SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NSPS for the Graphic Arts Industry (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart QQ) (Renewal),

EPA ICR Number 0657.10, OMB Control number 2060-0105

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for the Graphic Arts Industry (40 CFR part 60, subpart QQ) were proposed on October 28, 1980, and promulgated on November 8, 1982.  These standards apply to the following affected facilities in NSPS subpart QQ: each publication rotogravure printing press (not including proof presses) commencing construction, modification or reconstruction after the date of a proposal.  This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart QQ.

Approximately 19 facilities are currently subject to the standard, and it is estimated that one additional facility will begin operations and will become subject to the standard over the next three years.  It is assumed that 30 percent of those facilities will add or modify a press at their facility during the three-year period.

The current ICR is based on the most recently approved Information Collection Request (ICR).  The cost of this ICR will be $163,005 (rounded).  All reports are sent to the delegated State, or local authority.  In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA Regional Office.

OMB approved the currently active ICR without any “Terms of Clearance.”

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

The EPA is charged under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, to establish standards of performance for new stationary sources that reflect:

. . . application of the best technological system of continuous emissions reduction which (taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emissions reduction, or any non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.  Section 111(a)(l).

The Agency refers to this charge as selecting the best demonstrated technology (BDT).  Section 111 also requires that the Administrator review and, if appropriate, revise such standards every eight years.

In addition, Section 114(a) states that the Administrator may require any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

(A) Establish and maintain such records; (B) make such reports; (C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods; (D) sample such emissions (in accordance with such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe); (E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; (F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with Section 114(a)(3); and (G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator’s judgment, Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions from publication rotogravure printing presses cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.  Therefore, the NSPS were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 60, subpart QQ.

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The control of emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from publication rotogravure printing presses requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment.  Emissions of VOCs from publication rotogravure printing presses are the result of the operation of the affected facilities.  The subject standards are achieved by the capture of VOC emissions using control technology and leak detection and repair procedures.

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standard ensures compliance with the applicable regulations which where promulgated in accordance with the Clean Air Act.  The collected information is also used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal proceedings.

Performance tests are required in order to determine an affected facility’s initial capability to comply with the emission standard. Continuous emission monitors are used to ensure compliance with the standard at all times.

The notifications required in the standard are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the regulations.  The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated and the standards are being met.  The performance test may also be observed.

The required semiannual reports are used to determine periods of excess emissions, identify problems at the facility, verify operation/maintenance procedures, and for compliance determinations.

3.  Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part 60,

subpart QQ.

3(a)  Non-duplication

 If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office.  Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated state, or local agency.  If a state or local agency has adopted its own similar standards to implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the state, or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standards.  Therefore, no duplication exists.

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

An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register on July 8, 2009 (74 FR 32581).  No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3(c)  Consultations

For this information collection, the previous ICR renewal was used to obtain burden estimates since this ICR renewal was processed under the “Expedited Approach” option provided in May 1, 2008 guidance.  Per this guidance, all data and assumptions from the previous ICR renewal were used as the basis for estimating the hourly and cost burdens associated with this renewal.

It is our policy to respond after a thorough review of comments received since the last ICR renewal as well as those submitted in response to the first Federal Register notice.  In this case, no comments were received.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards.  Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and emission limitations are met.  If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the proper operation and maintenance of control equipment and the possibility of detecting violations would be less likely.

3(e)  General Guidelines

None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violates any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR Part 1320, Section 1320.5.

3(f)  Confidentiality

Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B - Confidentiality of Business Information (CBI) (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3(g)  Sensitive Questions

The reporting or recordkeeping requirements in the standard do not include sensitive questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)  Respondents/SIC and NAICS Codes

The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are magnetic tape manufacturers.  The SIC code for the respondents affected by the standards is SIC (United States Standard Industrial Classification) 2754 which corresponds to the NAICS (The North American Industry Classification System) 323111 for Graphic Arts Industry.

4(b)  Information Requested

(i)  Data Items

All data in this ICR that is recorded and/or reported is required by 40 CFR part 60, subpart QQ.

A source must make the following reports:

Notifications and Reports

Construction/reconstruction

60.7(a)(1)

Actual startup

60.7(a)(3)

Initial performance test results

60.8(a) and 60.433 (e)(6)

Initial performance test

60.8(d)

Physical or operational change

60.7(a)(4)

Semiannual Reports

60.7(c)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping

Startups, shutdowns, malfunctions

60.7(b)

Records necessary to determine conditions of the performance test.

60.7(f), 60.8(c), and 60.433(a)(5)

Records showing information to make monthly calculations

of emissions.

60.7(f), and 60.434(a)

Records are required to be retained for two years.

60.7(f)

Electronic Reporting

Currently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides parameter data in an automated way, e.g., solvent recovery systems or a solvent vapor capture system to control emissions.  Although personnel at the source still need to evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping.  In addition, some regulatory agencies are setting up electronic reporting systems to allow sources to report electronically which is reducing the reporting burden.  However, electronic reporting systems are still not widely used by the regulatory agencies.  It is estimated that approximately 10 percent of the respondents use electronic reporting.

ii.  Respondent Activities

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Method 24A test, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

Currently, sources are using automated monitoring equipment that provides parameter data.  Although personnel at the source still need to evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping.

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

5(a)  Agency Activities

EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

Agency Activities

Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Air Facility System (AFS).

5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated.   Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and note the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved.  Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs.

Information contained in the reports is entered into the AFS which is operated and maintained by EPA’s Office of Compliance.  AFS is EPA’s database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance data for approximately 125,000 industrial and government-owned facilities.  EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters.  EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

 The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or operator for two years.

5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

There are no small businesses affected by this standard.

5(d)  Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown below in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost for NSPS for the Graphic Arts Industry (40 CFR part 60, subpart QQ) (Renewal).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for the subpart included in this ICR.  The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified.  Responses to this information collection are mandatory.

The 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.

6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 1,718 (Total Labor Hours from Table 1).  The recordkeeping hours shown in Table 1 are 1,353.  The reporting requirement hours shown in Table 1 are 365.  These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NSPS program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

This ICR uses the following labor rates:

Managerial	$114.49 ($54.52 + 110%)

Technical	$98.20 ($46.76 + 110%)

Clerical	$48.53 ($23.11 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 2009, “Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group.”  The rates are from column 1, “Total compensation.”  The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

(ii)  Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

The only costs to the regulated industry resulting from information collection activities required by the subject standard are labor costs.  There are no capital/startup or operation and maintenance costs.

(iii)  Capital/Startup vs. Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

The only types of industry cost associated with the information collection activity in the regulations are labor costs.  There are no capital/startup or operation and maintenance costs, because the equipment used by the respondent is the same equipment used in their day-to-day operations to maintain quality control over the surface coating produced for sale.

6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported information.  EPA’s overall compliance and enforcement program includes activities such as the examination of records maintained by the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of emissions, and the publication and distribution of collected information.

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $13,797 (rounded).

This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

		Managerial	$62.27 (GS-13, Step 5, $38.92 + 60%)

		Technical	$46.21 (GS-12, Step 1, $28.88 + 60%)

		Clerical	$25.01 (GS-6, Step 3, $15.63 + 60%)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), 2010 General Schedule, which excludes locality rates of pay.  The rates have been increased by 60 percent to account for the benefit packages available to government employees.  Details upon which this estimate is based appear below in Table 2: Average Annual Agency Burden and Cost for NSPS for the Graphic Arts Industry (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart QQ) (Renewal).

.

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

Based on our research for this ICR, approximately 19 existing sources currently are subject to the standard.  It is estimated that one additional source per year will become subject to the regulation over the next three years.  It is further assumed that and that 30 percent of the existing sources will be reconstructed or modified over the next three years.

Number of respondents is calculated using the following table which addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents

Respondents That Submit Reports

Respondents That Do Not Submit Any Reports

Year

(A)

Number of New Respondents

(B)

Number of Existing Respondents

(C)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit Reports

(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents

(E)

Number of Respondents

(E=A+B+C-D)

1

2.23 1

19

0

1.9

19.33

2

2.23 1

19

0

1.9

19.33

3

2.23 1

19

0

1.9

19.33

Average

2.23 1

19

0

1.9

19 (rounded)

1  One new facility will become subject to the standard and 5.7 facilities per year will be modified or reconstructed over the next three years.  The average per year is 2.23.

To avoid double-counting respondents, column D is subtracted.  As shown above, the average Number of Respondents over the three-year period of this ICR is 19.33.

The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the following table:

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Information Collection Activity

(B)

Number of Respondents

(C)

Number of Responses

(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit Reports

(E)

Total Annual Responses

E=(BxC)+D

Notification of construction/ reconstruction

2.23

1

N/A

2.23

Notification of actual startup

2.23

1

N/A

2.23

Notification of initial performance test

2.23

1

N/A

2.23

Initial performance test report

2.23

1

N/A

2.23

Semiannual reports

19

2

N/A

38

Total

47 (rounded)

The number of Total Annual Responses is 47.

The total annual labor costs are $163,005.  Details regarding these estimates may be found below in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost for NSPS for the Graphic Arts Industry (40 CFR part 60, subpart QQ) (Renewal).

Note that the total annual capital and O&M costs to the regulated entity are $0.  These costs are detailed in Section 6(b)(iii), Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs.

6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2 below, respectively, and summarized below.

(i) Respondent Tally

The total annual labor hours are 1,718. Details regarding these estimates may be found below in Table 1:  Annual Respondent Burden and Cost for NSPS for the Graphic Arts (40 CFR part 60, subpart QQ) (Renewal).  Furthermore, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 37 (rounded) hours per response.

There are no annual capital/startup and O&M costs to the regulated entity.

(ii) The Agency Tally

The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is estimated to be 228 labor hours at a cost of $13,797.  See below Table 2:  Average Annual Agency Burden and Cost for NSPS for the Graphic Arts Industry (40 CFR part 60, subpart QQ) (Renewal).

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

There is no change in the labor hours or cost to the respondents in this ICR compared to the previous ICR because the regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three years.  Since this ICR renewal was approved to be processed under the “Expedited Approach” option, EPA has maintained the same estimate for the number of sources currently subject to this standard as indicated in the most recently approved ICR.  Therefore, the labor hour figures in the previous ICR reflect the current burden to the respondents and are reiterated in this ICR.

6(g)  Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 37 (rounded) hours per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to, or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct, or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0409. An electronic version of the public docket is available at http://www.regulations.gov/ which may be used to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system,   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document.  The documents are also available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  Also, comments can be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0409 and OMB Control Number 2060-0105 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information.

 PAGE

 PAGE   10


[Federal Register: October 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 211)]
[Notices]
[Page 64611-64612]
[DOCID:fr30oc08-40]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

October 24, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC09-11-000.
    Applicants: Power Holdings, LLC, Tieton Hydropower, LLC.
    Description: Power Holdings, LLC & Tieton Hydropower, LLC's
application for order authorizing disposition of jurisdictional
facilities under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act etc.
    Filed Date: 10/24/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081024-0127.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 7, 2008.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER97-3359-012.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Florida Power & Light Co.'s Notification of Non-
Material Changes in Status.
    Filed Date: 10/22/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081022-5081.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 12, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-737-002.
    Applicants: Commerce Energy Inc.
    Description: Commerce Energy submits supplemental filing to earlier
filed Market Power Analysis, request for treatment as Category 1 and
Tariff Revision Filing, as required by order 697 and 697-A.
    Filed Date: 10/22/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081023-0308.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 12, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-89-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits a clean copy of the
relevant tariff sheets as Exhibit I with redlined copies showing the
adjustments as Exhibit II to their original 10/17/08 filing of revised
pages to the OATT.
    Filed Date: 10/22/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081024-0008.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 12, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-980-001.
    Applicants: Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc.
    Description: Interstate Power and Light Company submits a further
amended Agreement that includes a complete copy of IPL's current RES-5
rate schedule as changes to the Agreement have been made.
    Filed Date: 10/22/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081023-0309.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 12, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1257-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits an amendment to its 7/11/08 filing that proposed various
revisions to its Open Access Transmission Energy and Operating Reserve
Markets Tariff.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081023-0110.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 12, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-107-000.
    Applicants: Koda Energy LLC.
    Description: Petition of KODA Energy, LLC for Order Accepting
Market-Based Rate Tariff for Filing and Granting Waivers and Blanket
Approvals and Request for Expedited Action.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081023-0108.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 12, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-108-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System, Great River
Energy.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator
Corporation et al. submit revised tariff sheets with proposed revisions
to Attachment O re Open Access Transmission and Energy Market Tariff et
al.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081023-0107.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 12, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-112-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits an Amended and Restated Interconnection and Operating Agreement
among Wisconsin Electric Power Company, etc.
    Filed Date: 10/22/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081023-0101.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 12, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-116-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Idaho Power Co submits revised depreciation accrual
rates, Second Revised Sheet 129-A and 129-B to their OATT etc and
Letter clarifying service of October 22, 2008 filing.
    Filed Date: 10/22/2008; 10/23/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081024-0042; 20081023-5089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 12, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-117-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits Large Generator Interconnection Agreement re Original Service
Agreement 1983.
    Filed Date: 10/23/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081024-0006.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 13, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-118-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits an Amended and Restated Large Generator Interconnection
Agreement with American Transmission Company, LLC et al.
    Filed Date: 10/23/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081024-0005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 13, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-120-000.
    Applicants: DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC's CD containing report as
part of its power purchase agreements with City of Concord, NC.
    Filed Date: 10/23/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081023-4004.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 13, 2008.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-25935 Filed 10-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 210 (Wednesday, November 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50646-50647]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23721]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-6-000]

RH energytrans, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on October 16, 2017, RH energytrans, LLC (RH), 558
West 6th Street, Erie, PA 16507, filed an application pursuant to
section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Parts 157 and 284 of the
Commission's Regulations requesting authority to construct and operate
a new interstate natural gas pipeline system (referred to as the
Risberg Line), including pipeline facilities, two compressor stations,
metering and regulating stations and appurtenant facilities in
Pennsylvania and Ohio.
    Specifically, the project would include a total of 59.9 miles of
pipeline incorporating 31.6 miles of existing 8-inch and 12-inch
diameter gas pipeline currently used as gathering facilities and 28
miles of new 12-inch diameter pipeline. The pipeline facilities begin
at a new point of interconnection with Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company,
LLC adjacent to the Meadville Compressor Station in Crawford County,
Pennsylvania and extend to a new delivery point interconnection with
the distribution facilities of Dominion Energy Ohio (DEO) in North
Kingsville in Ashtabula County, Ohio. The project also includes the
reconstruction and conversion of two compressor stations totaling 1,862
hp. The Risberg Line would provide for 55,000 Dth/d of firm
transportation service to northeast Ohio markets. The estimated cost to
construct the project and to acquire the existing gathering pipeline is
about $88 million.
    The filing may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to James
F. Bowe, Jr., King & Spalding LLP, 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 200,
Washington, DC 20006, Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for

Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review
is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated
date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental
impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA
in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance
of a Notice of Schedule will serve to notify federal and state agencies
of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 5 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: November 16, 2017.

    Dated: October 26, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-23721 Filed 10-31-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the FDA Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me as a consumer of products that are covered under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks a very large number of questions to which I might wish to respond. My time to thoroughly understand, research and comment on these important questions is limited.  I realize that it required the FDA many years and researchers to finalize the Proposed Rule, thus it would seam reasonable to allow the public a six month period to comment. This is our ONLY opportunity as consumers to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes and personal vaporizers as an alternative to combustible tobacco cigarettes. I know that they saved my life and the life of many of my loved ones by significantly reducing harm. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science and evidence based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37710]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14954]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0020]

Safety Zone; Milwaukee Air and Water Show; Lake Michigan;
Milwaukee, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone on Lake Michigan
in Milwaukee, Wisconsin for the Milwaukee Air and Water Show. This
action is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on the
navigable waters during the 2013 Milwaukee Air and Water Show. During
the aforementioned periods, the Coast Guard will enforce restrictions
upon, and control movement of, vessels in the safety zone. No person or
vessel may enter the safety zone while it is being enforced without
permission of the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.

DATES: This zone will be enforced from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. on each
day of July 31 and August 1, 2, 3, and 4, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email MST1 Joseph McCollum, Prevention Department, Coast Guard
Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
listed in 33 CFR 165.929(a)(42) as well as the general regulations in
33 CFR 165.929, Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in
the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone, for the Milwaukee Air and
Water Show. This zone will be enforced from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. on
each day of July 31 and August 1, 2, 3, and 4, 2013.
    All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port,
Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative to enter, move
within, or exit a safety zone. Requests must be made in advance and
approved by the Captain of the Port before transits will be authorized.
Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. Vessels and persons
granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful
orders or directions of the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or a
designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels
shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety
Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan zone and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in
the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime
community with advance notification of this event via Broadcast Notice
to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port
determines that the enforcement of these safety zones need not occur as
stated in this notice, he or she might suspend such enforcement and
notify the public of the suspension via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    Dated: June 3, 2013.
M.W. Sibley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2013-14954 Filed 6-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62233-62237]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24540]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73326; File No. SR-MIAX-2014-51]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule

October 9, 2014.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 September 29, 2014, Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX'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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to reduce several
testing and certification fees, and System connectivity fees for non-
Members. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to: (i) Eliminate the
Member and non-Member API testing and certification fee for AIS; \3\
(ii) eliminate the non-Member networking connectivity fee for AIS;
(iii) eliminate the AIS Port fees; (iv) add a monthly fee for Internal
Distributors and External Distributors of AIS; and (v) clarify that
non-Member fees that apply to Third Party Vendors and Service Bureaus
also apply to other non-Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ AIS market data feed includes: Opening imbalance condition
information; opening routing information; Expanded Quote Range
information, as provided in MIAX Rule 503(f)(5); Post-Halt
Notification, as provided in MIAX Rule 504(d); and Liquidity Refresh
condition information, as provided in MIAX Rule 515(c)(2). This
additional information (the ``administrative information'') is
included in the ToM feed and is not top of market information. The
administrative information is also currently available to MIAX
Market Makers via connectivity with the MIAX Express Interface
(``MEI''), for which they are assessed connectivity fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

API Testing and Certification
    The Exchange assesses a one-time Application Programming Interface
(``API'') testing and certification fee on Members and non-Members for
AIS. Specifically, the Exchange assesses a one-time API Testing and
Certification fee of $1,000.00 Members and $1,000.00 on third party
vendors \4\ and Service Bureaus \5\ whose software interfaces with MIAX
software in order to receive the AIS market data feed. The API makes it
possible for third party vendors' and Service Bureaus' software to
communicate with MIAX software applications, and is subject to testing
with, and certification by, the Exchange. The Exchange plans on
migrating the AIS data feed to a multicast data format and thus will no
longer need to assess

API Testing and Certification fees to market participants that receive
AIS. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the API testing and
certification fee for both Members and non-Members because the Exchange
will no longer offer the AIS data feed in a format that necessitates
API testing and certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Third party vendors are subscribers of MIAX's market and
other data feeds, which they in turn use for redistribution
purposes. Third party vendors do not provide connectivity and
therefore are not subject to Network testing and certification.
    \5\ A Service Bureau is a technology provider that offers and
supplies technology and technology services to a trading firm that
does not have its own proprietary system. The technology and
technology services supplied by Service Bureaus includes both
software applications and connectivity, thus Service Bureaus are
subject to both API testing and certification and Network testing
and certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AIS Port Fees
    The Exchange assesses monthly AIS Port fees for the use of AIS
Ports, which provide the connectivity necessary to receive the AIS from
the MIAX System. The Exchange assesses monthly AIS Port fees based on
the number of Exchange matching engines to which a subscriber connects.
Specifically, the Exchange assesses a monthly AIS Port fee of $1,000.00
for the first matching engine on which an AIS has two ports, $250.00
each for the second through fifth matching engines on which an AIS has
two ports, and $125.00 each for the sixth matching engine and any
additional engines on which the AIS has the two ports. As mentioned
above, the Exchange plans on migrating the AIS data feed to a multicast
data format and thus will no longer needs to assess API Port fees to
market participants that receive AIS. Therefore, the Exchange proposes
to eliminate the AIS Port fees because the Exchange will no longer
offer the AIS data feed in a format that necessitates the use of AIS
Ports.
Internal Distributors and External Distributors
    The Exchange proposes to charge monthly fees to Distributors of the
AIS market data product that receive a feed of AIS data either directly
from MIAX or indirectly through another entity and then distributes it
either internally (within that entity) or externally (outside that
entity). The monthly Distributor Fee charged depends on whether the
Distributor is an ``Internal Distributor'' \6\ or an ``External
Distributor''.\7\ The Exchange will assess Internal Distributor's a
monthly fee of $1,000.00 and External Distributor's a monthly fee of
$1,500.00 for the AIS market data product. The Exchange notes that all
Distributors are required to execute a MIAX Distributor Agreement. The
fees for AIS will be reduced for new Distributors for the first month
during which they subscribe to AIS, based on the number of trading days
that have been held during the month prior to the date on which they
subscribe. Such new Distributors will be assessed a pro-rata percentage
of the fees described above, which is the percentage of the number of
trading days remaining in the affected calendar month as of the date on
which they begin to receive the AIS feed, divided by the total number
of trading days in the affected calendar month. The monthly fee for
Internal Distributors and External Distributors of AIS will be waived
if they also subscribe to the ToM market data product. The Exchange
believes that waiving the fees for Internal Distributors and External
Distributors of AIS will encourage additional market participants that
currently subscribe to ToM to use the service to receive administrative
information.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ An Internal Distributor is an organization that subscribes
to the Exchange for the use of ToM, and is permitted by agreement
with the Exchange to provide ToM data to internal users (i.e., users
within their own organization).
    \7\ An External Distributor is an organization that subscribes
to the Exchange for the use of ToM, and is permitted by agreement
with the Exchange to provide ToM data to both internal users and to
external users (i.e., users outside of their own organization).
    \8\ The Exchange notes that in a companion filing that the
Exchange proposes to eventually to remove messages related to
administrative information and Liquidity Seeking Events (``LSE'')
from ToM and MEI and add them to the AIS data feed to the extent
that they are not already included in AIS. See SR-MIAX-2014-53.
Thus, waiving the fees for Internal Distributors and External
Distributors of AIS will allow market participants that subscribe to
ToM to continue to receive administrative information and LSE
related messages at no additional cost than what is currently being
assessed today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule in several
places to clarify that non-Member fees that apply to Third Party
Vendors and Service Bureaus also apply to other non-Members. The
Exchange believes that this change may reduce the potential for
confusion by market participants as to which type of non-Members the
non-Member fees apply to. The Exchange also believes that clarification
may encourage more non-Members, other than Third Party Vendors and
Service Bureaus, to use the Exchange's market data products.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \10\ in particular, in
that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges
among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to eliminate several
fees are reasonable in that they are designed to correspond with the
migration of the data feed to a new format that no longer necessitates
the fees being assessed. The Exchange anticipates the changes will
result in a reasonable allocation of its costs and expenses among its
Members and other persons using its facilities because the proposed
fees would enable the Exchange to recover the costs associated with
providing such infrastructure, and with offering access through the
network connections and access and services, responding to customer
requests, configuring MIAX systems, and administering the various
services [sic] connectivity services. The Exchange believes the
proposed fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
new fee levels result in a more reasonable and equitable allocation of
fees amongst non-Members and Members for similar services. Access to
the Exchange is provided on fair and non-discriminatory terms.
Moreover, the decision as to whether or not to subscribe to AIS is
entirely optional to all parties. Potential subscribers are not
required to purchase the AIS market data feed. Subscribers can
discontinue their use at any time and for any reason, including due to
their assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. The allocation
of fees among subscribers is fair and reasonable because, if the market
deems the proposed fees to be unfair or inequitable, firms can diminish
or discontinue their use of this data.
    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory
organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to
offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that
this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers,
and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market
data:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data when broker-dealers may choose to
receive (and pay for) additional market data based on their own
internal analysis of the need for such data.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

    By removing ``unnecessary regulatory restrictions'' on the ability
of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals
of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If
the free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to
broker-dealers at all, it follows that the price at which such data is
sold should be set by the market as well.
    In July, 2010, Congress adopted H.R. 4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of

2010 (``Dodd-Frank Act''), which amended Section 19 of the Act. Among
other things, Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended paragraph (A)
of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act by inserting the phrase ``on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization'' after ``due, fee or other charge imposed by the self-
regulatory organization.'' As a result, all SRO rule proposals
establishing or changing dues, fees or other charges are immediately
effective upon filing regardless of whether such dues, fees or other
charges are imposed on members of the SRO, non-members, or both.
Section 916 further amended paragraph (C) of Section 19(b)(3) of the
Act to read, in pertinent part, ``At any time within the 60-day period
beginning on the date of filing of such a proposed rule change in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) [of Section 19(b)], the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the rules of
the self-regulatory organization made thereby, if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of this title. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings under paragraph (2)(B) [of
Section 19(b)] to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.''
    The Exchange believes that these amendments to Section 19 of the
Act reflect Congress's intent to allow the Commission to rely upon the
forces of competition to ensure that fees for market data are
reasonable and equitably allocated. Although Section 19(b) had formerly
authorized immediate effectiveness for a ``due, fee or other charge
imposed by the self-regulatory organization,'' the Commission adopted a
policy and subsequently a rule stating that fees for data and other
products available to persons that are not members of the self-
regulatory organization must be approved by the Commission after first
being published for comment. At the time, the Commission supported the
adoption of the policy and the rule by pointing out that unlike
members, whose representation in self-regulatory organization
governance was mandated by the Act, non-members should be given the
opportunity to comment on fees before being required to pay them, and
that the Commission should specifically approve all such fees. The
Exchange believes that the amendment to Section 19 reflects Congress's
conclusion that the evolution of self-regulatory organization
governance and competitive market structure have rendered the
Commission's prior policy on non-member fees obsolete. Specifically,
many exchanges have evolved from member-owned, not-for-profit
corporations into for-profit, investor-owned corporations (or
subsidiaries of investor-owned corporations). Accordingly, exchanges no
longer have narrow incentives to manage their affairs for the exclusive
benefit of their members, but rather have incentives to maximize the
appeal of their products to all customers, whether members or non-
members, so as to broaden distribution and grow revenues. Moreover, the
Exchange believes that the change also reflects an endorsement of the
Commission's determinations that reliance on competitive markets is an
appropriate means to ensure equitable and reasonable prices. Simply
put, the change reflects a presumption that all fee changes should be
permitted to take effect immediately, since the level of all fees are
constrained by competitive forces. The Exchange therefore believes that
the fees for AIS are properly assessed on non-member Distributors.
    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoaliton v. SEC, No. 09-1042 (D.C. Cir.
2010), although reviewing a Commission decision made prior to the
effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act, upheld the Commission's reliance
upon competitive markets to set reasonable and equitably allocated fees
for market data:

    In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress
intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay of
competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NetCoalition, at 15 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92
(1975), as reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323).

    The court's conclusions about Congressional intent are therefore
reinforced by the Dodd-Frank Act amendments, which create a presumption
that exchange fees, including market data fees, may take effect
immediately, without prior Commission approval, and that the Commission
should take action to suspend a fee change and institute a proceeding
to determine whether the fee change should be approved or disapproved
only where the Commission has concerns that the change may not be
consistent with the Act.

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

    Notwithstanding its determination that the Commission may rely upon
competition to establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market
data, the NetCoalition Court found that the Commission had not, in that
case, compiled a record that adequately supported its conclusion that
the market for the data at issue in the case was competitive. The
Exchange believes that a record may readily be established to
demonstrate the competitive nature of the market in question.
    There is intense competition between trading platforms that provide
transaction execution and routing services and proprietary data
products. Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a
representative example of joint products with joint costs. The decision
whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on the
attributes of the platform where the order can be posted, including the
execution fees, data quality and price and distribution of its data
products. Without the prospect of a taking order seeing and reacting to
a posted order on a particular platform, the posting of the order would
accomplish little.
    Without trade executions, exchange data products cannot exist. Data
products are valuable to many end subscribers only insofar as they
provide information that end subscribers expect will assist them or
their customers in making trading decisions. The costs of producing
market data include not only the costs of the data distribution
infrastructure, but also the costs of designing, maintaining, and
operating the exchange's transaction execution platform and the cost of
regulating the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain
investor confidence. The total return that a trading platform earns
reflects the revenues it receives from both products and the joint
costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's customers view the costs of
transaction executions and of data as a unified cost of doing business
with the exchange. A broker-dealer will direct orders to a particular
exchange only if the expected revenues from executing trades on the
exchange exceed net transaction execution costs and the cost of data
that the broker-dealer chooses to buy to support its trading decisions
(or those of its customers). The choice of data

products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in making
profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds its
expected value, the broker-dealer will choose not to buy it.
    Moreover, as a broker-dealer chooses to direct fewer orders to a
particular exchange, the value of the product to the broker-dealer
decreases, for two reasons. First, the product will contain less
information, because executions of the broker-dealer's orders will not
be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more important, the product
will be less valuable to that broker-dealer because it does not provide
information about the venue to which it is directing its orders. Data
from the competing venue to which the broker-dealer is directing orders
will become correspondingly more valuable.
    Thus, a super-competitive increase in the fees charged for either
transactions or data has the potential to impair revenues from both
products. ``No one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce'.'' However, the existence of fierce competition for order flow
implies a high degree of price sensitivity on the part of broker-
dealers with order flow, since they may readily reduce costs by
directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues. A broker-dealer
that shifted its order flow from one platform to another in response to
order execution price differentials would both reduce the value of that
platform's market data and reduce its own need to consume data from the
disfavored platform. Similarly, if a platform increases its market data
fees, the change will affect the overall cost of doing business with
the platform, and affected broker-dealers will assess whether they can
lower their trading costs by directing orders elsewhere and thereby
lessening the need for the more expensive data.
    Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from
the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data
will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is
impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and
well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs
affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading,
however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data
portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's
costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow,
executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about
market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the
revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the
joint products.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint
products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible,
and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering
total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay rebates to
attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market information (or
provide information free of charge) and charge relatively high prices
for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy
of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting
relatively high prices for market information, and setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In this environment, there
is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint
products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints
with regard to the joint offering. This would be akin to strictly
regulating the price that an automobile manufacturer can charge for car
sound systems despite the existence of a highly competitive market for
cars and the availability of aftermarket alternatives to the
manufacturer-supplied system.
    The market for market data products is competitive and inherently
contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs
necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing
discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges
compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself,
providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish
to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data
is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in
a vigorously competitive market.
    Broker-dealers currently have numerous alternative venues for their
order flow, including eleven existing options markets. Each SRO market
competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions.
Competitive markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports
provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products.
The large number of SROs that currently produce proprietary data or are
currently capable of producing it provides further pricing discipline
for proprietary data products. Each SRO is currently permitted to
produce proprietary data products, and many in addition to MIAX
currently do, including NASDAQ, CBOE, ISE, NYSE Amex, and NYSEArca.
Additionally, order routers and market data vendors can facilitate
single or multiple broker-dealers' production of proprietary data
products. The potential sources of proprietary products are virtually
limitless.
    Market data vendors provide another form of price discipline for
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of
access to end subscribers. Vendors impose price restraints based upon
their business models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and
Thomson Reuters that assess a surcharge on data they sell may refuse to
offer proprietary products that end subscribers will not purchase in
sufficient numbers. Internet portals, such as Google, impose a
discipline by providing only data that will enable them to attract
``eyeballs'' that contribute to their advertising revenue. Retail
broker-dealers, such as Schwab and Fidelity, offer their customers
proprietary data only if it promotes trading and generates sufficient
commission revenue. Although the business models may differ, these
vendors' pricing discipline is the same: They can simply refuse to
purchase any proprietary data product that fails to provide sufficient
value. The Exchange and other producers of proprietary data products
must understand and respond to these varying business models and
pricing disciplines in order to market proprietary data products
successfully.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable.
The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants
that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms
and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, BATS Trading and Direct
Edge. Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data,
has increased the contestability of that market. While broker-dealers
have previously published their proprietary data individually,
Regulation NMS encourages market data vendors and broker-dealers to
produce proprietary products cooperatively in a manner never before
possible. Multiple market data vendors already have the capability to
aggregate data and disseminate it on a profitable scale, including
Bloomberg, and Thomson Reuters.
    The Court in NetCoalition concluded that the Commission had failed
to demonstrate that the market for market data was competitive based on
the reasoning of the Commission's NetCoalition order because, in the
Court's view, the Commission had not

adequately demonstrated that the proprietary data at issue in the case
is used to attract order flow. The Exchange believes, however, that
evidence not then before the court clearly demonstrates that
availability of data attracts order flow. Due to competition among
platforms, the Exchange intends to improve its platform data offerings
on a continuing basis, and to respond promptly to customers' data
needs.
    The intensity of competition for proprietary information is
significant and the Exchange believes that this proposal itself clearly
evidences such competition. The Exchange is offering AIS in order to
keep pace with changes in the industry and evolving customer needs. It
is entirely optional and is geared towards attracting new Member
Applicants and customers. MIAX competitors continue to create new
market data products and innovative pricing in this space. The Exchange
expects to see firms challenge its pricing on the basis of the
Exchange's explicit fees being higher than the zero-priced fees from
other competitors such as BATS. In all cases, the Exchange expects
firms to make decisions on how much and what types of data to consume
on the basis of the total cost of interacting with MIAX or other
exchanges. Of course, the explicit data fees are only one factor in a
total platform analysis. Some competitors have lower transactions fees
and higher data fees, and others are vice versa. The market for this
proprietary information is highly competitive and continually evolves
as products develop and change.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\13\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2014-51 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2014-51. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-MIAX-2014-51 and should be
submitted on or before November 6, 2014.

    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. 2014-24540 Filed 10-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 137 (Friday, July 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42510-42512]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17616]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2015-0468; OMB Control Number 1625-0004]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a
revision of a currently approved collection: 1625-0004, United States
Coast Guard Academy Application and Supplemental Forms. Our ICR
describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before
submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast

Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 15,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2015-0468] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate
submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, to attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICR(s) are available through the docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are
available from: COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
MANAGER, US COAST GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE., SE., STOP
7710, WASHINGTON, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to
your comments, we may revise these ICRs or decide not to seek approval
of revisions of the Collection. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2015-0468], and
must be received by September 15, 2015. We will post all comments
received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will
include any personal information you provide. We have an agreement with
DOT to use their DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2015-0468], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If
you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, an email address, or other contact information in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    You may submit your comments and material by electronic means,
mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but
please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2015-0468'' in the
``Search'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.
    Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments'' box,
which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Search'' box
insert ``USCG-2015-0468'' and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. You may also visit the DMF in Room
W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information Collection Request

    1. TITLE: United States Coast Guard Academy Application and
Supplemental Forms.
    OMB CONTROL NUMBER: 1625-0004.
    SUMMARY: This collection contains the application and all
supplemental forms required to be considered as an applicant to the
U.S. Coast Guard Academy.
    NEED: The information is needed to select applicants for
appointment as Cadet, U.S. Coast Guard to attend the U.S. Coast Guard
Academy.
    FORMS: CGA-14, CGA-14A, CGA-14B, CGA-14D.

    RESPONDENTS: Approximately 2,500 applicants apply annually to the
U.S. Coast Guard Academy.
    FREQUENCY: Applicants must apply only once per year.
    BURDEN ESTIMATE: The estimated burden has decreased from 24,250
hours to 21,750 hours a year due to a decrease in the estimated number
of annual respondents.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: July 7, 2015.
Thomas P. Michelli,
U. S. Coast Guard, Deputy Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-17616 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P