Consolidated Volume (``CV'') via Market-on-
Close/Limit-on- Close (``MOC/LOC'') volume within The Nasdaq Stock
Market Closing Cross within a month; and note ``f'' of Options 7,
Section 2(1), offering Participants a $0.55 per contract Customer
and Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options if
they meet the requisite volume thresholds, including executing
greater than 0.04% of Consolidated Volume (``CV'') via Market-on-
Close/Limit-on-Close (``MOC/LOC'') volume within The Nasdaq Stock
Market Closing Cross within a month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The volume requirement to transact in Tape B securities through one
or more of the Participant's Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent
0.18% or more of CV which adds liquidity in the same month on The
Nasdaq Stock Market is a new requirement, which must be met in addition
to the other two volume requirements proposed above. The Exchange
believes that the Tape B volume requirement is reasonable because
linking rebates on NOM to activity on The Nasdaq Stock Market in this
manner will encourage Participants to add liquidity on The Nasdaq Stock
Market, which will benefit all market participants by way of
interacting with that liquidity on the equity market. By encouraging
market participants to increase their participation on the equities
market by transacting in Tape B securities, the Exchange is rewarding
Participants with an opportunity to earn an additional options
incentive, provided all requirements are met. Overall, the Exchange
believes that the tiered NOM Market Maker Rebates to Add Liquidity in
Penny Pilot Options with the proposed Tier 3 alternative will continue
to reflect the progressively increasing rebate requirements that offer
incentives to earn the highest NOM Market Maker rebate by bringing the
most order flow to the Exchange.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed Tier 3 alternative is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all eligible
Participants that qualify for these incentives will uniformly receive
the rebate. The Exchange believes that the proposed volume requirements
are proportionate to the amount of the Tier 3 rebate and equitably
reflect the purpose of the proposed Tier 3 alternative, which is to
incentivize Participants to transact greater volume on both the
Exchange's equity and options markets. In addition, the Exchange
believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to offer
this rebate to NOM Participants that transact as NOM Market Makers and
also transact on The Nasdaq Stock Market. Any NOM Participant may trade
on The Nasdaq Stock Market because they are approved members.\13\
Furthermore, unlike other market participants, NOM Market Makers add
value through continuous quoting and the commitment of capital.\14\
Because NOM Market Makers have these obligations to the market and
regulatory requirements that normally do not apply to other market
participants, the Exchange believes that offering these rebates to only
NOM Market Makers is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in light
of their obligations. Finally, encouraging NOM Market Makers to add
greater liquidity benefits all market participants in the quality of
order interaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Although a NOM Participant may incur additional labor and/
or costs to establish connectivity to The Nasdaq Stock Market, there
are no additional membership fees for NOM Participants that want to
transact on The Nasdaq Stock Market.
    \14\ Pursuant to Chapter VII (Market Participants), Section 5
(Obligations of Market Makers), in registering as a market maker, an
Options Participant commits himself to various obligations.
Transactions of a Market Maker in its market making capacity must
constitute a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute
to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and Market Makers
should not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are
inconsistent with such course of dealings. Further, all Market
Makers are designated as specialists on NOM for all purposes under
the Act or rules thereunder. See Chapter VII, Section 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The pricing changes proposed
above are generally designed to attract additional order flow to the
Exchange, which strengthens the Exchange's competitive position.
Greater liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more
trading opportunities and attracting greater participation by market
makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in
turn facilitates tighter spreads.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee
levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities
available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment,
the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain
competitive. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and
rebates in response, the Exchange believes that the degree to which
pricing changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is
extremely limited.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2019-011 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-NASDAQ-2019-011. 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
such 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-
NASDAQ-2019-011, and should be submitted on or before April 9, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-05087 Filed 3-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P