[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 145 (Thursday, July 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 45281]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19043]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0020]

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); Assistance to Private
Sector Property Insurers, Availability of FY2012 Arrangement

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Each year, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is
required by the Write-Your-Own (WYO) Program Financial Assistance/
Subsidy Arrangement (Arrangement) to notify private insurance companies
(Companies) and to make available to the Companies the terms for
subscription or re-subscription to the Arrangement. In keeping with
that requirement, this notice provides the terms to the Companies to
subscribe or re-subscribe to the Arrangement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward L. Connor, DHS/FEMA, 1800 South
Bell Street, Room 720, Arlington, VA 20598-3020,<PHONE_NUMBER> (phone),
202-646-3445 (facsimile), or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(e-mail).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Write-Your-Own (WYO) Program
Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement (Arrangement), 87 (as of July
1, 2011) private sector property insurers issue flood insurance
policies and adjust flood insurance claims under their own names based
on an Arrangement with the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA)
published at 44 CFR Part 62, appendix A. The WYO insurers receive an
expense allowance and remit the remaining premium to the Federal
Government. The Federal Government also pays flood losses and pays loss
adjustment expenses based on a fee schedule. In addition, under certain
circumstances reimbursement for litigation costs, including court
costs, attorney fees, judgments, and settlements, are paid by the FIA
based on documentation submitted by the WYO insurers. The complete
Arrangement is published in 44 CFR Part 62, appendix A. Each year, FEMA
is required to publish in the Federal Register and make available to
the Companies the terms for subscription or re-subscription to the
Arrangement.
    There have been no changes to the Arrangement this year.
    During August 2011, FEMA will send a copy of the offer for the
FY2012 Arrangement, together with related materials and submission
instructions, to all private insurance companies participating under
the current FY2011 Arrangement. Any private insurance company not
currently participating in the WYO Program but wishing to consider
FEMA's offer for FY2012 may request a copy by writing: DHS/FEMA,
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Attn: Edward L.
Connor, WYO Program, 1800 South Bell Street, Room 720, Arlington, VA
20598-3020, or contact Edward Connor at<PHONE_NUMBER> (facsimile), or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(e-mail).

Edward L. Connor,
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Insurance
National Flood Insurance Program, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2011-19043 Filed 7-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-11-P


[Federal Register: January 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 17)]
[Notices]
[Page 4361]
[DOCID:fr26ja06-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. AD06-2-000; ER06-406-000; ER02-2330-040; ER03-345-006;
ER01-3001-014]

Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference; Assessment of Demand
Response Resources; PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; ISO New England Inc.;
ISO New England Inc.; New York Independent Transmission System
Operator, Inc.

January 20, 2006.
    This supplemental notice provides additional information for a
technical conference to be held on Wednesday, January 25, 2006, at 9
a.m. (EST),\1\ on demand response and advanced metering regarding
issues raised by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) section
1252(e)(3).\2\ This notice includes additional dockets numbers because
those filings all contain issues associated with demand response and
those issues may be discussed within presentations. The technical
conference will be held in the Commission Meeting Room at the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. The conference will be open for the public to attend and advance
registration is not required. This will be a staff conference, but
Commissioners may attend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The initial notice setting the date of this technical
conference was issued on December 12, 2005. 70 FR 74,804 (2005). An
additional notice setting forth the agenda and procedures for the
technical conference was issued on January 13, 2006.
    \2\ Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law No. 109-58, Sec.
1252(e)(3), 119 Stat. 594 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The conference will be transcribed. A transcript of the conference
will be immediately available from Ace Reporting Company<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<PHONE_NUMBER> for a fee. It will be available to the public on the
Commission's eLibrary system seven calendar days after the Commission
receives the transcript.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free<PHONE_NUMBER>
(voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER> with the
required accommodations.
    For further information on the technical conference, please
contact:
David Kathan (Technical Information), Office of Markets, Tariffs and
Rates, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Aileen Roder (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-987 Filed 1-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 14, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48492-48493]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19762]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 563

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0004]

Event Data Recorders

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: On February 17, 2009, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
petitioned for NHTSA to initiate rulemaking to delay by one year the
effective date of regulations establishing requirements related to
event data recorders (EDRs) voluntarily installed on light vehicles.
The petitioner suggested that the delay would enable vehicle
manufacturers to retain current EDR functionality across all vehicle
models and avoid disabling legacy EDR systems for a limited number of
vehicle models. The agency is denying the petition since the
implementation of the August 2006 final rule has already been delayed
by two years and we have recently published a final rule responding to
the remaining petitions for reconsideration. We believe these latest
amendments alleviate the most significant areas of concern expressed by
the Alliance and will not necessitate further delays in implementation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical and policy issues,
contact:
    David Sutula, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NVS-112.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For legal issues, contact:
    Mr. David Jasinski, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-112.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Both persons may be reached by mail at the following address:
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., West Building, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Petition for Rulemaking
III. Analysis and Agency Decision

I. Background

    In August 2006, NHTSA issued a final rule \1\ amending 49 CFR Part
563 (Part 563) to establish uniform performance requirements for the
accuracy, collection, storage, survivability and retrievability of
onboard motor vehicle crash EDRs voluntarily installed in light
passenger vehicles. Specifically, the regulation applies to passenger
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 3,855 kg (8,500 pounds) or less and an
unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5,500 pounds) or less,\2\ that are
voluntarily equipped with an EDR. The final rule aimed to standardize
the data obtained through EDRs so that such data would provide
information to enhance the agency's understanding of crash events and
safety system performance, thereby potentially contributing to safer
vehicle designs and more effective safety regulations. The final rule
was intended to be technology-neutral, so as to permit compliance with
any available EDR technology that meets the specified performance
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 71 FR 50998.
    \2\ Walk-in van-type trucks or vehicles designed to be sold
exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service are excluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 14, 2008,\3\ the agency responded to petitions for
reconsideration on the August 2006 final rule and the following
amendments were made to Part 563:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 73 FR 2168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     We clarified the event storage definitions to alleviate
any uncertainties in multiple event crashes;
     Revised certain sensor ranges and accuracies to reflect
current state of the art technologies;
     Clarified the recorded data reporting format;
     Specified vehicle storage conditions during compliance
testing;
     Clarified the required data elements and scope of covered
sensors; and
     Revised the effective date to provide sufficient time for
manufacturers and suppliers to comply with the rule.

The agency made these changes to encourage a broad application of EDR
technologies in motor vehicles and maximize the usefulness of EDR data
for vehicle designers, researchers and the medical community, without
imposing unnecessary burdens or deterring future improvements to EDRs
that have been voluntarily installed. The final rule also provided two
additional years of lead time to provide manufacturers more time to
implement the necessary changes to EDR architectures within their
normal product development cycles.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NHTSA issued a Federal Register notice on February 8, 2008
(73 FR 8408) to correct the placement of decimal points for data in
Table II of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the January 2008 final rule, the agency received
three petitions for reconsideration from the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (Alliance), the Association of International Automobile
Manufacturers, Inc., Technical Affairs Committee (AIAM) \5\ and Mr.
Thomas Kowalick, a private citizen. The agency also received two
requests for interpretation from the Automotive Occupant Restraints
Council and Robert Bosch, LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ At the time of its submission, the AIAM Technical Affairs
Committee members included: American Honda Motor Co., American
Suzuki Motor Corp., Aston Martin Lagonda of North America, Inc.,
Ferrari North America, Inc., Hyundai Motor America, Isuzu Motors
America LLC, Kia Motors America, Inc., Maserati North America, Inc.,
Nissan North America, Inc., Peugeot Motors of America, Subaru of
America, ADVICS North America, Inc., Delphi Corporation, Denso
International America, Inc., and Robert Bosch Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 5, 2011,\6\ the agency published a final rule responding
to these petitions and made the following clarifications and amendments
to Part 563:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 76 FR 47478.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     We removed the required standardization of the reporting
requirements for all acceleration data requirements to address
certification issues with data clipping, filtering and phase-shifting;
     Clarified the application of sensor tolerances to within
the range of the applicable sensor;
     Clarified the event storage definition to alleviate
uncertainties in multiple event crashes;
     Clarified our position regarding exclusion of peripheral
sensors from the reporting requirements for EDRs;
     Revised requirements for the capture of event data in
crashes that
    [cir] Involve side or side curtain/tube air bags such that EDR data
would only need to be locked if the vehicle also captures lateral
delta-V data, and

    [cir] Involve non-reversible deployable restraints other than
frontal, side or side/curtain air bags such that EDR data would not
need to be locked at the option of the manufacturer;
     Clarified that any non-reversible deployable restraint may
serve as an event trigger;
     Made other minor technical and editorial corrections; and
     Denied a petition request for requiring a mechanical
lockout device.

II. Petition for Rulemaking

    On February 17, 2009, NHTSA received a petition for rulemaking from
the Alliance. The petitioner requested that NHTSA initiate rulemaking
to delay the effective date of Part 563 from September 1, 2012 to
September 1, 2013. The petitioner commented that the delay would enable
vehicle manufacturers to retain current EDR functionality across all
vehicle models and avoid disabling legacy EDR systems for a limited
number of vehicle models.
    The Alliance commented that the one-year delay was necessary
because economic conditions have resulted in significant changes to
future product plans for many Alliance member companies. As a result,
the product redesigns for some vehicle models equipped with older
generation EDRs have now been extended beyond the September 1, 2012
effective date. As a result, manufacturers of those affected vehicles
would likely opt to disable the EDRs until such time as the vehicle
could be redesigned.
    The Alliance further commented that the delay would enable
manufacturers to more efficiently respond to any agency revisions to
Part 563 based on its response to the petitions for reconsideration of
the January 14, 2008 final rule. Most notably, the Alliance identified
the acceleration data element and data clipping as two needed revisions
to Part 563.
    Additionally, the Alliance commented that an effective date of
September 1, 2013, is consistent with their original petition for
reconsideration dated October 12, 2006.
    On March 18, 2009, the agency met with representatives from General
Motors (GM) who presented additional data \7\ in support of the
Alliance petition for delay of the effective date in Part 563. GM
supported two petitions for reconsideration issues regarding the
recording of acceleration data. Namely, GM supported restriction of the
accuracy requirement to  10 percent for crashes where
accelerometer data clipping does not occur, and deletion of the
acceleration data element from Part 563. GM also commented that in at
least one vehicle, the EDR may need to be disabled if a delay in the
effective date is not granted.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Docket for this notice.
    \8\ GM's position was also supported in a letter dated September
25, 2009 and posted to Docket number NHTSA-2008-0004-0011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a letter dated March 30, 2009, the AIAM supported the Alliance
petition for delay in the effective date of Part 563. AIAM commented
that manufacturers were provided ``essentially one development cycle
(about four years)'' to reengineer EDRs to comply with Part 563. It
stated that an additional delay in responding to the petitions for
reconsideration of the January 2008 final rule will reduce the ability
of manufacturers to implement changes during the new model development
process and could result in EDR functionality being removed from some
vehicles in the short term.

III. Analysis and Agency Decision

    The agency amended Part 563 in its August 5, 2011 response to
petitions for reconsideration of the January 14, 2008 rule. In its
response, the agency carefully considered the issues of data accuracy,
phase-shifting, and clipping effects associated with accelerometer
signals. In that notice, we revised Part 563 to remove the reporting
specifications for acceleration data elements in Table III, including
minimum range, accuracy and resolution in lieu of removing the
acceleration data elements altogether. Through these actions,
manufacturers may continue to use current EDR technologies and not
incur any significant cost increases due to use of extended
accelerometer ranges, while the agency may continue to receive
acceleration data. We believe that these changes adequately address the
concerns of the petitioners with regard to the data elements.
    Further, the agency believes that the aforementioned changes will
not require manufacturers to amend their development plans for EDR
architectures or vehicle models. The changes in the response to
petitions for reconsideration of the January 2008 final rule will
instead reduce their burden in complying and will impose no additional
cost.
    We expect that denying this one-year extension will have a limited
effect on crash data collected by the agency for research purposes. As
noted in our Vehicle Safety Fuel Economy Rulemaking/Research Priority
Plans 2011-2013,\9\ the agency is developing a rulemaking proposal
requiring EDRs on light vehicles to which Part 563 applies. The
Alliance also acknowledged in its petition that its request has a
limited impact on the number or timing of the vehicles meeting the
requirements by 2012. Only one vehicle manufacturer submitted data to
the agency that demonstrated that one of their vehicle models would be
equipped with legacy EDR systems that would need to be disabled. The
AIAM letter of support did not provide any additional data from its
members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0108, page 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the foregoing, we do not believe that an additional delay
in the effective date for the entire fleet is warranted, and we are
denying the Alliance's petition for rulemaking.
    In accordance with 49 CFR Part 552, this completes the agency's
review of the petition.

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30162; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: August 6, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-19762 Filed 8-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 218 (Thursday, November 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70044-70045]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28682]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76362; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2015-73]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendments No. 1 and 3, Relating to Listing and
Trading of Shares of the Guggenheim Total Return Bond ETF Under NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 8.600

November 5, 2015.
    On September 1, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'') 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 list and trade
shares (``Shares'') of the Guggenheim Total Return Bond ETF (``Fund'').
On September 15, 2015, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the
proposal. The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, was
published for comment in the Federal Register on September 22, 2015.\3\
On September 22, 2015, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 3 to the
proposed rule change.\4\ The Commission received no comment letters on
the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75930 (September 16,
2015), 80 FR 57251.
    \4\ On September 21, 2015, the Exchange submitted and withdrew
Amendment No. 2 to the proposal. In Amendment No. 3, the Exchange
clarified certain representations regarding the availability of
quotation, last sale, and pricing information for the Shares and the
instruments in which the Fund may invest. Amendment No. 3 is
available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2015-73/nysearca201573-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the

proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\6\ designates December 21, 2015, as the date by
which the Commission should either approve or disapprove or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change
(File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-73), as modified by Amendments No. 1 and
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-28682 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 235 (Friday, December 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 73524]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29133]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0329; FRL-9903-66-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Rubber Tire Manufacturing (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NSPS for Rubber Tire
Manufacturing'' (EPA ICR No. 1158.11, OMB Control No. 2060-0156), to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq).
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through March 31, 2014. Public comments were requested previously, via
the Federal Register (78 FR 33409) on June 4, 2013, during a 60-day
comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. 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.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 6,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0329, to: (1) EPA online, using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Respondents are owners or operators of rubber tire
manufacturing plants which include each: under-tread cementing
operation, sidewall cementing operation, tread end cementing operation,
bead cementing operating, green tire spraying operation, Michelin-A
operation, Michelin-B operation, and Michelin-C automatic operation.
The standards require the submission of notification when conducting
performance tests and periodic reporting including semiannual reports
of excess emissions and annual reports of Method 24 formulation data.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Rubber tire manufacturing
facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart BBB).
    Estimated number of respondents: 41 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, annually, and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 17,684 hours (per year). ``Burden'' is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,746,207 (per year), includes $16,400
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the
respondent burden from the most-recently approved ICR. Based on
consultation comments received in development of this ICR, the
frequency of occurrence for burden items ``monitoring of VOC emissions
and operations'' and ``recording startup, shutdown, and malfunction''
were revised to account for 350 days per year operation, which is
typical for current plant operation in the industry sector. This
results in an increase in respondent burden hours and costs.
    There is also a decrease of one burden hour for the Agency as a
result of rounding. This ICR calculates all burden hours and costs to
two decimal places and presents a more precise estimate.

Richard T. Westlund,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-29133 Filed 12-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 233 (Thursday, December 3, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 77994]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26415]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2020-0658]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Indian Creek, Miami Beach, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of temporary deviation from regulations; request
for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the 63rd Street Bridge across Indian
Creek, mile 4.0, at Miami Beach, Florida. A request was made to place
the drawbridge on a weekend operating schedule to alleviate vehicle
congestion due to on demand bridge openings. This deviation will test a
change to the drawbridge operation schedule to determine whether a
permanent change to the schedule is needed. The Coast Guard is seeking
comments from the public regarding these proposed changes.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m. on December 14,
2020, through 11:59 p.m. on June 11, 2021.
    Comments and relate material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before February 11, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0658 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this test
deviation, call or email LT Samuel Rodriguez-Gonzalez, U.S. Coast
Guard, Sector Miami Waterways Management Division; telephone 305-535-
4307, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    The 63rd Street Bridge across Indian Creek, mile 4.0, at Miami
Beach, Florida is a double-leaf bascule bridge with an 11 foot vertical
clearance at mean high water in the closed position. The normal
operating schedule for the bridge is set forth in 33 CFR 117.293.
Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.
    A private citizen requested the Coast Guard consider placing the
drawbridge on a weekend operating schedule to alleviate vehicle
congestion due to on demand bridge openings. The Coast Guard contacted
the bridge owner, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and
requested a copy of the bridge logs for the month of August 2020. After
reviewing the logs, the Coast Guard determined placing the bridge on a
schedule during the weekend may alleviate vehicle congestion while
maintaining the reasonable needs of navigation. This test deviation
provides for scheduled opening times on Saturdays and Sundays. There
will be no change to the published weekday operating schedule.
    Under this test deviation, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., the draw shall
open on the hour and half-hour; except Federal Holidays and all other
times, the draw shall operate on demand. From 7:10 a.m. to 9:55 a.m.
and 4:05 p.m. to 6:59 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays, the draw need not open for the passage of vessels. In
February of each year during the period seven days prior to the City of
Miami Beach Yacht and Brokerage Show and the four days following the
show, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., the bridge need not open except for 10
minutes at the top of the hour. At all other times the bridge shall
operate on its normal schedule.
    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 vessel operators 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.

II. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
    Documents mentioned in this notification as being available in this
docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

    Dated: November 23, 2020.
Randall D. Overton,
Director, Bridge Administration, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2020-26415 Filed 12-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 14, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38759-38762]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12698]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1212; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00423-E]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co. KG
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co. KG (RRD) Model RB211 Trent
768-60, 772-60, and 772B-60 engines. This proposed AD was prompted by
reports of cracks on affected intermediate-pressure compressor (IPC)
rotor shaft balance lands. This proposed AD would require repetitive
on-wing or in-shop borescope inspections (BSIs) of the affected IPC
rotor shaft balance land for cracks, replacement of any IPC rotor shaft
if necessary, and would prohibit the installation of an affected IPC
rotor shaft on any engine, as specified in a European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by
reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by July 31, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1212; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For EASA service information that is proposed for IBR in
this NPRM, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne,
Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email: [email protected]; website:
easa.europa.eu. You may find this material on the EASA website at
ad.easa.europa.eu. It is also available at regulations.gov under Docket
No. FAA-2023-1212.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sungmo Cho, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (781)
238-7241; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1212; Project Identifier
MCAI-2022-00423-E'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and

actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Sungmo Cho, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2022-0055, dated March 23, 2022
(EASA AD 2022-0055) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an
unsafe condition for all RRD Model RB211 Trent 768-60, 772-60, 772B-60,
and 772C-60 engines. The MCAI states that cracking on the IPC rotor
shaft balance land has been historically observed on RRD Model Trent
700 engines. To address this unsafe condition, Roll-Royce (RR)
originally developed Modification 72-AG402, which introduced a revised
balancing method that removed the original balancing weights from the
IPC rotor shaft balance land and published RR Service Bulletin (SB)
RB.211-72-AG402 to provide instructions for an in-service modification.
In addition, RR published Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB)
RB.211-72-AG085, Revision 3, dated August 27, 2021, to provide
instructions for an in-shop eddy current inspection (ECI) of the IPC
rotor shaft balance land. Consequently, EASA issued EASA AD 2018-
0049R2, dated September 13, 2021 (EASA AD 2018-0049R2).
    Since EASA issued EASA AD 2018-0049R2, RR determined that some RRD
Model Trent 700 engines (post-RR SB RB.211-72-AG402) were not inspected
in accordance with RR NMSB RB.211-72-AG085 during engine refurbishment
due to the policy applied previously from RR NMSB RB.211-72-AG085,
Revision 2. RR identified the affected batch of IPC rotor shaft balance
lands and published RR NMSB RB.211-72-AK706, Initial Issue, dated
November 24, 2021, which describes procedures to perform a BSI of the
IPC rotor shaft balance land until the in-shop ECI is accomplished in
accordance with RR NMSB RB.211-72-AG085. To address this, EASA issued
the MCAI. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to IPC rotor
shaft failure and consequent uncontained high-energy debris, possibly
resulting in damage to the airplane.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1212.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2022-0055, which specifies procedures for
performing repetitive on-wing or in-shop BSIs of the IPC rotor shaft
balance land and, if any discrepancies are detected, accomplishing the
applicable corrective actions or replacing the IPC rotor shaft. The
MCAI also specifies prohibiting the installation of an affected IPC
rotor shaft on any engine and that accomplishing an in-shop ECI of the
IPC rotor shaft balance land or replacing the IPC rotor shaft
constitutes as terminating action for the repetitive BSIs.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

FAA's Determination

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI described above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after
determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to
exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the MCAI described previously, except for any differences identified
as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD and except as
discussed under ``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI.''

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since
coordinated with other manufacturers and CAAs to use this process. As a
result, the FAA proposes to incorporate by reference EASA AD 2022-0055
in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require
compliance with EASA AD 2022-0055 in its entirety through that
incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in
the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are
the same as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not
mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example,
where the AD requirement refers to ``all required actions within the
compliance times,'' compliance with this AD requirement is not limited
to the section titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in
EASA AD 2022-0055. Service information required by the EASA AD for
compliance will be available at regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2023-1212 after the FAA final rule is
published.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI

    EASA AD 2022-0055 applies to RRD Model RB211 Trent 768-60, 772-60,
772B-60, and 772C-60 engines. This proposed AD would not apply to RRD
Model RB211 Trent 772C-60 engines, as this model engine does not have
an FAA type certificate.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 62 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSI of IPC rotor shaft balance land.  4.5 work-hours x $85                 $0          $382.50          $23,715
                                       per hour = $382.50.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace IPC rotor shaft......................  50 work-hours x $85 per hour =       $2,120,000       $2,124,250
                                                $4,250.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co. KG: Docket No. FAA-2023-1212;
Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00423-E.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by July 31, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co. KG Model
RB211 Trent 768-60, 772-60, and 772B-60 engines.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine
Compressor Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks on the intermediate-
pressure compressor (IPC) rotor shaft balance land. The FAA is
issuing this AD to detect cracks on the IPC rotor shaft balance
land. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to IPC
rotor shaft failure and consequent uncontained high-energy debris,
possibly resulting in damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD:
Perform all required actions within the compliance times specified
in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD 2022-0055, dated March 23, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0055).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0055

    (1) Where EASA AD 2022-0055 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) This AD does not adopt the Remarks paragraph of EASA AD
2022-0055.
    (3) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-
0055 specifies to use certain tooling, equivalent tooling may be
used.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-0055
specifies to notify the manufacturer or supply pictures to the
manufacturer of any cracks, dents, or nicks, this AD does not
include that requirement.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of
this AD and email to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sungmo Cho, Aviation
Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency AD 2022-0055, dated
March 23, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2022-0055, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
[email protected]; website: easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on June 8, 2023.
Michael Linegang,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-12698 Filed 6-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26477-26478]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10721]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0802; FRL-9348-3]

Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petition and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of an initial
filing of a pesticide petition requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 14, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0802 and the pesticide petition number
(PP), by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2009-0802 and the pesticide petition number (PP). EPA's policy is that
all comments received will be included in the docket without change and
may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided, unless the comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not
submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected
through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Bryceland, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition filed under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 174 or part 180 for residues of pesticide
chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking
public comment on the request before responding to the petitioner. EPA
is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined
that the pesticide petition described in this document contains data or
information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not
fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or
whether the data supports granting of the pesticide petition. After
considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and
what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA
can make a final determination on this pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the
subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a
docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this
petition is available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3)),
EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.
    EPA is providing a shortened comment period of 10 days on this
notice of filing. EPA is expediting this petition because the time
limited tolerances for 2,6-DIPN and its metabolites and degradates is
set expire on May 18, 2012.
    PP 9F7626. Loveland Products, Inc., 7251 W. 4th St., Greeley, CO
80634, requests that 40 CFR 180.590 be amended by extending the
effective dates of existing time-limited tolerances for residues of the
biochemical pesticide, 2,6-diisopropylnaphthalene (2,6-DIPN) and its
metabolites and degradates resulting from post harvest applications, in
or on the following food and edible livestock commodities for three
years: Potato, whole at 2.0 parts per million (ppm); potato peel at 6.0
ppm; potato, granules/flakes at 5.5 ppm; cattle, goat, hog, horse,
sheep, fat at 1.0 ppm; cattle, goat, hog, horse, sheep, liver at 0.5
ppm; cattle, goat, hog, horse, sheep, meat at 0.2 ppm; cattle, goat,
hog, horse, sheep, meat byproducts at 0.4 ppm; and milk, fat at 0.5
ppm. The High-performance Liquid Chromatograph (HPLC) is used to
measure and evaluate the chemical 2,6-diisopropylnaphthalene (2,6-
DIPN).

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: April 26, 2012.
Keith A. Matthews,
Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-10721 Filed 5-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 6385]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01971]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68725; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2012-133]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving a
Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(h)(7) To
Permit PL Select Orders To Interact With Incoming Orders Larger Than
the Size of the PL Select Order

January 24, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On November 27, 2012, 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 amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(h)(7) to
permit PL Select Orders to interact with incoming orders larger than
the size of the PL Select Order. The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on December 14, 2012.\3\ The
Commission received no comment letters regarding the proposed rule
change. This order approves 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. 68385 (December 7,
2012), 77 FR 74528 (December 14, 2012) (SR-NYSEARCA-2012-133)
(``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(h)(7)
to permit PL Select Orders to interact with incoming orders larger than
the size of the PL Select Order. Currently the PL Select Order type
does not interact with incoming orders that: (i) Have an immediate-or-
cancel (``IOC'') time in force condition,\4\ (ii) is an ISO,\5\ or
(iii) is larger than the size of the PL Select Order.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(e).
    \5\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(jj).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67785 (Sept. 5,
2012), 77 FR 55888 (September 11, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-48)
(``Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has identified an unintended consequence related to
the implementation of PL Select Orders. Specifically, as described in
greater detail in the Notice,\7\ in certain instances an incoming
Adding Liquidity Only Order (``ALO Order'') is unable to post to the
NYSE Arca Book as required by NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(nn) \8\ if
there is a resident, contra-side PL Select Order.\9\ For example, if an
ETP Holder has entered a PL Select Order to sell shares and the
Exchange receives a larger incoming buy order at the same price,
because the arriving buy order is larger than the resting PL Select
Order, the PL Select Order (unlike a regular PL order) would not
execute against the arriving buy order and would remain undisplayed on
the Arca Book. Further, an incoming ALO Order to buy at the same price,
which is seeking to add to the existing bid would be rejected. In such
scenario, an ETP Holder seeking to add liquidity to the Arca Book with
an ALO order would be unable to do so, even though there is resting
interest posted at the same price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice, supra note 3.
    \8\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(nn).
    \9\ See Notice, 77 FR at 74528.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(h)(7)
to delete the requirement that prohibits PL Select Order interaction
with larger-sized, incoming orders.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\10\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ 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, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest; and are not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds the proposed rule change to be consistent with
the Act. The Commission notes that the Exchange continues to believe
that its rationale for preventing PL Select Orders from interacting
with incoming orders larger in size remains valid. In this regard, the
Exchange continues to believe that preventing executions with larger-
sized incoming interest would incentivize Users to route PL Select
Orders to the Exchange because such orders would remain available to
provide price improvement and would not be ``swept'' by such larger-
sized incoming orders. In addition, the Exchange believes that because
such PL Select Orders would remain available to provide price
improvement, it could similarly incentivize Users to route displayable
interest to the Exchange because the likelihood of receiving price
improvement could increase.
    The Commission notes that the Exchange believes, however, that the
potential for liquidity-posting interest to be rejected, albeit rare,
outweighs the Exchange's stated benefit of allowing the PL Select Order
not interact with incoming orders that are larger in size than the PL
Select Order. In addition, the Commission notes that the Exchange has
represented that institutional investors have raised concerns to the
Exchange that PL Select Orders currently may bypass trading interest
entered on behalf of institutional investors by not executing against
larger-sized orders. In this regard, the Commission notes that the
Exchange states that its goal is not to prevent the interaction of
legitimate trading interest, and to the extent there is a perception
that this may be the case, the Exchange believes that the restriction
on PL Select Orders should be lifted.
    Based on the Exchange's statements, the Commission believes that
removing the restriction on PL Select Order as proposed and thereby
allowing ALO Orders to post to the Arca Book, as intended, NYSE Arca
should help to ensure that trading interest is able to interact on its
market in an efficient manner.
    Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change
is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\13\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEARCA-2012-133) be, and
it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01971 Filed 1-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 64)]
[Notices]
[Page 15530-15533]
[DOCID:fr06ap09-130]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59643; File No. SR-MSRB-2009-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Establishment of a Pilot Phase of Its Upcoming Continuing Disclosure
Service of the Electronic Municipal Market Access system (EMMA[supreg])

March 27, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 25, 2009, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (``MSRB'')
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 substantially prepared by the MSRB. 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 MSRB has filed with the Commission a proposed rule change to
establish a pilot phase (the ``continuing disclosure pilot'') of the
continuing disclosure service of the MSRB's Electronic Municipal Market
Access system (``EMMA''). The continuing disclosure pilot would receive
electronic submissions of, and would make publicly available on the
Internet, continuing disclosure documents and related information
voluntarily submitted by issuers, obligated persons and their agents.
The MSRB has requested approval of the continuing disclosure pilot to
commence operation on May 11, 2009, or such later date as may be
announced by the MSRB in a notice published on the MSRB Web site, which
date shall be no later than 30 days after Commission approval of the
proposed rule change. In addition, the MSRB has requested approval of
the continuing disclosure pilot for a period ending on July 1, 2009.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission has previously approved the establishment of
the continuing disclosure service of EMMA, which will commence
operation on July 1, 2009. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59061 (December 5, 2008), 73 FR 75778 (December 12, 2008) (File No.
SR-MSRB-2008-05) (approving the continuing disclosure service of
EMMA with an effective date of July 1, 2009). The EMMA continuing
disclosure service is designed to commence operation simultaneously
with the effectiveness of certain amendments to Exchange Act Rule
15c2-12 adopted by the Commission. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 59062 (December 5, 2008), 73 FR 76104 (December 15,
2008) (adopting amendments to Exchange Act Rule 15c2-12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web
site (http://www.msrb.org/msrb1/sec.asp), at the MSRB's principal
office, 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 MSRB 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 MSRB 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 proposed rule change would establish a pilot phase of the
continuing disclosure service of EMMA to provide, pending the
commencement of operation of the permanent EMMA continuing disclosure
service on July 1, 2009, for the voluntary electronic submission to the
MSRB of continuing disclosure documents and related information by
issuers, obligated persons and their agents and to provide for the free
public access to such documents through the EMMA portal.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The EMMA portal began operation on March 31, 2008 as a pilot
facility and is accessible at http://emma.msrb.org. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 57577 (March 28, 2008), 73 FR 18022 (April
2, 2008) (File No. SR-MSRB-2007-06) (approving operation of the EMMA
pilot to provide free public access to the MSIL system collection of
official statements and advance refunding documents and to the
MSRB's Real-Time Transaction Reporting System historical and real-
time transaction price data) (the ``EMMA portal pilot filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Exchange Act Rule 15c2-12(b)(5), an underwriter for a primary
offering of municipal securities subject to the rule currently is
prohibited from underwriting the offering unless the underwriter has
determined that the issuer or an obligated person for whom financial
information or operating data is presented in the final official
statement, or a designated agent, has undertaken in writing to provide
certain

items of information to the marketplace.\5\ The items to be provided
include: (A) Annual financial information concerning obligated persons;
(B) audited financial statements for obligated persons if available and
if not included in the annual financial information; (C) notices of
certain events, if material; and (D) notices of failures to provide
annual financial information on or before the date specified in the
written undertaking. The written agreement shall identify each
obligated person or other person for whom information is to be
provided, either by name or by an objective criteria for selecting such
person, and also shall specify (i) the type of information to be
included in the annual financial information, (ii) the accounting
principles pursuant to which financial statements will be prepared and
whether such financial statements will be audited, and (iii) the date
on which the annual financial information will be provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Under Rule 15c2-12(b)(5)(i), annual filings are to be sent
to all existing nationally recognized municipal securities
information repositories (``NRMSIRs'') and any applicable state
information depositories (``SIDs''), while material event notices
may be sent to all existing NRMSIRs or to the MSRB, as well as to
any applicable SIDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The pilot phase of the EMMA continuing disclosure service would
accept voluntary submissions of continuing disclosure documents,
including but not limited to items to be provided pursuant to Exchange
Act Rule 15c2-12. Submissions of continuing disclosure documents to the
pilot phase of the EMMA continuing disclosure service would be made
solely in electronic format by issuers, obligated persons and their
agents through a secured, password-protected, Web-based interface with
EMMA. Such submissions would be made as portable document format (PDF)
files, accompanied by related indexing information, through the
submission processes established with respect to the EMMA continuing
disclosure service; provided that such processes may become available
for use by voluntary submitters on a phased-in basis. No paper
submissions would be accepted. Documents submitted by issuers,
obligated persons and their agents would be made available to the
public on the EMMA portal. The specific features of the EMMA portal
established with respect to the EMMA continuing disclosure service may
become available for use by public users of the EMMA Web site on a
phased-in basis during the pilot phase. The MSRB also may make
available test versions of the computer-to-computer submission
processes and data stream subscription services established with
respect to the EMMA continuing disclosure service on a phased-in basis
during the pilot phase. There would be no charge for the making of
submissions during the pilot phase or for accessing such documents on
the EMMA portal.
    The MSRB would view electronic submissions of continuing disclosure
documents during the pilot phase of the EMMA continuing disclosure
service as having been submitted to the MSRB for purposes of any
existing continuing disclosure undertakings entered into consistent
with Exchange Act Rule 15c2-12.\6\ The MSRB takes no position with
regard to whether a submission made to the pilot phase of the EMMA
continuing disclosure service that is made publicly available through
the EMMA portal would satisfy any other provisions of existing
continuing disclosure undertakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The MSRB currently operates CDINet to process and
disseminate notices of material events submitted to the MSRB. The
MSRB urges, but does not require, submitters currently using CDINet
to instead make any future submissions to the pilot phase of the
EMMA continuing disclosure service, solely in electronic format,
upon the launch of the pilot phase until such time as all
submissions must be made to the permanent EMMA continuing disclosure
service. The MSRB intends to file in the near future a proposed rule
change with the Commission to discontinue CDINet as of the
commencement of operations of the permanent EMMA continuing
disclosure service on July 1, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB would undertake to make the submission and EMMA portal
access services available during the pilot phase on the same terms as
established for the EMMA continuing disclosure service but would
reserve the right to operate any feature on a more limited basis as
necessary or appropriate, in the sole discretion of the MSRB, during
the pilot phase. The pilot phase would be expected to operate for a
limited period of time as the MSRB transitions to the permanent EMMA
continuing disclosure service anticipated to commence operation on July
1, 2009. The pilot phase would terminate automatically at such time as
the permanent EMMA continuing disclosure service becomes operational.
    The MSRB has designed EMMA, including the EMMA portal, as a
scalable system with sufficient current capacity and the ability to add
further capacity to meet foreseeable usage levels based on reasonable
estimates of expected usage, and the MSRB would monitor usage levels in
order to assure continued capacity in the future.
    The MSRB may restrict or terminate malicious, illegal or abusive
usage for such periods as may be necessary and appropriate to ensure
continuous and efficient access to the EMMA portal and to maintain the
integrity of EMMA and its operational components. Such usage may
include, without limitation, usage intended to cause the EMMA portal to
become inaccessible by other users, to cause the EMMA database or
operational components to become corrupted or otherwise unusable, to
alter the appearance or functionality of the EMMA portal, or to
hyperlink to or otherwise use the EMMA portal or the information
provided through the EMMA portal in furtherance of fraudulent or other
illegal activities (such as, for example, creating any inference of
MSRB complicity with or approval of such fraudulent or illegal
activities or creating a false impression that information used to
further such fraudulent or illegal activities has been obtained from
the MSRB or EMMA). Measures taken by the MSRB in response to such
unacceptable usage shall be designed to minimize any potentially
negative impact on the ability to access the EMMA portal.
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act,\7\ which provides that the MSRB's
rules shall:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).

be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect
to, and facilitating transactions in municipal securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
in municipal securities, and, in general, to protect investors and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the public interest.

    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act. The EMMA continuing disclosure service, including the pilot
phase thereof, would serve as an additional mechanism by which the MSRB
works toward removing impediments to and helping to perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market in municipal securities. The pilot
phase would be an important transitional step toward ensuring the
effective and efficient operation of the permanent EMMA continuing
disclosure service upon launch on July 1, 2009.
    The EMMA continuing disclosure service, including the pilot phase
thereof, would help make information useful for making investment
decisions more easily accessible to all participants in the municipal
securities market on an equal basis throughout the life of the

securities without charge through a centralized, searchable Internet-
based repository, thereby removing potential barriers to obtaining such
information. Broad access to continuing disclosure documents through
the EMMA continuing disclosure service should assist in preventing
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices by improving the
opportunity for public investors to access material information about
issuers and their securities.
    Furthermore, the EMMA continuing disclosure service should reduce
the effort necessary for issuers and obligated persons to comply with
their continuing disclosure undertakings by making submissions to a
single venue \8\ using an electronic submission process, which should
result in lower costs to issuers and savings to their citizens.
Similarly, a single centralized and searchable venue for free public
access to disclosure information should promote a more fair and
efficient municipal securities market in which transactions are
effected on the basis of material information available to all parties
to such transactions, which should allow for fairer pricing of
transactions based on a more complete understanding of the terms of the
securities and the potential investment risks. Free access to this
information--previously available in most cases only through paid
subscription services or on a per-document fee basis--should reduce
transaction costs for dealers and investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Some states may require issuers and/or obligated persons to
submit disclosure information to state information depositories or
other venues pursuant to state law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of these factors serve to promote the statutory mandate of the
MSRB to protect investors and the public interest.

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

    The MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The pilot phase of the EMMA
continuing disclosure service would be an important transitional step
toward ensuring the effective and efficient operation of the permanent
EMMA continuing disclosure service upon launch on July 1, 2009. As the
MSRB has previously stated in its filing with the Commission in
connection with the permanent EMMA continuing disclosure service (the
``permanent EMMA continuing disclosure filing''),\9\ although the MSRB
recognizes that the EMMA continuing disclosure service might require
private enterprises to modify some aspects of the way they undertake
their current business activities, the MSRB believes that the
continuing disclosure service would promote, rather than hinder,
further competition, growth and innovation in this area. The MSRB
believes that the benefits realized by the investing public from the
broader and easier availability of disclosure information about
municipal securities that would be provided through the EMMA continuing
disclosure service, including the pilot phase thereof, would justify
any potentially negative impact on existing enterprises from the
operation of EMMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58256 (July 30,
2008) 73 FR 46161 (August 7, 2008) (File No. SR-MSRB-2008-05)
(proposing the establishment of the continuing disclosure service of
EMMA). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59061 (December
5, 2008), 73 FR 75778 (December 12, 2008) (File No. SR-MSRB-2008-05)
(approving the continuing disclosure service of EMMA with an
effective date of July 1, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received on the
proposed rule change. However, in connection with the permanent EMMA
continuing disclosure filing, the Commission received comments relating
to, among other things, the effective date of the filing and a desire
for a transition to the permanent EMMA continuing disclosure
filing.\10\ In the permanent EMMA continuing disclosure filing, the
MSRB had originally proposed an effective date of January 1, 2009. In
response, one commentator requested that the Commission establish a
transition period before making electronic filings on EMMA mandatory as
a result of the submissions needing to be submitted as PDF-word
searchable files.\11\ Another commentator noted a need to address
smaller issuers who may need additional time to familiarize themselves
with an electronic system.\12\ A third commentator noted that
``municipal issuers and obligated persons may be confused as to where
they should file continuing disclosure documents during the period of
transition from the current system to the EMMA system'' and suggested
that these concerns ``could be addressed during a short transition
period.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Comment letters to the Commission on the permanent EMMA
continuing disclosure filing are available at http://www.sec.gov/
comments/sr-msrb-2008-05/msrb200805.shtml.
    \11\ See Letter from Susan A. Gaffney, Director, Federal Liaison
Center, Government Finance Officers Association, to Ms. Harmon,
dated September 22, 2008.
    \12\ See Letter from William A. Holby, President, National
Association of Bond Lawyers, to Ms. Harmon, dated September 22,
2008.
    \13\ See Letter from Christopher Alwine, Head of Municipal Money
Market and Bond Groups, Vanguard, to Ms. Harmon, dated September 24,
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, the MSRB amended the permanent EMMA continuing
disclosure filing to request that the Commission delay the
implementation of the permanent EMMA continuing disclosure service to
July 1, 2009.\14\ The MSRB noted that the delayed effectiveness would
provide the MSRB with the opportunity to implement a pilot phase of the
EMMA continuing disclosure service to allow voluntary submissions to be
made prior to the effectiveness of the permanent EMMA continuing
disclosure service. During this pilot period, submitters would be able
to familiarize themselves with the submission process and receive
assistance to establish user accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See SR-MSRB-2008-05, Amendment No. 1 (November 5, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2009-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission,

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2009-03. 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 Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. 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-MSRB-2009-03 and should be
submitted on or before April 27, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-7583 Filed 4-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Incorporation by Reference Table Docket OAR 2003 0090 April 12, 2004 Specific documents from Docket OAR 2003 0083 for the final rulemaking on 8 hour ozone designations are hereby incorporated by reference into Docket OAR 2003 0090 for the portion of the designations notice that takes final action on the deferred effective date of nonattainment designations for Early Action Compact areas. For the purposes of section 307( d) of the Clean Air Act, these documents from Docket OAR 2003 0083 are considered to be included in, contained in, and to have been placed in Docket OAR 2003 0090. EPA is incorporating by reference only the documents from Docket OAR 2003 0083 that are described below:

Docket No. OAR 2003 0083 Document ID Date Description 1565 06/ 11/ 2003 Letter to Cynthia Stahl, EPA Region 3, from Ann Marie DeBiase, Maryland Department of the Environment. re: Update on status of the Governor's recommendation on nonattainment boundaries for Maryland under the 8 hour ozone standard.

1538 no date Letter to Robert Burnley, Director, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and Cynthia Stahl, EPA Region 3, from Pamela Irwin, Sierra Club Virginia Chapter. re: Comments on proposed nonattainment designations under the 8 hour ozone standard for areas in Virginia 1518 02/ 26/ 2004 Letter to Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 3, from Kendl P. Philbrick, Acting Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment re: Eligibility of Kent and Queen Anne's Counties in the Early Action Compact process.

01/ 27/ 2004 Letter to Kendl P. Philbrick, Acting Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment, from Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 3 7/ 15/ 2003 Letter to Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 3, from Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., Governor, State of Maryland re: Maryland's updated boundary recommendations for attainment/ nonattainment areas under the 8 hour ozone standard 03/ 22/ 2004 Letter to Michael Leavitt, Administrator, USEPA, from Sonny Perdue, Governor, State of Georgia re: Additional information to support Georgia's position that Catoosa and Walker Counties should not be included in the Chattanooga 8 hour ozone nonattainment area. 1403 1436 1585 1589 02/ 05/ 04 Letter and attachments to Richard Green, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6, from Jenkins & Gilchrist, Attorneys, Austin, TX Re: San Antonio, Texas EAC Docket No. OAR 2003 0083 Document ID Date Description 1353 11 factor analysis from state of Mississippi.

1367 North Carolina Recommendation for Burke County.

1368 North Carolina Recommendation for Caldwell County.

1369 North Carolina Recommendation for Catawba County.

1370 North Carolina Recommendation for Randolph County.

1371 02 11 04 Letter: From Baron to Katz RE: Proposed 8 hour ozone nonattainment area boundaries for the Baltimore Washington area.

1377 1382 02 10 04 Letter to Donald Welsh, EPA Region 111, from Robert Burnley, VA DEQ, with attachments 1399 03 11 04 Letter: From J. E. Hornback to M. O. Leavitt, regarding the proposed designation of eight hour ozone boundaries that EPA scheduled on 04/ 15/ 04.

03 18 04 Leavitt, Palmer, and Ross. 8 hour ozone designations in North Carolina.

1449 12 10 03 Letter from Hornback to Holmstead RE: Nonattainment Area Boundary Recommendations 8 hour ozone.